FW: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name "ZEUS".

Dear Friends,

This was a communication with Neda which seems she did not receive it. I am re-senting it with copies to bcn_2004, historical_linguistcs_2 and Polat_Kaya library.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya


----------
From: "Polat Kaya" <tntr@...>
To: Neda <beijinhosbe@...>
Subject: Re: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name "ZEUS".
Date: Tue, May 10, 2005, 12:02 PM


 

Dear Neda,

Hi, I am afraid my response was delayed as I am quite busy with my research. Unfortunately last time our lines got a bit crossed.  For your information, the response to your initial writings was mine, that is, Polat Kaya and I am totally different from the name "Allingus". If you wish to write directly to me, please use my e-mail address in the "From" field of this message. 

First let me just say that you are always welcome to this list whether you like my writings or not. Secondly I am happy to hear that you have read many of my writings and that you are interested in my explanations of the Turkish etymologies of the words of "European" languages, although you view them with hesitancy.  Thirdly I am not  picking on PIE languages or PIE linguistics although it may seem that way. It's just that a very important deception has taken place since ancient times and I am simply bringing the real truth to the surface regarding the Indo-European languages and their makeup.  I am simply anti-lying and anti-deception.

Although European languages are already established languages in our times, their source is not as portrayed. It is a known fact that the European languages are manufactured languages. Although it is said that they are made up mostly from Latin and Greek, the truth regarding their make up has turned out to be totally different.  That truth brings the "Turkish" language into the picture and this is not known by the public.  It is this truth that I am sharing with my readers by explaining all kinds of words and mythology supposedly belonging to European sources or origins.  

I must talk about this because I am confident that the public has been conned about the origin of European languages and also many other languages.  While the deceptionist has benefited hugely from this game of language alteration, name changing and culture usurpation, in the process, the Tur/Turk peoples have been robbed of their ancient identity and civilization and then trampled upon as if they were "invading barbarians" while the truth is the opposite.  This is called "switching the tables". That undeserving animosity against Tur/Turk peoples is still going on in many European quarters. As I explained in my ZEUS paper, the whole truth has not been said about ZEUS and what it represents because its origin was in Turkish rather than Greek. Similarly the whole truth about the make up of the Indo-European and the Semitic languages have not been told because their origins are also in Turkish.

You said:

> The kind of linguistics that you adhere, interest me enormously, and
> that's why I am a member of this group. What the scientific relevance
> is concerned, my opinion indeed is less positive. For more suitable
> scientific information, i do consult other and more reliable sources.
> Not 'more scientific' to my taste, more scientific tout court.

Polat Kaya: I am glad that you are interested in my linguistics.  And I can also understand your opinion being less positive; it is so because what I am saying is new to you.  On the top of it, it is coming to you from a Turk, probably making you and others jump to the incorrect conclusion that "I am being nationalistic".  Not at all! This is a discovery that I have made regarding the origin of the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages.  My discovery is that these languages have been manufactured from the much older language of Turkish. When I present the analysis of an Indo-European word and you try to consult other sources in order to get  "scientific information", I am afraid you will not find it. Because what I am saying is new and not written anywhere.  But you may find vague hints verifying my view.

You say you consult other and more reliable sources.  That is fine, except how would you exactly know that the other sources are "more reliable?"  Just because we are used to hear certain things in a certain way, does it make the source more reliable?  Just because many sources repeat the same thing, does it mean that they know the truth or are telling the truth?  There are billions of people in the world that believe in a certain thing or idea or concept, but that does not mean that they know the truth about what they believe in. 

For example, take the word "ETYMOLOGY. We have all been told, and it is written in most dictionaries, that the term ETYMOLOGY is from the Greek word ETYMOLOGIA. That is what people believe and think is the truth.  But when I deconstruct the word ETYMOLOGIA letter-by-letter as "ATIM-OLGO-YE", it is found to be  a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ATIM OLGU O" (ADIM OLGU O) meaning "it is the make up of my name" or "it is the formation of my name". This Turkish expression clearly defines the term "etymology". You will note that there is a shift from D to T which is a disguising shift, and also some vowel alteration. Some of these vowel changes could have been due to natural way of speaking the Turkish in old times, but mostly it is artificial because those who made up the word "etymology" and all other Greek and Latin words wanted to camouflage the original Turkic source. 

