Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-3: Methodological Issues
Dear Dr. K. Loganathan,
Hi. In this dialog with you, please find my responses (purple) below your writings.
K. Loganathan wrote:
Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-3: Methodological Issues
Dear Polat Kaya
While thanking you for stimulating Sumerian studies through your claims that it is also an evolute of Turkish language, I find the METHOD you use very questionable and therefore I am not convinced at all. However let me repeat : Whatever the relationship of Sumerian to Turkish and other Turanian languages, it remains a fact that Sumerian is Archaic Tamil and which follows by an intensive study of the Sumerian texts themselves as I am pointing out almost everyday. We should note almost every word in Sumerian is relatable to Tamil as an Archaic Form of it. Now this extends also to the syntactic features such as the one Su, aba and Ta. appa that I posted to-day.
Polat Kaya: First of all I am not convinced of your Sumerian-Tamil connection yet. It is not that I would be unhappy if Tamil had a linguistic connection with Sumerian. I would be pleased to know the presence of that connection if you had proved it to be so. On that we are still waiting. Secondly if there is such a connection, it must be through the intermediary of Turkish. Sumerian is a Turanian language and is akin to Turkish. And this close affinity is not due to Turks being close to where Sumeria was as you say in your writing. Sumeria was part of the ancient Turan of Turanians. It was the wanderer peoples who were alien to the so-called area of "Mesopotamia". Please read my papers in my Polat_Kaya library entitled "The Tower of Babel". Additionally I have said I find many Turkish words in Tamil. If Tamil and Sumerian are related, it is because of the Turkish ancestry that both of them has. Not the other way around. Finally, your statement that "Sumerian is Archaic Tamil" is a loose and slippery axpression. The Indo-European and Semitic groups also could use such an expresion to make a claim of their own. Therefore you need to be on much firmer grounds.
Additionally we are told that Sumerian is supposed to be a dead language having no equivalent among the living languages. How then did they identify each word so accurately and distinctly both in meaning and structure so that you can relate them word by word to Tamil. I get the strong feeling that those who read the Sumerian texts, read them as in Turkish but presented them in the format that they have done. However, in the process, the name of Tur, Turkish , Turan etc. were all suppressed. I can expect this because those who deciphered the Sumerian texts have already used Turkish to come up with their own languages. Do you think that they would now say that Sumerian is Turkish? The best that they could say was "Sumerian is not unlike to Turkish". The writer could have, of course, written it as "Sumerian is like Turkish" but he chose to use the double negative form of expressing it. Such a statement puts an immediate distance between Turkish and Sumerian.
I think before we go further the METHODOLGICAL issues must be thrashed out. My own believe is that while Sumerian may be related to the Turanian languages as well as those in Africa and the Austric languages, the Turkish language is a late language and which because of the proximity of the Turks to Sumeria, might have been heavily influenced by the Sumerian. Now this is also the case with Akkadian which co-existed with the Sumerian. However while Akkadian is Semitic Turkish is not it belongs to the agglutinative family of languages and hence probably more deeply influenced by Sumerian and which to me is Archaic Tamil.
Polat Kaya: You are very much mistaken on this false view of yours regarding the Turks and Turan as you were also mistaken by saying that Sumerians were "black" people and therefore could not have any relation to Turks. Saying that "the Turkish language is a late language" indicates that you are well under the influence of the propaganda writings coming from all directions about Turks and their language. There is a lot of this kind of false writings around. Therefore I differ with you on this view of yours regarding the Turkish language right from the start. My dear friend, Turkish is not a "late" language as you and others would like us to believe. On the contrary, Turkish is the front runner to them all. All the others have sprang from it. This is evidenced from the fact that all of the so-called ancient and supposedly "independently" developed languages such as Greek, Latin, Sanskrit and Akkadian have actually been manufactured from Turkish as I have been demonstrating all along with undisputable evidence. By coincidence, I discovered this ancient deception that has been perpetrated against Turanian Tur/Turk peoples by some group of extremely secretive peoples. By sharing my discovery with the world I have opened a totally new horizon for everyone and I am holding a light in front of them so that they are not in the dark any more regarding languages. We are dealing with a world which has been infested with historical and linguistic falsehoods. Innocent ordinary people all over the world have been conned to the extreme. But most importantly the most ancient Turanian civilization has been funneled and transferred to "Aryan" groups by way of the simple technique of altering, restructuring and disguising of Turkish words and phrases. This is a most subtle and ingenious way of exploiting the Turanian peoples by a few priest - linguists.
