Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-4: Compound Words and Anagrams

Dear Dr. Loganathan and friends,

Hi.  You gave a definition of "anagram" and hence "anagrammatizing".  I am afraid your understanding of this concept is lacking and very loose. But you are not alone in this regard.  Etymological dictionaries are full of such loose definitions. You said: 

 

"An anagram (Greek ana- = "back" or "again", and graphein = "to
write") is the result of permuting the letters"

Polat Kaya: First of all, Greek, just like all the other Indo-European langages, is not a credible language to use as a source or reference language.  My discovering that Greek is a manufactured language from Turkish means that it has lost its credibility.  So the etymology being given as Greek is incorect.  

The "anagrammatizing", as used in the manufacture of Indo-European and Semitic languages, is more sophisticated than the definition in the dictionary and involves a) restructuring (i.e., shuffling the letters of the word or phrase around), and b) disguising (i.e., multiple pronounciations of a single letter e.g., letter U sometimes vocalized as an A and sometimes vocalized as U; use of disguising letters such as H, X, Q, W, V, Y and J; vowel alteration e.g., Turkish A becomes English I; consonant alteration e.g., Turkish K becomes an English C or Q or G; alphabetic up-or-down shifting of letters e.g., Turkish L becomes English M or Turkish M becomes English L; horizontal flipping of letters e.g., Turkish d becomes English b; vertical flipping of letters e.g., Turkish u becomes English n or Turkish m becomes English w and wise versa;, dropping of vowels, introducing new vowels; linguistic wrapping e.g., introducing a new consonant or prefix or suffix for further disguising; introducing a new linguistic construct to replace a Turkish letter e.g., English SS replaces Turkish Sh  or Z; and use of multiple identity letters that can replace different letters of the Turkish source e.g., the Greek symbol representing the letter S as found in the ending of many greek words, is a replacement for Turkish S and Turkish Ch and Turkish Sh and Turkish Z).   When this kind of sophisticated anagrammatizing is used on Turkish words or expressions, the resulting word is so badly distorted that it is anything but Turkish.  Turkish is an endless source for such an activity as there is no way of detecting that a Turkish word or phrase is missing.  After all, it's not like having your car or your purse stolen.  Yet those who did not have a language of their own, by usurping Turkish, have come up with languages for themselves.  After anagrammatizing the chosen Turkish word or phrase, they retain most of the original meaning of the Turkish text in a vague manner - to further disguise the Turkish source.   This is a very simple and easy technique to use. Then they have a language which they can call their own and which no one will dispute either.   

 


Your definition does not explain the concept of "anagrammatizing".  Your definition does not tell one what to do in anagrammatizing.  A name or the so-called "etymology" of a word defines and describes the concept. This definition of "anagram" does not do that.  Additionally, "ANA + GRAPHEIN" does not give "ANAGRAM". On the contrary, the most it can give is ANAGRAPHEIN which is not "ANAGRAM"  nor "ANAGRAMMATIZING".  How did the letters M, T, Z get into this word?  So the reader is misled and the truth is not told. Only a "cover up" is achieved.  With your definition, I can take a text and write it again and again (as your definition indicates) without doing any anagrammatizing on it.  Thus this definition is misleading.  

Anagrammatizing is breaking a given text into its smallest constituents, i.e., the letters, and then rearranging them in any way that the anagrammatizer wishes.  In other words, it is a form of encryption, i.e., disguising the source text being used in making the new word.   



About the word "ANAGRAMMATIZE
:

Let me show you how it is made: The English word "ANAGRAMMATIZE" is the verb describing the action involved. The Greek form of this word is given as  ANAGRAMMATIZW where the bogus letter W is actually a replacement of Y + U in this case which makes the word ANAGRAMMATIZYU.   When this word is rearranged letter-by-letter (LBLR) as  "GARMA-YANI-TUZMA", we see that ANAGRAMMATIZYU is really a restructured and disguised form ofthe Turkish expression  "GIRMA YENI  TUZME" (kirma yeni dόzme) meaning " breaking and rearranging". This is what happens to a Turkish source text as it goes through "anagrammatizing" and this is the exact definition of the concept named "anagrammatize".  Turkish words GIRMA (=breaking), YENI (=new or re-) and TUZMA (dόzme) means "arranging". Thus the source for this so-called Greek" word is totally Turkish - not Greek.  And the Turkish source expression prefectly describes what is to be done when you "ANAGRAMMATIZE".  You cannot see this revelation that I have just made because you do not know Turkish nor did you or anybody else ever suspect that this kind of restructuring was going on.