In view of this finding revealed by me, you will have to reconsider why I am finding a Turkish expression embedded in the word ETYMOLOGIA which has the same meaning as that of the word "ETYMOLOGY".   Why should we find the definition of "etymology" in a Turkish expression that is made up with the same letters as given in the name "ETYMOLOGIA?" This is the crux of the matter. Mathematically there is "nil" probability that we should find this correspondence.

 "Etymology" is defined as: 
"The origin or derivation of a word as shown by its analysis into elements, by pointing out the root or primitive upon which it is based, or by referring it to an earlier form of its parent language." Implied in this definition is the idea that there was a "parent" language of the same format.  Yet it is not the truth. When one restructures a Turkish expression into a word of the so-called "European" languages, although the end result appears deceptively "European", the source language, that is, the "parent language" is not a "European" language.  Thus there is a sophistry in this definition of "etymology". Sophistry is used to con people! 

Similarly, when we consider the English word "ETYMOLOGIZE", we find that it is also made up from a Turkish expression. When "ETYMOLOGIZE" is deconstructed letter-by-letter as "ETEM-OLGOZI-Y", it is found to be the restructured and distorted form of Turkish expression "ATIM OLGUSI O" (adim olgusu o) meaning "it is the formation of my name".  This is exactly the definition of the word "etymology" and "etymologize".

As you know, words are names for "concepts" just like the names for peoples.  Thus it is clear that somebody made a definition of the word "etymology" in Turkish first and then restructured the Turkish source phrase into a word of so-called "Greek" or "Latin" or "English", etc.. Thus they ended up with countless "words" and then "languages" that they did not have before. This process is very easy, extremely sneaky, and darned clever. When they manufactured so many languages from Turkish by way of restructuring Turkish source texts, no Turk or anyone else would know the difference or notice it, because stealing in this manner is very different from stealing someone's car or material object. When your car is stolen, you will immediately notice that it is missing.  But when your words and phrases are stolen as I have demonstrated, you will not notice anything missing.  It is almost the perfect crime.  Only those who did the alterations would know what happened. 

Please note that in language engineering, many tricks of the trade have been used in coming up with "inflected" words from the original Turkish texts. Many Greek letters have multiple identities that are used in disguising a Turkish source.  The same or similar tricks have also been used in constructing other Indo-European and Semitic languages. 

Thus it is clear that, the words and expressions of an ancient working language can be taken as a "model" for constructing "words" in the so-called "inflected" languages.  Thus the "model" language becomes the model "parent" or "proto" language. Turkish is the "proto" language  in which many concepts can be defined in more ways than one. Please note that even the term "proto" is from Turkish "birata" meaning "one father".  "BIRATA" obviously does not look European - but "PROTO" does - yet "PROTO" is just a simple deformation of the original Turkish "BIRATA".  The A's become O's, the I disappears and the B conveniently becomes a P.  These are very simple and widely used European and Semitic linguistic tricks that most people do not know about.

You said:

> Apart from the simple plain fact that there is no evidence: why would
> anybody find it necessary to play scrabble with Turkish in order to
> coin a new language? Who would be so inane to start playing with
> letters of a Turkish word, i mean, with all Turkish words (apparantly)
> to make a 'new language', and how would that language spread? This
> goes beyond any sense of reason.

Polat Kaya;  The plain simple fact is that all European languages are made up of encrypted words engineered from Turkish.  Those millions of "Indo-European" words are the "evidence" and the evidence is huge. They are "living witnesses" whether you admit it or not. They speak for themselves, that is, if any one is interested in knowing the truth about roots of those words of the Indo-European and Semitic languages. I am decoding those encrypted "words" for anyone who is interested in knowing the truth, that is, if they can get away from the politics of the matter.  

The very fact that we find so many words of the European languages having correspondences in Turkish words and phrases is evidence that European languages have been made up from Turkish, although the compared Indo-European languages appear totally different in structure from Turkish. Otherwise two independently developed languages could not have so many letter-by-letter correspondences with similar meanings.  Mathematically, the probability of such coincidences are nil. The Turkish language, being a phonetic, agglutinative and originally a mono-syllabic language has only a few mathematical rules, and the rest follows.  Yet, the reading and writing of European languages constitute a nightmare with all sorts of idiosyncracies and special rules and cases. In order to understand what is going on, one has to read pages and pages of instructions and even then nothing is really clear.  All these indicate that the Indo-European words are artificially manufactured. This means that the IE languages are not genuine, they are pseudo.