After this clarification, it is important to note that you do not seem to be noticing much of what I am saying and at every occasion you ignore them and bring in new things into the discussion. This is a tactic of ignoring and diverting that is employed in some debates. I am here to exchange ideas with anyone regarding the make up of the Indo-European languages. Regarding the Sumerian and Turkish connection I gave you one of the oldest known words in known human history, namely the Sumerian word "BILGAMESH" which is a pure Turkish word. You somehow ignored it and never commented on it. I said Sumerian "SU"(ZU) is the Turkish "SU" meaning "water', you went very quiet on it. You did not respond to it. What other word do you expect me to give you that could be older than the name "BILGAMESH" so-called "GILGAMESH" which is an Akkadian distortion of Turkish word "AGILGAMESH". I gave you "AB-ZU, SU-AB, EN-ZU, ZU-EN, GIM (GIMI, kimi, gibi), ATA vs ADDA, ANA vs AMA, UTU vs. OD O, and many more, yet you keep ignoring them. Some how you do not seem to be hearing what I am saying or you do not want to hear what I am saying. If you continue to ignore what I am saying, I am afraid my dialogue with you will not achieve much.
On top of that, I gave you twenty plus words considered to be part of Avesta language where I showed that they were of Turkish origin. My analysis of these words was powerful and revealing yet you ignored them and jumped to other things. I am still waiting for comments on those. I am going through your responses to my original questions almost word by word and responding to them individually and in fact bringing in a lot of clarification. In my responses I give the source, the etymology (which is a distorted Turkish expression itself), I define and describe the concepts associated with the words that I am commenting on but somehow it does not register with you.
You seem to insist on what you have learned all along in the establishment. I do not go along with that. I have said it before and I say it again, present day linguistics is a "CULT". Only a few people know what is really behind it. The rest of the linguists follow them in the dark. The world has been conned due to political, economic and religious reasons without the truth being told by the writers of "ancient world history". It is those writers of "ancient world history" that keep presenting the false view that Turkish is a late language. This con game is still going on.
You said : "the Turkish language is a late language and which because of the proximity of the Turks to Sumeria, might have been heavily influenced by the Sumerian." I want to note for the benefit of all readers once again that SUMERIANS were the TURKS, and not an alien race from somewhere else in the middle of a whole Turkic and Turanian area. If there was anyone alien in the so-called "Mesopotamia", they were the "wandering" peoples such as the so-called Aryans (Arayan) and Semites and other groups like them. The "Sumerian Lamentations" that you keep writing about were composed when the native Turanian "Ki-en gi-ens" (so-called "Sumerians") were taken over by the wandering groups of Akkadians who instigated against the Sumerians from inside and out, and at the opportune time, took over the Sumerian civilization, destroyed everything that the Sumerians had built and created in the city of UR, and then called the loot their own. This was a complete usurpation of a very ancient Turanian civilization.
Turkish did not evolve from Sumerian, on the contrary Sumerian was a dialect of Turkish. If Tamil is related to Sumerian, it is because Tamil is also related to Turkish. Please do not try to twist the words in different directions. Sumerian was a form of Turkish, but the way it has been presented to us is very much in suspect.
I gave you the explanation of the French word "BIBLIOTEQUE" with respect to Turkish "KITABLIK", "KITAB EVI" and others. You did not say a word about what I wrote. Again I get the impression that either you do not read what I am saying carefully, or you do not understand, or you intentionally choose to ignore hoping that it will be forgotten and go away. I posted two lengthy papers within a day between them. Yet your present response was composed within one day after receiving my postings. A full study of what I wrote would have taken much more time as they were full of many new revelations to read, understand and then respond. Yet you wrote what is in this posting of yours in a hurry and where you try to reject my discovery of immense importance. Forgive me for saying this but I am not buying it.
As you can see when I explain things to you I am explaining the whole spectrum of the background material related with the word, including theology, philosophy, biology and the linguistics involved with the concept. Yet you come back with a simple rejection as if you know with one hundred percent certainty that what you see is the real thing.