Similarly the English word "anagrammatize", when rearranged as "ANA-GARMA-TIZME", is the restructured and disguised form of Turkish "ONU GIRMA TIZME" (onu kirma dizme) meaning "breaking and arranging it". Here Turkish ONU means "it", GIRMA means "breaking" and "TIZME means "arranging". Hence again the source of the word is unquestionably Turkish.  Stating that it is from Greek is a false claim.  But giving a misleading etymology camouflages the fact that the word has been manufactured from a Turkish source.  Of course this is the linguistic equivalent of stealing someone else's car, repainting and re-embellishing it, and then claiming it as one's own car with bogus ownership documents (i.e., etymology).  


About the word "ETYMOLOGY
"

For the sake of bringing clarity to a word that is used frequently in linguistics, we should also examine the word "ETYMOLOGY".  The Greek form of this word is given as ETUMOLOGIA.  Another form of it is "ETUMOLOGIKOS' meaning "etymological". 
 

When the "Greek" word "ETUMOLOGIKOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "ETUMIK-OLGOSO", where letter K is a replacement of Turkish letter N, it is found that the word is a restructured and disguised form of Turkish expression "ETUMIN OLGOSO" (ADIMIN OLGUSU) meaning "formation of my name" or "the makeup of my name".  This Turkish definition is the correct and exact definition of the concept of "etymology". Again those descriptions given about this word in the dictionaries are false and are intentionally used as a coverup because the source of the word is not actually GREEK but rather TURKISH.   


 You said:
 
 

"A letter is a written
message from one party to another. Letters are usually intended to
be received by someone far away. Before widespread availability of
typewriters and computers, letters were always written by hand.
Nowadays, that is still done, mainly for informal letters. The term
letter is sometimes used for e-mail messages with a formal letter-
like format....
[click for more] of a word or words in such a manner as to produce
other words that possess linguistic meaning "


Polat Kaya: This last part of your definition is just a "filler" and it adds nothing to the definition of the word "anagrammatize".


About the word "AGGLUTINATIVE" or "AGGLUTINATE":

After defining the source of the word "anagrammatize", let me now explain to you the term "AGGLUTINATIVE" or "AGGLUTINATE". 


The English term AGGLUTINATIVE, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "EGLANTI-GATIV-U", is a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "EGLENTI GATIV O" (EKLENTI KATIP O) meaning "it is adding suffix".  In this Turkish expression that has been used as the source text for "AGGLUTINATIVE", Turkish "EGLENTI" (EKLENTI) means "suffix", "GATIV" (KATIP) means "added" and "O" means "it is".  Thus the source of the word AGGLUTINATIVE is unquestionably pure Turkish contrary to all the misleading explanations such as "glued together",  etc.. 

Similarly when the word AGGLUTINATE is rearranged letter-by-letter as  "EGLANTI-TAGU", it is the restructured and disguised form of Turkish expression "EGLENTI TAGU" (EKLENTI TAKU / TAKI) meaning "suffix attachment".  In this expression, Turkish "TAGU" / "TAKU" / "TAKI" means "attachment" and "EKLENTI" means "suffix". 

These Turkish expressions are various ways of saying the Turkish name "BITISIMLI DIL"( bitisimli dil) or "EKLEMLI DIL" meaning "agglutinative language". 

Hence, it can be said with confidence that Turkish language is the true representation of "agglutinating", that is, Turkish "eklenti yapma" (bitistirma).

Thus when you and all of us are using these so-called "Greek" and/or "English" words, we are actually speaking a broken up, encrypted and disguised Turkish language as it was in earlier times.  Some very conning "linguists" did a good job of "usurping" it. Hence the whole world population have been well  deceived. Thus in this activity, whole ancient Turanian civilization has changed hands also.  This is a very important fact for all linguists to think about and understand.  