Secondly, "scrabble" is a game that people play to pass time.  However, likening what I am saying to a game of scrabble is a distraction. People who would want to manufacture a language for themselves had real reasons. Someone trying to manufacture a new language for himself/herself  by using a "scrabble" type technique is actually after big gains.  So they were not really playing "Scrabble" at all. Coming up with new languages, when the world was speaking the one Turkish language, was a very serious matter and it was a good business. 

People can become a "nation" when they have a "language" no matter how artificial that language may be.  The ancient wanderers did not have a language for themselves.  As you might recall GENESIS 11 says that "world spoke of one language". And after that some people decided to confuse that language so that the speakers of that one language would not understand each other. Although, this is a very evil thought, it was, nevertheless, done. That "one" language that the world spoke since the time of Sumerians was the phonetic and agglutinative language of Turkish. This original confusion took place in ancient "Babylon" where ancient Turanian civilization was being stolen by some wanderer groups who had no civilization of their own.  The ancient world was a Turkish speaking Turanian world. 

Evidently, the ancient Greek, Latin and Semitic religious men were also linguists who were very effective in matters of mythology and in restructuring Turkish words and phrases. The ordinary public had nothing to do with such matters. For example the name of the ancient Turanian state of MASAR/MISIR has conveniently become "EGYPT" - from the word "GYPSY".  Surely this did not happen all by itself. Changing a name from its original form into something else is an act of destruction of the original and also an act of usurpation. The name "EGYPT" falsely indicates that the ancient "MASAR/MISIR" civilization belonged to a group of "Gypsies" ("Gypties"), yet the reality is that the ancient Masar / Misir civilization was not a "Gypsy" civilization. The ancient name of Masar and its civilization were  usurped on behalf of Gypsies.  Thus this name and/or word changing game was very important for some groups.  They even burned the ancient libraries in order to get rid of the ancient evidences.

As far as the "spread" of these new languages is concerned, that should not be a difficult task.  When one introduces these newly generated words into schools with effective and forceful teaching there is nothing that cannot be learned by the children. Additionally, when they have the economic and military power and threaten people with their life, and have an army of  "missionaries" to spread the religion and language throughout the world, impossible things become very easy. These missionaries have done a lot of destruction of the native culture and languages wherever they went and they can do anything that they are ordered to do.   As a destructive force, they are very effective in spreading deception and misinformation.

You said:
> 
> I consider Time Life books and a bilingual dictionary not as a
> reliable source to rewrite historical linguistics, no. But as far as I
> remember, you never have explained in detail why exactly you consider
> the body of texts concerning mainstream historical linguistics as a
> fake. Why exactly you consider PIE as nonsense. You accused, but never
> explained. And so far, your accusations are rather empty. That you
> consider people like me as "well-conned and well-conditioned reader"
> does not seem to need some further explanations.
> That you're ideas don't only go against linguistic findings, but also
> against historical and archaeological findings, hence involving a few
> thousand of people, doens't make your story more convincing. 
> 

Polat Kaya: Dear friend, surely those dictionaries and TIME-LIFE books have been used to educate millions of peoples.  Those dictionaries are being sold as reference books to millions of young people all over the world in the universities. If you admit that they are unreliable sources, then you are also admitting that "a con game is going on" with unreliable information. Additionally, the writers of those books and dictionaries are mostly repeating what is known to them from their Greek, Latin and Semitic heritage. No matter how much lying may be going on in those sources, however, the "words" and "names" and the meanings attributed to them in the dictionaries are mostly convincing, but not the "etymologies" attributed to them.  Thus, they are not totally wrong in what they are relating, but the reader has to separate the "grain" from the "chaff" and there is a lot of chaff. That is what I am doing. I am separating the "grain" from the "chaff" (i.e., the "truth" from the "lies") by showing the secret Turkish sources that are embedded in the words and names.  For example, that is what I did when I explained the name "ZEUS" and many others associated with this name. So you cannot knock what I am saying on the basis of my references. Additionally my reference sources are very diverse. I check my subject in many sources before I write. 

With the above comments of yours, I am wondering whether you really read and understood what I am saying in my writings in view of the fact that you accuse me by saying: 
"But as far as I remember, you never have explained in detail why exactly you consider the body of texts concerning mainstream historical linguistics as a fake." In my writings you will note that I am very clear in my explanations making sure that I do not convey my message to the reader in a vague way. 