You seem to be reluctant to accept what I am saying regarding the formations of Indo-European languages. You are reluctant because you do not want to throw away what you have learned in the establishment. You cannot follow me readily because you do not know Turkish. You may not believe the correctness of what I am saying, however, I have no doubt about the correctness of what I am saying. I have proven over and over again that what I am saying is "fact" and correct.
The problem why I am not convinced of your claims is that you use the current Turkish language and taking certain selected words , you re-arrange the syllables in various ways to make them conform to the Turkish words and then reverse the situation and say that that word is an adaptation of the original Turkish word.
Polat Kaya: You seem to forget one very important feature of the Turkish language, that is, Turkish is essentially a "mono syllabic and agglutinative language like Sumerian was. The monosyllables consist of V, VC, CV, CVC, VCV where V stands for "vowel" and C for "consonant" and their many combinations within a certain rule called "vowel harmony rule". Your allegation gives the impression that Turkish has changed so much from the ancient Turkish that the two forms of Turkish are alien to each other. This is the false impression that we get from the "linguists" about the languages. Let me tell you that, you cannot change the monosyllables any smaller that what they are. The most you can do is to drop the vowels and maintain the bare bone consonants as the Aryan and Semitic languages did, as for example, making Turkish "TUR" into "TR". While the situation is like this in Turkish why would you think that ancient Turkish and modern Turkish are not the same? What makes you think that some of the longest and complex looking words of Greek and Sanskrit have survived up to now but not the monosyllables of the Turkish language? Yet it is much easier for the monosyllabic words of Turkish to survive over long periods of time unless someone did manipulate them into different forms. Please let us not con each other. The syllables of modern Turkish are the same as they were in ancient times. For example, Turkish SU, meaning "water" was SU in ancient times and is still SU now.
The following is an example of your technique of Re-arrangement:
f) From the name "ZOROASTRIAN" we get new meanings: when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TORANZI-AR-OZ", it is a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish _expression "TURANCI ER OZ (Oguz)" meaning "Oz-Man of Turan". By another name, this is the "Oguzman of Turan", "Osman of Turan" and "Turkman of Turan". This clearly indicates the origin of the Zoroastrian religion being a Turanian (Tur/Turk) Oguz religion.
g) When the name "ZOROASTRIAN" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TORAN-AR-SOZI", it is a restructured form of the Turkish _expression "TURAN ER SÖZÜ" meaning "it is the word of Turan man". This again indicates that the origin of the so-called "Zoroastrian" religion was in Turan and by a Turanian Tur/Turk person whose name was OZ (OGUZ). Hence the so-called Zoroatrianism religion attributed to so-called "Aryan" (Arayan) Iranians was actually a repackaging of the oldest world religion an its Turkish language that was broken and restructured. Again we have all been conned by some cabalistic priestes.
But in justification of such a technique you say:
I am glad that you questioned my "re-arrangements" by saying that: "While the etymological studies of ‘Zaratushtra’ by Polat Kaya and V.Raghavan are to be appreciated,but I feel very uncomfortable where so many arbitrary ‘re-arrangement ‘ of the letters are brought in make it appear as a complex word belonging to Turkish language."
First of all, my re-arrangements are not arbitrary at all. On the contrary, they are done in accordance with the given definition of the word. The given meaning of the so-called Indo-European word is what provides me the guidance for decoding that word. Even then it is not an easy task to do. Yet I have been demonstrating for years how Greek, Latin, English, French, Italian, Semitic, etc. words are made up from Turkish words and phrases. The complex word supposedly belonging to an Indo-European language appears complex because that word has been made up from a Turkish _expression involving two or more Turkish words and suffixes. Otherwise creating such complex looking words of Indo-European languages from nothing, that is, without having a model, is a virtual impossibility. To create such words from nothing, as part of a language, would take an extremely long time for any linguist. In fact after a while they would get lost in what they are doing. Any language has to be coordinated within itself. However if they have a model language to use and follow, things become infinitely easier when creating new words.