After having said this, now let us return to the rest of your writing.



K. Loganathan wrote:
 

Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-4: Compound Words and Anagrams

Dear Friends

I am glad about the controversy that is raging among many Turkish scholars about the relationship holding between  Sumerian Tamil Turkish and such other languages. I am sure when the heat settles down TRUTH will prevail and a consensus (if possible) will be reached. I am putting forward my views on this matter falling back on the Grammar of Tolkaappiyam  (c. 300 BC) and which tradition is still alive and where the principles enunciated are still applicable to Tamil except for some novelties.


With thanks V.Raghavan who took the pains to post an article on Anagram (which is new to me), I can see that  such a method of derivation of complex words while applicable to some languages but not to the agglutinative languages such as Sumerian Tamil and perhaps also Turkish and other members of the agglutinative languages. The processes of complex word formation that is called ‘
agglutination’ is NOT anagramitization and hence I believe inapplicable to the study of  the word formation processes of agglutinative languages.

The anagramaitization is :


>>>>>>>
An anagram (Greek ana- = "back" or "again", and graphein = "to
write") is the result of permuting the letters A letter is a written
message from one party to another. Letters are usually intended to
be received by someone far away. Before widespread availability of
typewriters and computers, letters were always written by hand.
Nowadays, that is still done, mainly for informal letters. The term
letter is sometimes used for e-mail messages with a formal letter-
like format....
[click for more] of a word or words in such a manner as to produce
other words that possess linguistic meaning
>>>>>>>>

The full text posted by V. Raghavan is available at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tolkaappiyar/message/4456

Now such a process of generating complex words through permutational play on the letters or syllables is NOT agglutination where various ROOTS WORDS are brought together to generate a complex word. Thus Zarastustra analyzed as  
‘sar-a-tu-si-til-a”and Saraswati analyzed into “sar1-es-bati’ and sar-2-es-bati’ where sar1 means ‘to move, flow etc” and  sar2 ( to utter, say, read etc)  are COMPOUND WORDS (CW) called Tokaic Col in Tamil and Samajam in Sanskrit.  This is the kind of process available in Sumerian language and certainly in C.Tamil. Certainly  also in Sk and which constitutes one large area of study of traditional Sk grammarians.
 


Polat Kaya:  No! Neither ZARATUSHTRA nor SARASWATI are formed in the way you are saying.  Your expanations are wrong and have no validity.  I have already explained these words in my two extensive papers. Please revisit them again.   Unquestionably they are made up from Turkish expressions.  Since these names are confused Turkish expressions, your searching for a Sumerian or Tamil "root" word in them is totally in vain. 

Additionally, as I said above, "true" agglutination" is done only in Turkish language.  Other languages attach individual words to each other to come up wirh so-called "compound words", but they are done for "disguising" or "wrapping" purposes.  


You said:

 


What is a Tokaic Col? The following sutra from Tol, may provide an answer.
>>>>>>>


The Varieties of Compound Words
 

407. 
veeRRumait tokaiyee yuvamat tokaiyee 
vinaiyin tokaiyee paNbin tokaiyee 
ummait tokaiyee yanmozit tokaiyen 
Ravvaa Renba tokaimozi n_ilaiayee 

It is intended to explicate the genesis of the different Compound Words. 

Meaning: 

The Compound Words are six types and they are as follows: there are compounds implicating the sense of the case markers(veeRRumai tokai), the sense of analogy or metaphorical meanings (uvamat tokai), the sense of actions and activities (vinai tokai), the sense of conjunctive relationships (ummai tokai) and those implicating as the meaning anabsent object (anmozi tokai) 
 


Polat Kaya: Will you please tell us why the word "veeRRumai" is written with upper case letters in the middle of the word?   What does "veeR" and "Rumai" mean individually and what does the composite word "veeRRumai" literally mean?
 


Notes (Loga) 

The Compound Words (CWs), the Tokai Col, are different from the Odduc Col, the Glued Words (GWs) described above. Both are products of the agglutinating processes of word formations quite typical of the Dravidian family of languages. The difference between these two is that while the GWs disallow meaningful analysis into component words, the CWs allow for that and hence can be taken products of transformational processes (mozi maaRRu) rather than something generated just by gluing together. 