I regard the 
"mainstream historical linguistics as a fake" because linguistics has been following at the footsteps of religion since very ancient times. It is a "cult" in which only certain people at the top of the system know what has taken place.  The rest are only innocent followers. 

Dear Neda, for the sake of argument, let us consider the Turkish word "YOGURT" which has been one of the dairy products of Turkish peoples ever since they tamed sheep, cattle and horses.  The name of this dairy product of Tur/Turk peoples since very ancient times comes to us in present times.  This word presently has been imported into many "Indo-European" languages.  When you find this word being used as it is in its native tongue, that is, as "YOGURT", then it is a "borrowing" from one language into another.  However, if that word is found in a language in an altered form such as, say, in the form of "GIAOURTI" as it is in Greek, then you will see, by comparing "YOGURT" with "GIAOURTI", that the second form is so distorted that it is not recognizable as Turkish any more. In other words both the visible and audible contact has been broken from the word's past. The original Turkish word is distorted and disguised intentionally. This makes the Greek word "GIAOURTI" a fake. 

The scientific name for "yogurt" is given as "LACTOBASILLUS BULGARICUS".  This name states that this culture belongs to "Bulgarians", but not to "Turks". However, it must be admitted that the original Bulgarians" were also "Turks" and also had the same culture. But presently, the Bulgarians (ancient Bulgar Turks) are not regarded as Turks because they have also been usurped away from the Turks. Now attributing Turkish "yogurt" to "Bulgarians" has a political content to it as you will see. 

Another example is the following: In Latin dictionaries there are the following words associated with "milk":

LACTEUS : ; milky; full of milk; milk-white.
LACTESCO: to become milk.
LACTEOLUS: milk white.

But when LACTEUS is rearranged as "SUTLE-AC", where C is really a K, it clearly shows itself to be the Turkish expression "sütlü ak" meaning "milk + with + white" or "milk-white" or "milky" or "with a lot of milk".  In this Turkish expression "SÜT" means "milk".  The "LE/LI/LÜ" is the Turkish suffix meaning "with".  It takes different vowels in accordance with the Turkish language "vowel harmony" rule, and Turkish "AK" means "white".  LACTEUS is also a form of Turkish word "SÜTLÜ ASh"  meaning "milky soup" or "SÜTLAC" meaning "milk pudding" - which is also "milky white."

The Latin LACTESCO, when restructured as "SET-OLACC" where CC is the distorted Turkish sound SH, is the anagram of Turkish expression "SÜT OLUSH" meaning "becoming milk". 

Similarly, the Latin word LACTEOLUS,  when restructured as "SUTLE-AC-OL", is an anagram of the Turkish expression 'SUTLE AK OL" (sütlü ak ol) meaning "become milk-white" where Turkish "OL" means "be, become". 

With all these clear and open explanations, please tell me, in all honesty as a truth searching linguist and/or scientist, which ones are the FAKE ones: the Latin words or the corresponding Turkish ones?

Mathematically, there is no probability that this correspondence will take place.  But it is there!  Why do you think the correspondence is there? The answer to this question is that the ancient world was a Turkish speaking world and the so-called "ARYANS", from Turkish "ARAYAN" meaning "wanderer", could not tolerate that single-Turkish-speaking world to continue. Therefore they had to confuse and thus destroy it by developing many languages from that one language. The developed European languages are artificially made so that they appear related to each other giving the false impression that they were ancient languages of the same family. Yet they were not. Thus PIE is a fake. 

All these clearly indicate that Turkish was a far earlier language than Latin and Greek and all the other so-called "Indo-European" languages. 

you say: 

> 
> Quote from Omniglot:
> "The earliest known examples of writing in any Turkic language were
> found in the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia in the 19th century. They
> date from the early 8th century AD and the script in which they are
> written is known as the Orkhon alphabet. Inscriptions dating from the
> later 8th century AD in a slight variant of the Orkhon alphabet, known
> as Yenisei or Siberian runes, have also been found around Yenisei and
> other parts of Siberia."
> 
> While Greek is attested a few millennia earlier. Otherwise asked: if
> there wasn't a Turkish script in the days of the Ancient Greeks, how
> could they have anagrammatized it?

Polat Kaya:  First of all, those Runes are found all over a vast geography from the Pacific Ocean coasts in the east to the Atlantic coasts in the west and up to the Arctic Ocean coast in the north.  They are a very old writing system and have nothing to do with the present peoples called "Europeans", but have a lot to do with ancient Turkish speaking Turanian peoples who inhabited most parts of Europe and Asia before those so-called "Europeans" (Arayans) arrived. The historians and/or linguists are not willing to admit this. The Turkish Orkhon inscriptions have used a form of these Rhunes.  