In all such studies you FAIL to cite texts that are ancient , dating back to the 3rd Millennium world or anterior to the date of the occurrence of the word and which I do. While I agree with you that IE linguistics has not done justice and have not captured how deeply they are indebted to Sumerian, this method of yours has some resemblance to that of Dr Sastry where he feels free to introduce any syllable into a word like “avesta’ to make it appear as if Sk etc with the technique he calls “ Reverse Anubhanda KaraNa’ (RAK) , Your method of Syllabic Re-arrangement (SYR) is quite similar to his except that there is more constraint in your technique. Both work from the hindsight of Sk or Turkish and force the issue, as I see it.
a) My method is not what you call "Syllabic Re-arrangement" (SYR), but rather "Letter-By-Letter Re-arrangement" (LBLR) of a given IE word so that its letters are sorted out into a meaningful Turkish word or expression that is made up of multible Turkish words and have meaning that is related t the IE word being investigated. The resulting Turkish expression defines and describes the subject(s) or concept(s) defined for the IE word being analysed. What my LBLR does is that it backtrackes and discloses the original Turkish text that has been used as source material in manufacturing the IE word being analysed. LBLR converts/decodes the encrypted IE word from its so-called Indo-European language format back into Turkish in an open format. It has very stringent rules to follow in doing this reversal from IE language to Turkish, and it is not an arbitrary arrangement as you falsely tried to label it in your previous posting. Your "Syllabic Re-arrangement" (SYR) is a misunderstanding of what I am saying.
b) I have not FAILED in any way in "citing" texts that are ancient as you put it. I choose "words" that are used in texts of all ages. If the word is related to Avesta, than it has at least the age of Avesta. If the word is a Sanskrit word, than it has the age of Sanskrit. If I am talking about the name ZEUS, than the resultin Turkish expression as old as Zeus. Similarly when I am talking about the Sumerian word "BILGAMESH" (GILGAMESH) than the resulting Turkish word is at least as old as the name BILGAMESH or even older. Thus, as you can see, there is no failure on my part. Just because you have not understood properly what I am talking about, you are unfairly "black labling me and my discovery" which is not correct nor fair..
c) The correct way of saying of what you just said above would be: "I agree with you that IE linguistics has not done justice and have not admitted how deeply they are indebted to Turkish. Afterall, IE languages are all made up from restructured Turkish. With respect to Sumerian, Turkish and Sumerian were one and the same languages."
d) And very importantly and with due respect to Dr. Sastry, I must note to you and to all that my discovery of the falsehood of the Indo-European languages has nothing to do with Dr. Sastry's “ Reverse Anubhanda KaraNa’ method although it may show some resemblance what Dr. Sastry is saying. I have been talking about my discovery of the fact that Indo-European and Semitic languages have been manufactured from Turkish for years before I ever heard of Dr. Sastry's admission that the Sanskrit was also an encrypted language. The "Reverse Anubhanda karaNa" was an admission that Sanskrit was just like Greek and Latin and was a manufactured language, and that is why it was disguising its words from being understood clearly. I responded to his explanation when he disclosed that fact. The correctness of my discovery about the fake nature of Indo-European and Semitic languages has been verified by his admission of “Reverse Anubhanda KaraNa’ method which evidently was not known to you either. The very fact that there is the term "reverse" attached to his method is a clear cut indication that Sanskrit is an "encrypted" language. Dr. Sastry says that in order to get the true identity of theSanskrit word he has to go backwards, i.e., remove the linguistic wrappings in order to get the core of the word. But even than he cannot get the true form of the source texts because the source text was "Turkish". Yet he is trying to get a Sanskrit word from a convoluted Sanskrit word. Why would the vedic priests have "encrypted" their own language? Dr. Sastry explains it by saying that the priests wanted to keep the basic word secret. That is not a convincing explanation. The reason that the vedic priests encrypted words was because they were using Turkish texts as source material for their manufactured language and that is what they wanted to keep secret. As I said "secrecy" is always an indication that something wrong or illegal is happening. When something wrong or illegal is going on, the participants will always try to keep it secret. The Babylonian cabalists did the same thing. One does not hide away his own language or his own property.