It is said that a distinguishing mark of CWs is that they function as if a single word (ellaat tokaiyum oru col nadaiya). For example, while the GW 
‘entai’ cannot be further analyzed into constituent words as en-tai etc, the VeeRRumai Tokai like ‘padaikkai’ can be. It is the NP “padaiyaip piditta kai’ (The hand that held the sword) that becomes “padaikai” (The sword-hand). Here not only we have the possibility of the analyzing ‘padaikkai’ into the meaningful units of Padai (sword) and Kai (hand) but also see the word as a product of the TRANSFORM of a statement “padaiyaip pidittak kai”. Thus CWs are TRANSFORMS, the MozimaaRRu when that statement happens to be presupposed as true and something further is sought to be asserted about it as for e.g. Padaikkai vedduppaddatu (the sword-hand was cut off) 

The transformational notions in the genesis of CWs and their ABSENCE in GWs have NOT been brought out sufficiently well by the traditional commentators and I shall fill up these lacunae in my notes. 

>>>>>>>

Now as an example of such CW-s let us take the most widely present , the VeeRRumait Tokai, the Case CW-s which are understood as follows:

>>>>>>>

408. 

avaRRuL 
veeRRumait tokaiyee veeRRumai iyala 

It is intended to explain the grammatical essence of Case CWs 

Meaning: 

The Case Compound Words are those which carry the meaning of cases (the markers of which get deleted) 

Notes(Tey) 


On account of being said 
“in the essences of case meanings”, we have to take compound words that agglutinate but carry the meanings of cases from the accusative to locative as the Case CWs. Here we have to exclude the Nominative case as in the subject-predicate constructions, they remain enunciated separately. The Eighth Case of the Vocative stands always expanded. So those that allow for agglutination must be taken as the remaining cases. 

The eekaaram here is teeRRa eekaaram, the particle that isolates and emphasizes 

Notes( Loga) 

The technical term 
“toku” has to two senses - that of deletion and that of agglutinating. The ‘toku’ in Tokaic col has the second meaning of agglutinating, coming together to form a compound that functions grammatically as a single word. The same sense is communicated by Sk term ‘samaajam” which has the Sumerian ‘sum, sam’ as its root and which means ‘to unite, to come together “etc. Here it is interesting the Nominative and the Vocative cases are excluded in the sense where we have sentences in these cases they do not allow for the generation of Case CWs. This is quite clear in the case of the Vocative: Kantaa!Varuka ( Kantaa! Come) This is Direct Speech and does not allow relativization but only reporting such as Kantan was called etc. In the case of the Nominative “naay kuraittatu” (The dog barked) we can say only ‘kuraitta naay’ when relativizing and where it remains free of agglutination. 
 

 


Polat Kaya:  

a)    The Sumerian 
‘sum, sam’ meaning ‘to unite, to come together “  is very much the Turkish word "CEM" meaning "to unite, to meet, to come together".  Thus Tr. CEM and Su. SAM are one and the the same. Similarly, the Sk "samaajam" has the Turkish word "CEM" in it in the form "JAM".  As I mentioned earlier, "SAMA" is the name of a form of  music and it also has the meaning of "sky" in Turkish.  Thus Sk "samaajam" is very much Turkish "sama cem" meaning "gathering for a music performance in praise of sky and the sky deities" as it is done in Turkish Alevi "CEM" houses.


b)     Your term "VARUKA" meaning "come" is very much the Turkish word "VARMAK" meaning "to arrive", "to come".  Thus, the source of Tamil "VARUKA" and Turkish "VARMAK" are related. 
 