Additionally writing is a Turanian invention and Turkish words are everywhere in  Sumerian writings and ancient "Egypt" writings.  In fact the name TUR that appears in the Sumerian writings has been intentionally suppressed in the translations by the "Sumerologists".  Furthermore, for example, Sir Wallis Budge indicates that the ancient "Egyptian" hieroglyphic writing was not invented in MISIR (Egypt), but rather was invented in Central Asia and was brought with them to ancient Masar/Misir some seven thousand years ago "by certain people". he does not give the name of TUR/TURK peoples from Central Asia but hints at them. The Turkish names of the founding kings of ancient Masar ("Egypt") are testimony that they were Turkish speaking Tur/Turk peoples who came from Central Asia and founded the ancient Turkic state that survived the longest life in history - before it was destroyed and usurped by the Greeks, Semites and Latins. When Tur/Turk peoples were building the pyramids and writing hierogliphic writings on stones, Greeks were not even around yet.  That makes the Tur/Turk peoples much much earlier than the "Greek" writings.  

In fact the Greek writings did not belong to Greeks. Greeks took it from the Turanian Phoenicians (Caananites) that are incorrectly placed under a "Semitic" umbrella.  The word "Semitic" does not refer to a certain racial people.  It refers to a certain belief like the term "Christian" or "Moslem".  the name "SEMITIC" is from Turkish word "ESMECITI" meaning "those who believe in the wind" as God.  Thus as you can see, the usurpation, not only of the Turkish language but also of the Turkic peoples, is all over the world - but admitting it is something different. 

Furthermore,  your statement that: 
 "While Greek is attested a few millennia earlier. Otherwise asked: if there wasn't a Turkish script in the days of the Ancient Greeks, how could they have anagrammatized it? is also false. 

First of all, this statement gives the false impression that one needs a "written" text to anagrammatize it.  Not so at all.  One can just as easily anagrammatize non-written words, although written texts can enable formalization and the formation of much more complex appearing words such as "anagrammatize". For your information even this word is from Turkish expression "GIRMA + YENI + TIZME" meaning "breaking + new + structuring". For example, ancient salesmen of the market places did oral anagrammatizing quite readily by bringing the ending of words to the beginning and than saying the whole thing in a distorted way as if they were speaking in a different language.  This enabled them to converse their crooked sales practices quite easily among themselves without the customer knowing what they were talking about. People have done this since the time of Akkadians and still do.  Only now such activities have been condensed into formally structured European and Semitic languages.  

The fact is that when "Greeks" arrived at the location presently called "Greece" they were  a group of "wanderers" who had no land to their name anywhere.  Yet the native Turanian SAKA Turks, so-called "PELASGIANs" in ancient "Greece", were building their castles on the top of mountains and living behind the so-called "Cyclopean" walls.  Pelasgians were thousands of years earlier than the Greeks. The Trojans, the Thracians, the Etruscans, the Minoans, the Masarians, the Sumerians were all Turanian Tur/Turk peoples who spoke Turkish. The inscription from the "Lemnos" island is another testimony that those native Aegean peoples were Turkish speaking peoples. Please visit my paper at the URL:

http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/lemstelea.html

The ancient natives of Anatolia were Tur/Turk peoples contrary to all kinds of misrepresentation by the western historians.  That is why it was called "Asia Minor" because the native peoples were Turanian Tur/Turk peoples who came from central Asia, that is, Turan. The ancient Masarian hieroglyphic writings and the Sumerian cuneiform writings are the result of the agglutinative language of Turkish. The TUR name and many other Turkish words in the Sumerian writings have been intentionally suppressed. The "inflected" languages which are manufactured from an earlier language are not suitable for inventing writing or creating an alphabet.  What they falsely call the "Latin" alphabet was actually the "Etruscan" alphabet of the Tur/Turk peoples of the area. But we have all been conned even in that field also. 

Even the famed poet "Homer" (Homeros) was not Greek contrary to endless disinformation.  Rather was from the Turkic name "OMAR" (OMER). As you can see, when someone changes the name and introduces linguistic wrapping, the world becomes upside down  and totally confused.  Upside down because what was originally Turkic suddenly becomes Greek. What was Etruscan suddenly becomes Latin. What was Masarian becomes Gypsy.  What was Sumerian becomes Akkadian and Babylonian and "Semitic".  And on and on.  It never stops.