e) You are totally wrong and confused when you say that; "Your method of Syllabic Re-arrangement (SYR) is quite similar to his except that there is more constraint in your technique. Both work from the hindsight of Sk or Turkish and force the issue, as I see it." Your label of Syllabic Re-arrangement is a misnomer. I gave you its correct title above which can be abreviated as LBLR. I do not insert syllable(s) into a given word in order to guide to to a desired direction. On the contrary I work with the letters available in the structure of the give IE word. For example, it is said in the Encyclopaedi Britannica ( 1963, Vol. 19, p. 957) that the Sanskrit word ascribed to divine revelation is "SHRUTI" literally meaning "hearing". This Sanskrit word when LBLR as "ISHTUR" is nothing but the rearranged and disguised form of the Turkish word "IShITUR" meaning "he hears". Now I ask you what is the probability of this correspondence taking place between Sanskrit and Turkish? As you can see I did not introduced any syllable into this Sanskrit word to get its Torkish source material. Additionally, please not how the Turkish suffix word "TUR" has been suppressed as "RUT" in the So, as a scientist, you have to be fair and understanding before you mix what I am doing with something else.
Additionally, they rearranged tis Turkish word into Sanskrit "shruti" and called it as "divine revelation". I really would not call it a "divine revelation" after all this vedic priests were drinking the "SOMA juice and getting hig/intoxicated in their minds hence were seaning all kinds of "visions". Evidently they were conning the people by saying that they were talking to the people very conveniently. Ofcourse they felt that they had to keep everything related to the operation as 'secret".
Furthermore there is nothing wrong with working with the hindsight knowledge that what I am reading as a Indo-European word is actually a fake word made up from Turkish. In this situation, of course I would want to find out what was the TURKISH source material they used in this concoction. Would you not want to do the same? So you see your argument is wrong and fallacious, and on this bases you cannot find falt with my dedective work.
f) Finally, I am not translating texts as you seem to be doing in your Sumerian writings. I am showing you the make up of individual words which make up the texts. If the building blocks of a language, that is the "words", are not authentic, then the language itself is not authentic. This should be obvious to all linguists. Furthermore, I am not forcing the issue at all as you say. On the contrary, I am opening up a whole horizon of the ancient world that has been artificially kept secret from the world by the secretive operations of some priest linguists. And all during this time, that is, since the Sumerian time and possibly earlier, the Turanian civilization, as expressed with the Turanic Turkish language, has been transferred to "wanderer" groups without anyone being the wiser by employing a simple and unsuspected technique that is nothing more than rearrangement and disguise of Turkish words and phrases. . It is an easy technique to restructure and disguise the Turkish language and thus manufacture a language of one's own without anyone suspecting it. Of course to do that one needs to have a model language, which was Turkish, so that they can carry on with their plagiarism.
However both are defective and in my view unscientific for TEXTUAL evidences for the reconstructed forms either with RAK or SYR are NOT given and therefore they remain hanging in the air, unable to land as historical truths. They are simply constructions that cannot be REFUTED and hence unscientific.
Polat Kaya; I have heard your cliche saying before. If what I say appears "defective" to you because you lack a lot of requirements to understand and make the connection with what I am saying. I can understand your position, because you do not know Turkish. My method of understanding the past is a brand new discovery with which you are not even familiar with yet. You are not listenening and reading me carefully, or you do not wish to give credit to what I have discovered. Now you are trying to equalize my discovery with what Dr. Sastry said a few months ago about his "Reverse Anubhanda karaNa".
The words that I analyse are ancient and their time frame indicates that Turkish was ahead of them. You copy only from an already existing model. The words of the Aryan languages are not authentic, they are manufactured from Turkish. If the words of a language are not authentic, then the language itself is not authentic.
Anyone can come up with another way of reconstructing and then claim something different. You can only come to disputes and not AGREEMENT for simply there is NO BASIS for agreeing upon for there is no place for refuting or deconstrcution
Polat Kaya: I am afraid you have not understood an iota
of what I have been saying about my "reconstruction" concept. I
am afraid you have missed the whole point altogether. Now that since
"Anyone can come up with another way of reconstructing", I urge you
please to come up with a "reconstruction" explanation using Tamil
Language for the following Greek word. The Greek word is "GUMNOSALIAGKOS"
meaning "slug" or "snail". You have to come up with a
rearrangement of the letters in this Greek word such that your rearrangement
will be a Tamil word or expression meaning "slug" or
"snail" in Tamil. Please do enlighten us since it is so
easy, as you say, "anyone can come up with such a reconstuction way".