 


c)     When you say: "
The ‘toku’ in Tokaic col has the second meaning of agglutinating, coming together to form a compound that functions grammatically as a single word", it reminds me of a Turkish word having similar meaning.  The term "TOKU" is the root of the Turkish verb "tokumak"(dokumak)  meaning "weaving". In the concept of "weaving" as in "carpet weaving",  the  "knots" are added to each other (united) to make a surface with visual motives,  and in the case of word formatting, the letters or syllables are agglutinatinated (Tr. "tokunur') to make words.  Thus Dravidian "toku" and Turkish "toku" are very much the same.  The Turkish "tokumak" (dokumak) is exactly your definition in Tokaic.


d)     Your Dravidian expression 
"naay kuraittatu” (The dog barked) is also interesting. In the Dravidian word "KURAITTATU” alone there is the Turkish expression "IT KάRάTά" (IT HάRάDά) meaning "the dog barked".  In this Turkish correspondence, IT means "dog" and "HάRάTά" (όrόdό, havladi) means "barked". Thus the term "kuraittatu” seems to have been made up with these Turkish words.  Perhaps you may want to check this correspondence further. 

You said:

 


Now let us consider the sentences: a. teer kutiraikaLaalpuuddap paddna. (The horses were harnessed to the chariot) b. atteerilavan cenRaan (he traveled in that chariot). Combining both by presupposing the truth of the first we have: avan kutiraikaLaal puuddappaddat teeril cenRaan (He traveled in the chariot harnessed with the horses). This same sentence can be said as: Avan kutirait teeril cenRaan (He traveled in the horsed chariot). Here we have the Case CW 
‘kutiraitteer’ and which can be expressed only by the bizarre English expression ’horsed chariot’ and which means ‘horse fitted chariot”. Here we also see the deletion of several particles for the purpose of generating the CW. This process of agglutinating is a characteristic mark of Dravidian languages as is also of Sanskrit and because of which it can also be taken as cognate with Tamil. 

In SumeroTamil we see the beginning of such processes and strangely enough in the names of people: utuhegal (utu hegaL: the rising sun), Urnammu(uur-nambu: the lord of the city) Enuduanna (eeN-udu-anna: the Lord of the heavenly stars) etc 

>>>>>>

Here 
‘kutirait teer ‘ is Case CW and is derived from ‘KutiraikaLaal puuddappadda teer ‘ a chariot harnessed  with horses( kutirai: horse, teer: chariot) We can see CWs are shortened or transformed form of clauses where despite the shortened form the MEANING remains an invariant and which allows the EXPANSION of the truncated into the FULL CLAUSE where necessary.

Clearly such a process is NOT forming anagrams through play on the letters.
 


Polat Kaya: "KUTRIAI" meaning "horse" is interesting in the sense that when the name "KUTRIAI" is rearranged letter-by-letter as  "KURII -AT" where Turkish "K" has been shifted into letter "I" in Dravidian, it is the Turkish expression "KURIK-AT" (tay at) meaning "young horse".  This correspondence, together with the above given ones, again shows that some rearrangements of ancient Turkish words have been done in Dravidian words as well.

You said:
 


Some Sumerian Examples.

Let me consider some examples form Sumerian where we notice that this process occurs very clearly in the formation of Proper names 

We have Proper names like  
‘Suruppak’ ‘Zi-u-sudra’ “ubartutu’ from one of the earliest Sumerian texts viz. Surruppak’s Neri (c. 3000 BC) and where the first name also occurs in Rig Veda as Suuruppak. From later texts we can add names such as  ‘urunammu’Utuhegal” ‘Enhuduanna’ and so forth. I believe phrases like the Sumerian  “ki-na-mi-u-na-ma” ( Ta. kii aNai maiuuna emma: the sleeping place( kii aNai) for the night time(mai-uuna)  of mine(em-ma)) may allow us to SEE  such linguistics processes at work


Polat Kaya:  The Sumerian names such as the "SURUPPAK", "ZI-U-SUDRA" or "UTNAPISHTIM",  "UBAR-TUTU" which appear in the story of BILGAMESH (altered into "GILGAMESH") are personifications of concepts.  It is true that they appear as "proper" names in the story, but the truth is that they have been made up with Turkish expressions that define the concepts that they personify.  I will talk about them in a separate paper.  For the time being it might suffice to say that your description of these names is not correct.  