I am sure this discussion can go on for a very long time but what I have written so far should suffice for those who are genuinely interested in the truth. In closing let me just say that if you were offended by what I previously wrote, it was not intended. It is not my nature nor is it my intention to hurt anyone. 

My best wishes to you,

Polat Kaya

P.S. By the way, I intend to put this paper in my library for the benefit of other readers as well.  If you have an objection, I will remove all references to you and make it anonymous.


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

>From: "Neda" <
beijinhosbe@...>
>To: 
Polat_Kaya-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name "ZEUS".
>Date: Vend 29 avri 2005  16:44
>

> Dear sir, all,
> 
> I find it a bit strange, discomforting even, that a piece of private
> correspondence finds it way to a public forum. On the other hand, it
> is an occasion to ask for a more few answers.
> 
> <<<First of all, if you are of the opinion that this list is lacking
> scientific relevance and is not to your taste, then why are you still
> here? I would think that you would have found another list where you
> could find information more suitable to your taste. You try to give
> the impression that you are a casual visitor on this list but somehow
> I get the feeling that you are watching this list vigilantly.<<<
> 
> The kind of linguistics that you adhere, interest me enormously, and
> that's why I am a member of this group. What the scientific relevance
> is concerned, my opinion indeed is less positive. For more suitable
> scientific information, i do consult other and more reliable sources.
> Not 'more scientific' to my taste, more scientific tout court.
> 
> <<<Most likely you are one well-conned and well-conditioned reader
> that automatically believes the make-believe authenticity of the
> so-called Indo-European languages.<<<
> 
> I do not consider calling somebody "well-conned and well-conditioned
> reader" as a sign of respect, Mr Allingus, but anyway, I want to deal
> with more fundamental things than that.
> 
> I consider Time Life books and a bilingual dictionary not as a
> reliable source to rewrite historical linguistics, no. But as far as I
> remember, you never have explained in detail why exactly you consider
> the body of texts concerning mainstream historical linguistics as a
> fake. Why exactly you consider PIE as nonsense. You accused, but never
> explained. And so far, your accusations are rather empty. That you
> consider people like me as "well-conned and well-conditioned reader"
> does not seem to need some further explanations.
> That you're ideas don't only go against linguistic findings, but also
> against historical and archaeological findings, hence involving
 a few
> thousand of people, doens't make your story more convincing. 
> 
> <<<Once again, for your information, what is termed "Indo-Eur
> opean" languages are actually languages that have been artificially
> manufactured from the Turkish language contrary to falsely established
> beliefs. In other words, in the distant past, there were no
> Indo-European" languages before they were manufactured from Turkish.<<<
> 
> Apart from the simple plain fact that there is no evidence: why would
> anybody find it necessary to play scrabble with Turkish in order to
> coin a new language? Who would be so inane to start playing with
> letters of a Turkish word, i mean, with all Turkish words (apparantly)
> to make a 'new language', and how would that language spread? This
> goes beyond any sense of reason.
> 
> Neda
> 
> PS: My name is Neda, the e-mail addy is not mine.
> 
> 

----------
>From: "Neda" <
beijinhosbe@...>
>To: 
Polat_Kaya-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name "ZEUS".
>Date: Same 30 avri 2005  03:35
>