Just for the record I say that this Greek word has been manufactured from the use of the Turkish name "SUMUKLI BOCAK 'AN" (sümüklü böcek-ler) given as name to this animal. This can be seen when the greek name is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOMUGLI-GOSAK-AN" in which original Turkish "B" has been changed into letter "G".
Additionally, as an example please find for us in Tamil a word or phrase using the letters of the English word "VIGILANTE" such that it will mean "VIGILANTE". This word in English is defined as: "a member of volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the process of law appear inadequate)". Again for the record I say this English word has been manufactured from the Turkish word "OCALANTI" (ÖCALANTI) meaning "someone who takes the law in his/her hand and punishes a crime committer which the law of the land did not deal with the issue satisfactorily". In other words, "he /she is a revenge taker" or an "avenger". The IE linguists have to explain the correspondences that I have shown here. In Indo-European languages, the letters V, U, Y, W, and many others are always bogus letters having multi-identities so that they are used well to camoflage what has been usurped from Turkish. The letter V in "vigilante' has been used in that role very conveniently.
The Forms of Evolutionary Linguistics
While I cannot do anything about the choice of such techniques, I simply cannot go along with them as they appear to be unscientific to me.
Polat Kaya: What scientific formula or method were you
expecting from me when I decipher words of the Aryan languages one by one?
Each one of these words is individually fabricated and packaged according
to the whims and desires of the fabricators. When the
"Sumerologists" were deciphering the Sumerian texts, what scientific
method did they use? What are you using when you try to show us your
Tamil and Sumerian connections? No one is twisting your arm to go along
with it. You make the choice yourself. What you say is an old
cliche saying, that is, "I simply cannot go along with them as they appear
to be unscientific to me." As I said above, I have heard that story
many times before. They were also saying a similar rejection to Galileo
Galilei when he came up with his factual statement about the sun and the earth
relationship. They were just about going to kill the poor man for his views,
although the whole world including the "all knowing professors" who
had condemmed him had to accept his sayings eventually.
The method I employ , and as I have already written about involves Uri Linguistics where from the historically later forms the earlier forms are wrested out, Viri Linguistics where the EVOLUTIONARY rules are worked out in such studies as how C.Tamil is related to SumeroTamil and finally the Veer Linguistics where in etymological studies the ROOTS (Ta,. veer) are located and the Word under study is explained in terms of how it is developed from the roots. This is how I relate Zaratustra’ to the Sumerian roots “sar-a/a-sar’ ‘tu-si’ and ‘til-la’ where I also cite their occurrence in the 3rd Millennium Sumerian texts . Thus it is more likely that what I am saying is historically true as I desist from any kind of arbitrary constructions. My claim remains refutable for I can be shown to be wrong in the derivation of the ROOTS as I have done. Someone can dig up and show that ‘sar-a/ a-sar” that I use does not fit the sense and so forth.
Polat Kaya: Very dramatic indeed! What are all these "URI", "VIRI" and "VEER" linguistics that you are talking about? What earth shattering discoveries are they? What "EVOLUTIONARY" rules are we talking about? We cannot relate Zaratustra to the Sumerian roots “sar-a/a-sar’ ‘tu-si’ and ‘til-la’ unless they have meanings that are applicable to the concept of Zaratustra. I have already shown you what "ZARA" and its derivatives AZ-ER, AS-AR, AS-ER mean in my previous postings as they refered to ancient Turanian Sky-God. You just do not seem to be listening or do not want to hear what I am saying. ZARATUSHTRA religion is about the FIRE and its being related to Sky-god the Sun. The Term ZARATUSTRA has at least the Turkish words, AZ-ER (peerless man), AS ER (one -man ), SARI (yellow), ATASH (fire) and "SARI ATASHTUR" meaning "it is yellow fire" embedded in it. Sun is a yellow fire and so is the symbolic fires burning in Zaratustra temples. I explained all of these a number of times in my papers. There is nothing secret about it anymore because I explore every aspect of it. I must add that when anyone is giving a so-called "ETYMOLOGY" for any concept, he/she has to provide first the basic concept that that name is going to represent. All words are names for concepts and concepts must be understood clearly otherwise the result would be deception as is the case in many etymological dictionaries.