You said:

 



In all such words what we have is agglutination, the plain and simple that does not involve transformational changes or that which does. For example 
‘ubartutu” can be analyzed into ‘ubar-tutu’ where the ‘ubar’ and ‘tutu’ are ROOTS that also exist as individual words. The Su.ub,ab, uber  means ‘the above, the heavenly etc’ and exists in C.Tamil as ‘upper, umpar’ etc. The tu-tu is  a variant Su du(g)-du(g)  where ‘du” is also transliterated  as ‘tu’( to chant ,recite etc). This word exists in Tamil as ‘tuutu, tuti’ (to praise etc). Thus ‘Ubar-tutu’ has the meaning “speech from the heavens”. Now the Sk upnishad is of the same meaning and we can see this if we analyze it as “upa-ni-saaR.u” where all the roots are also available in Sumerian

Concluding Remarks

It is clear that the formation of CW-s like Zaratustra Sarasvati Ubartutu Upanishad etc are NOT derived through a play on the letters or the  syllables i.e anagramitization but rather by gluing together ROOT WORDS that are on their meaningful and exist in the language   itself Now such CW-s  can travel quite easily from one language to another but where in the borrowing languages the ROOT words may not be available.  This is the case with Rigkrit and Sk where the CW-s do not have the ROOTS in that language itself but only in SumeroTamil as  V.Raghavan and I have pointed out quite extensively. This is the reason why I call Sk is a language which is a variant of Tamil and which continues to be its basis.  Sk language does not have its own basis - the set of basic root words that found the IDENTITY of the language.

I have a feeling that this may also be the case with Turkish Avestan and so forth and which remains a matter for future investigations.

 


Polat Kaya: I am sorry to say that you are wrong in this regard as well.  You cannot find a ROOT word where the whole body of the word has been already shuffled (confused).  What one may find as "ROOT" word may have nothing to do with the concept that the word represents.  Thus your technique of finding roots is rather untrustable and nothing more than guesswork.  I get the feeling that you liken the Sumerian words which resemble some Tamil words whose meanings you know and thus think that similarly appearing Sumerian words also have similar meanings.  In this manner, you may be comparing apples with oranges which are not the same thing.  This I say because I am not comfortable with the truthfulness of the presented Sumerian texts. 

As a final note in this response-dialog, and if you do not mind my saying so, somehow I get the feeling that you are ignoring my writings and not wanting to discuss the words that I analyse and present.  By not touching any one of the words I have been presenting, you are pushing back the concept that I am advocating, that is,  the Indo-European languages are all manufactured languages from Turkish.  In this regard you and most people seem to prefer staying silent. Why is that?  Your saying that  "I do not believe you, what you do is not scientific" is neither a scientific comment nor is it a truthful comment.  Anyone can say that and get away with it, and many have.  If you are searching for a regularity in an already confused language vocabulary, you may be searching for in wain.  For example already in this paper I have shown that the words ETYMOLOGY, ANAGRAMMATIZE, AGGLUTINATIVE and others are not what the linguistic community thinks.  I have clearly shown that their origin is not GREEK but rather TURKISH.   Additionally, I identified the identity of Zeus and things that are attributed to Zeus.  You did not say anything.  I identified the goddess Saraswati but you are very quiet about it.  I identified the source of BIBLIOTEQUE and LIBRARY as Turkish yet you are very silent on it.  My revelations about the Turkish source of these words is unquestionable.  I made very powerful statements yet you act as if I said nothing - as if you did not hear me speaking.  Please do not think that I do not notice.  

Now I see that you are getting some help from other readers whose knowledge of Turkish is also superficial. Particularly citing the writings 
byNyland as a source to be regarded is not credible.  It is a nice try but it will not work with me.  I have had my encounter with Edo Nyland earlier.   His writings have no value whatsoever as far as the antiquity of Turkish is concerned.  For your information I am including the URL of my response to him years ago  in this forum:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/132  You will find that his explanations of an etymology for names and words do not hold water. Activities like that of Edo Nyland are further attempts to cover up the fact that Indo-European and Semitic languages have been made up from the most ancient language of Turkish.  

So you see my friend,  If you continue to ignore what I say, we, particularly you, will not be able to get anywhere in this dialog.  


My best wishes to you and to all,


Polat Kaya