> PK:
> "Most likely you are one well-conned and well-conditioned reader that
>  automatically believes the make-believe authenticity of the so-called 
> Indo-European languages."
> 
> More than in your so-called Turkish etymologies, I'm intersted in why
> you are picking so vehemently on PIE linguistics.
> You constantly refer to mainstream historical linguistics as a
> con-job, which I understand as a "conscious act to deceive people".
> Hence I'm curious about who, in your, erm, humble opinion, started
> this con-job, when exactly and with which purpose.
> 
> PK:
> "Once again, for your information, what is termed "Indo-European"
> languages are actually languages that have been artificially
> manufactured from the Turkish language contrary to falsely established
> beliefs."
> 
> I think I have read most of your articles, or as many as possible (and
> digestable), but I can't remember a time line. When did people start
> to 'anagrammatize' Turkish (while it is still not clear whether you
> mean Turkic or Turkish, btw).
> 
> Quote from Omniglot:
> "The earliest known examples of writing in any Turkic language were
> found in the Orkhon river valley in Mongolia in the 19th century. They
> date from the early 8th century AD and the script in which they are
> written is known as the Orkhon alphabet. Inscriptions dating from the
> later 8th century AD in a slight variant of the Orkhon alphabet, known
> as Yenisei or Siberian runes, have also been found around Yenisei and
> other parts of Siberia."
> 
> While Greek is attested a few millennia earlier. Otherwise asked: if
> there wasn't a Turkish script in the days of the Ancient Greeks, how
> could they have anagrammatized it?
> 
> Those and many other questions spook my mind, do they spook yours too,
> or are these just mere details to be ignored?
> 
> Neda
> 
> 
> 
>  In other words, in
>> the distant past, there were no "Indo-European" languages before
> they were
>> manufactured from Turkish.  This fact is not readily acknowledgeable
> because
>> a lot of misleading and contrary history has been written. Yet I have
>> demonstrated the validity of this view over and over again by analyzing
>> words belonging to Greek, Latin and other "Indo-European" languages and
>> clearly showing their Turkish sources. In this regard the name ZEUS
> is no
>> different.  Obviously what I am saying is alien to you, and hence
> you are
>> upset.
>> 
>> It seems to me that you did not read the contents of my paper carefully.
>> What I wrote in my paper is above and beyond what you may read in
> books and
>> web articles. You probably reacted reflexively as soon as you saw the
>> Turkish connection in my paper.
>> 
>> You see, the reference you gave is similar to other sources which give
>> mostly known things about ZEUS.  This is only the tip of an
> "iceberg" that
>> the name "ZEUS" represents. The presentation provided in such
> writings is
>> always in riddle form and consists of half truths and half lies. It
> is not
>> necessarily the fault of the writers of such material, because they
> too have
>> been deliberately conned and fed partially correct and partially
> incorrect
>> mythology. Some of the unseen esoteric bottom parts of the name ZEUS are
>> what I wrote about in my paper. Please read it again very carefully and
>> without pre-conceived notions. I can assure you that I have done my
> homework
>> completely and that what I am saying is real and accurate.
>> 
>> For example, your reference says that the name "pater", meaning
> "father", is
>> Indo-European, and you may also think so as well, but its source is
>> definitely in Turkish - contrary to all the disinformation out
> there.  The
>> word "PATER' is actually an altered form of the Turkish expression
> "APATIR"
>> meaning "it is father". By "altered" I mean that the source text in
> Turkish
>> has been scrambled, restructured and disguised so that it is not
>> recognizable as Turkish any more.  In the so-called Indo-European word
>> PATER, the "PA" component is really Turkish "APA" meaning "father'
> while the
>> "TER" component is the Turkish verbal suffix "TIR/TUR" meaning "it is".
>> 
>> Similarly, the name "ZUE PATER" meaning "father Zeus", as given in your
>> reference, is actually from the Turkish expression "ZU APATIR" (SU
> APATIR)
>> meaning "it is water father". This defines one aspect of Zeus again in
>> Turkish. Please study these words very carefully and then make your
>> linguistic judgement, that is, if you are a linguist. If you stop
> being so
>> quick in jumping to conclusions, you will find, to your surprise,
> that they
>> are the same both in meaning and structure. Evidently, the ancient
> Greek and
>> Latin "linguists" were excellent at plagiarizing and disguising the
> Turkish
>> language. They did their best to make sure that they do not get
> caught while
>> usurping the Turkish linguistic texts as source for names and words that
>> they generated for their manufactured languages. They were quite
> successful
>> at what they were doing, but that does not change the fact that the
>> languages that they came up with were artificial and were made up
> from the
>> very ancient language of Turkish.