Such studies belongs to Veer Linguistics that brings out the scientific temper in such studies as yours and which I feel you are not practicing.
Polat Kaya: Now I see that you are talking in riddles. What do you mean "I am not practicing?", and what is it that I should be practicing? I show the way and let the others to practice. Please let us be clear in what we are saying.
Examples of Veer Linguistics.
Now such words as Zaratustra are Compound Words called Tokaic Col in Tamil and Samajam in Sk and they have been studied from very ancient times both by Tamil and Sk grammarians. They have noted that this is an important area of agreement between Tamil and Sk over and above many others. This is also an essential feature of agglutinative languages and hence also a feature of Turkish and other Turanian languages. What we have in such word formation is taking several and independent ROOTS and gluing them together to generate a complex word with a complex conceptual invention
Polat Kaya: Excuse me but are you explaining my mother tongue under the false name of "VEER LINGUISTICS"? Is somebody re-inventing the wheel? Turkish, as a monosyllabic and agglutinative language, has been practicing this technique since its birth and as a Turk I have been talkimg my mother tongue all my life. You think that I am not practicing it? Additionally, you seem to be taking my words and reselling them back to me in a different format. I have said all those things in my writings. What is new that you are bringing to my attention? You did not talk about ZARATUSHTRA as related to Tamil or any other language until I brought the subject to the attention of all readers. I also said that Zarathustra was a composite word and composed with many Turkish meanings in mind. That is why I gave so many variant meanings attached to it. Only those meanings are in Turkish and are possible only in Turkish. Those meanings I explained very clearly in my paper. You have not yet touched the other ones I presented.
Additionally, the Sanskrit word "SAMAJAM" is very much a rearranged form of the Turkish words "ISMA + CAM" (ISMI CEM) meaning "its name is putting together, i.e., adding together, composing, uniting". Composite words are an amalgamation of smaller parts. Hence I see that the Sanskrit word SAMAJAM" has its roots in Turkish. Turkish words start with a root word and expand into longer words with the addition of different infixes and suffixes. That is the nature of Turkish language. But each addition is carefully defined. There is no ambiguity bout them. So what you or this Veer linguistics is saying is no different than what has been practiced in Turkish since ancient times.
Now Sumerian is also agglutinative and where such Complex Nouns abound. The word ‘ ki-na-mi-u-na-ma” ( Ta. kii aNai maiuuuna emma) is just one interesting example of it.
Polat Kaya: So is Turkish. What else is new?
. . . . bi-se ki-na-mi-u-na-ma ki-na-mi-u-na-ma LUL ba-ra-ma-mar (Because of the . . . in my sleeping- place of the night, in my sleeping- place of the night verily there is no peace for me)
Ta. . . . bi-see kii aNai maiuuuna emma kii aNai maiuuuna emma LUL piRamma maaRu ( Because of the . .. the sleeping place of the night, my sleeping-place of the night has become something different )
. . . À¢§º ¸£ «¨½ ¨ÁäýÉ ±õÁ ¸£ «¨½ ¨ÁäýÉ ±õÁ LUL À¢ÈõÁ Á¡Ú
This is very complex involving various kinds of nesting: ]][ki-na] mi-u-na]em-ma] and where as a result of the transformational processes the em-ma ( Su. ha-ma) remains only as ‘ma”. We can see the various ROOTS which go into the generation of such complex words without too many transforms so that ROOTS remain quite visible
Polat Kaya; Turkish word "U-YU-MA means "sleeping"; Turkish "LAL" (sessiz, sakin, dilsiz, gürültüsüz, sessizlik) means "quiet, speechless, tongueless, peaceful", Turkish "AM" as a suffix means "mine", it also appears in Sumerian as "AM" meaning "mine", Turkish "LAL BAR-MAR MAA" (sessizlik vermer bana, sessizlik vermiyor bana) meaning "it does not give quiet (peace) to me". Thus Turkish:
"BI SEY KI NA-MI U-YU-MA" meaning "something that its name is sleeping", or "the thing called sleeping";
"LAL BAR-MAR MAA" (LAL VERMER MAA) meaning "does not give me quiet"
This correspondence between Sumerian and Turkish speaks volumes.
Now another example where sometimes the transformational processes introduce similarity of phonological form but not meaning is Saraswati. With thanks to V. Raghavan’s observation we can see that this word possess TWO distinct meanings despite the sameness of phonological shape viz. Saraswati as Goddess of Learning and Saraswati as the name of a River.
The river meaning is relatable to Su. sar, sur ( to radiate out, flow etc) and which is a secondary meaning of Su, sur, sul, sun etc (the sun) and which is retained in Ta, suuria which also occurs in Sk, meaning the Sun, that which radiates out light. Another word related to this is Ta. suur: to ooze out as in Ta, surattal surappu etc
Polat Kaya: So what exactly is your point? How does all this relate to ZARATUSTRA? How does SARASWATI as a Goddess relate to ZARATUSTRA? How does SARASWATI as a river name relate to ZARATUSTRA? But I can tell you one thing, that is, SARASWATI, as the name of a river, is very much a rearranged form of the Turkish expression "ATI SARI SU" meaning "its name is yellow water" or "yellow river". Even present-day China has such a river called "Yellow River". In ancient times the name of MURAT ÇAY in Turkey, just north of Mesopotamia was "MURAT SU" meaning "Murat Water". Even the Indian river PANJAB, meaning "five waters" has the the Turkish name of "BESh SU" maning "five waters". Additionally, in Anatolia, the River Kizilirmak had theancient name of "AL SU" meaning "red waters". The Greeks changed that name to HALYS. As you can see, the Turkish word "SU" is all over the place as names of rivers.
Additionally, you say that: "The river meaning is relatable to Su. sar, sur ( to radiate out, flow etc)". To this perception of yours, I say NO! Because in Sumerian it is the word "SU" (ZU) and Turkish "SU" meaning "water" as it appears in the Sumerian words AB-ZU and EN-ZU concepts that relate to the "river" concept. Even the symbol representing letter "S" comes from the Turkish name "SU" meaning "water". A running river makes all kinds of "S" bends in its course. Thus your "Radiating out" does not mean "water", but it refers to things such as "light" and "heat" radiating out from a source. So you cannot so loosely connect anything to anything else. The concept of Turko-Sumerian "SU" meaning "water" also appears in the Sumerian name NIN-GIR-SU, which is a form of the Turkish "NINE KIR SU" meaning "Grandmother (or "goddess" as some people would like to call) of mountain waters, underground waters, river, springs" which all eventually get collected in the rivers and flow into lakes and seas. And this is what relates to "river' concept. Why is it so difficult for you and the IE linguistics to accept the fact that Turkish "SU" and the Sumerian "SU/ZU" are one and the same?
Now another root but related to the Goddess of Learning sense is Su. sar as in dub-sar and which may be Ta.saar and which exists as Ta. aar ( to make noise) , From this we have aaram, vaaram (songs) The duplicated version Ta. aara-vaaram means tumultuous noise,
Thus when we look at the ROOTS we have ‘sar(1)-as-bati’ , a river that flows and seen as a female and ‘sar-(2)-as-bati’ the Goddess of Speech and which is the same as Su, Ni-shaba as I have pointed out.
Polat Kaya; Again, what does it all have to do with ZARATUSHTRA? Why are you saying all these things? It is rather very loose connections you are making.
Here you notice that I do not use any of the above techniques of RAK or SYR but remain faithful to the form but re-analyze into the ROOTS and which I trace to Sumerian language with textual evidences.
Polat KAYA: But then you are not connecting anything to anything else. Just because some words are written in the same way does not mean that they are related to each other by meaning. You cannot do that. What you say is not convincing at all. I can give you many Turkish words that are similar but they have different meanings.
In this way I remain scientific for my claims can be REFUTED by anyone who can dig up the Sumerian texts and show me either these words do not occur or occur with senses that are different and quite incompatible to the genesis of the word under study.
Polat Kaya: I do not think so! Please give us your source for
these Sumerian words and their meaning. Are you likening Tamil words to
Sumerian words and then accordingly giving meanings to them ?
I can go on but will stop here with the promise that I will come back to it later with more details.
Polat Kaya: So can I. Only I write to explain things clearly so that others are not mislead.
My best wishes to you and to all,