>> 
>> Your reference source which you call scientifically relevant also
> gives the
>> name "Zeu pater" meaning ³o father Zeus² as another name for Zeus. In my
>> paper I outlined that one of the concepts that the name ZEUS
> personified was
>> "water", that is, Turkish "SU" (ZU). This concept of water also
> appears in
>> Sumerian writings as "AP-ZU" or "ZU-AP" which is actually Turkish
> "SU APA"
>> meaning "Father Water" or "EN-ZU" meaning "Lord Water" from Turkish
> "HAN SU'
>> meaning the same.  Thus even in this context, ZEUS or "ZUE PATER" is an
>> usurpation of the  Turko-Sumerian culture which did not belong to the
>> ancient Greeks. So please think about this one as well. Also please
> do not
>> forget that the ancients believed that there were four divine
> elements that
>> were essential on earth. They were "water" (Sumerian "ZU" and
> Turkish "SU"),
>> "air" (Turkish "HAVA"), "soil" or "earth" (Sumerian "EN-KI" which is
> Turkish
>> "HAN KAYA" or "HAN YER") and "fire" represented by the sun (Sumerian
>> "EN-UTU" and Turkish "HAN OD"). In Sumerian "air" was represented by
>> "EN-LIL" as "air and wind" god. Sumerian "EN-LIL" and Turkish "HAN
> YEL" are
>> one and the same.
>> 
>> This word "DELUSIONAL", that you disrespectfully used, is also a
> stolen word
>> from Turkish. The root for it is supposedly the word "DELUSION"
> meaning "act
>> of deluding, a misleading of mind; false belief; fixed misconception,
>> hallucination or being irrational".  Of course these meanings
> attributed to
>> this word do not tell the true meaning of the word. They simply beat
> around
>> the bush. The real source of DELUSION is the Turkish word "DELISUN"
> meaning
>> "you are crazy". Evidently the Turkish word "DELISUN" has been stolen,
>> restructured and made into an "English" word with skewed or misleading
>> meanings attributed to it. In reference sources the word is said to
> be from
>> "DELUDE" from Latin "DELUDERE" meaning "play, mock". This is again
> not so
>> truthful since the meaning has been altered. It is expected because
> Latin is
>> also a manufactured language from Turkish. The Latin word DELUDERE, when
>> reconstructed letter-by-letter as "DELEDER-U", is a distorted form
> of the
>> Turkish expression "DELIDIR U" meaning "he is crazy". Even the word
> "DELUDE"
>> is the distorted form of Turkish "DELIDU" meaning "he is crazy". As
> you can
>> see, these words, that is, DELUDE, DELUDERE, DELUSION and DELUSIONAL all
>> have the implied meaning of "craziness" in them and they are all
> made from
>> the Turkish root word "DELI" (DELU) meaning "crazy".  Now after
> explaining
>> all of these to you, I assure you that I am not "DELUSIONAL" nor am
> I trying
>> to deceive anyone.  Deceivers are those who have given misleading
>> etymologies in dictionaries that millions of people read and innocently
>> believe without ever even thinking of questioning their validity. I am
>> simply sharing, with the readers, my very carefully researched and
> analyzed
>> insights that are not heard elsewhere.
>> 
>> My best wishes to you and all,
>> 
>> Polat Kaya
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Neda wrote:
>> ----------
>> >From: "Neda" <
beijinhosbe@y...>
>> >To: Ram Varmha <
varmha@y...>
>> >Subject: [hrl_2] Re: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name
> "ZEUS".
>> >Date: Lund 25 avri 2005  16:53
>> >
>> 
>> >
>> > Dear sir,
>> >
>> > In the HL2 group, i read your question.
>> >
>> >> I wonder if Zeus is cognate with Deayus/Devas, thw Avesta/Vedic
> name for
>> >> God or Almighty?
>> >> Ram
>> >
>> > Concerning your question about Zeus, may i refer to
>> > <
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/Z0012500.html> .
>> >
>> > In short, Zeus indeed is related to the Indo-Iranian forms you
> mentioned.
>> > Any perceived connection with Turkish or Turkic is -- and how can i
>> > say this in a polite way -- slightly delusional.
>> >
>> > I hope this helps a bit.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Neda
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ==============
>> 
>> > I wonder if Zeus is cognate with Deayus/Devas, thw Avesta/Vedic
> name for
>> > God or Almighty?
>> > Ram
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Concerning your question about Zeus, may i refer to
>> <
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/Z0012500.html> .
>> 
>> I must warn you, though, that the explanation in this article has
>> scientific relevance, quite an exception on this list.
>> 
>> Neda
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
>> 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> A service
>> of allingus Professional Language Solutions Co. - Istanbul
>> 
allingus@h...
>> 
>> 
>> ========
>> 
>> 
>> >From: "Neda" <
beijinhosbe@y...>
>> >To: 
Polat_Kaya-owner@yahoogroups.com
>> >Subject: [hrl_2] Re: Part-13: About the ancient Greek god's name
> "ZEUS".
>> >Date: Mard 26 avri 2005  09:54
>> >
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > For any real data on the name/word Zeus see:
>> > 
http://www.bartleby.com/61/25/Z0012500.html
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Neda
>> >
>> >