Re: [hrl_2] Turkish and Greek ???
Reader Ari Akkermans wrote a rather irate posting in response to my response to Shanti. I will respond to Ari Ackermans posting inline.
Ari Akkermans wrote: "Oh please... I really hope this is a joke."
Polat Kaya: It most certainly is not a joke. What I write is very serious and I mean what I say. No jokes here.
Ari Akkermans wrote: "Have you ever heard about Uralo-Altaic languages?"
Polat Kaya: Yes I know the name Uralo-Altaic and I know what it means. It refers to the Turkish related languages of Central Asia. I also know that it used to be called TURANIAN before it was changed. One wonders why the name TURANIAN was changed to Uralo-Altaic? It is like changing the name "BALKAN" to "South Eastern Europe". The game that is being played here is to remove all references to the names "Tur", "Turan" or "Turk". In other words, change anything Turkish and Turanian into anything else but Turkic. The "Indo-European" it is the better it is.
Ari Akkermans wrote: "You are claming that Turkish is then the mother language of all of the Semito-European languages? Do you know that Greek (not in its actual form though) may be probably one of the oldest languages in the world going back in history at least 3000 thousand years in its actual form and 4000 years more in previous forms?."
Polat Kaya: Yes indeed I am claiming that Turkish is the "father" language for the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages. Before there was a Greek language, starting some 3000 years ago, there was the Turkish language which was thousands of years older than "Greek". Before there was a Semitic "Akkadian" language, there was the Turko-Sumerian language which was thousands of years older than "Akkadian" contrary to denials and misinformations.
Ari Akkermans wrote: "Your theories on vowel harmony and others are based on pure folk ethymology devoid of any scientific base."
Polat Kaya: First of all, I don't have a theory about vowel harmony and others - as Ari puts it. If Ari Akkermans is referring to the vowel harmony of the Turkish language, that is an already established fact. And regarding his classifying my work as "pure folk ethymology", his comment is intentional distraction by way of sophistry. It indicates that either he did not understand what I wrote so clearly, or, he has a secret agenda to divert the discussion - probably the latter. I can assure Ari that my work is based on scientific methodology, a clear understanding of the Greek alphabet and keen detective work. All of my papers in this forum are as a direct result of my discovering that the Indo-European and the Semitic languages are fabricated languages made up from the much older Turkish language. The evidence I presented in this forum so far is damning to say the least and it validates my discovery. I can understand how my revelation of this fact is not to Ari Akkermans's liking but I am merely sharing my discovery with all.
Ari Akkermans wrote: "I will refrain myself to comment anymore."
Polat Kaya: Please don't hold back. Speak freely and sincerely - but not with sophistry!
Ari Akkermans also wrote: "Have you heard about the Anatolian theory? Oh yeah there's an Anatolian Theory, but it isn't Turkish what they mean but Proto-Hittite."
Polat Kaya: Yes, I am aware of the "Anatolian Theory" that you mention. Not only do I not believe its validity, but I also think that it is as false as the "Indo-European" theory itself. According to this theory, the IE languages are descended from the languages of the ancient Anatolian farmers but it is not the way that they presented it. Ancient Anatolians were always Turanian and Turkic speaking peoples contrary to all the disinformation fed to the public. I will write more about the "Anatolian Theory" in a separate article. In the meantime Ari Akkermans should read my article at URL:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/287 . It talks about the Anatolian prehistory being Turanian. By the way even the name HITTITE is a concocted one which has nothing to do with "Indo-European". The name HITTITE is the restructured form of the expression "HATTI- ITE" (HATTI IDI) meaning "it was Hatti". HATTI was the name of the people before the name of HITTITE was applied to them, and the suffix "ITE" is nothing but the distorted form of Turkish suffix "ITI, IDI" meaning "it was". Proto-Hittite means people before the so-called "Hittite" people. Hattians were the proto-Hittite people and were Turkic speaking Tur/Turk peoples of Turan. So were the so-called "HITTITES".
"Ari Ackermans" has used the term "theory" in his above irate posting. The word "theory" is also related to the term"theorem". For "Ari Ackermans" information, I will now revisit and explain the source of the supposedly Greek words "theorem" and "theory".
Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1947) defines "theorem" as follows:
"A general statement that has been proved or whose truth has been conjectured. [ from Greek "theorema" a sight, theory, theorem, from "theorein" to look at]."
The term "theorem" has nothing to do with the term "seeing" or "sighting". Theorem is a "statement, a saying", that is, an "expression" of a fact, a statement of a new insight about a concept, and it is from the Turkish word "TIYOREM" (DIYORUM, DIYEREM) meaning "I say", "I state". In Turkish when one is making a statement, say, for example, of a mathematical fact, the term "DIYORUM" (tiyorum, deyirem, teyirem) is used ahead of the fact being discussed. Similarly when the term THEORY is rearranged as "THYER-O" where Greek H=I, it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "TIYER O" ("DIYOR O", "O DIYOR") meaning "he/she/it says", "he/she/it states". Thus the source for these supposedly "Greek words" is from Turkish - not Greek. For example: the Turkish expression "diyorum ki: eger A=B, and B=C, o halde A=C or C=A". Translating this into English, we get: "I say that: if A=B, and B=C, then A=C or C=A". Now this is a statement of a "theorem" or "theory". Thus the Turkish word "diyorum" and the English word "theorem" and its predecessor in Greek are one and the same except that the latter is Europeanized. In this case, it is the ancient Azerbaijany dialect of Turkish, that is, "DIYEREM" (TIYEREM) that has been usurped and used.
This should help to set the record straight.
Best wishes to all,
Ari Akkermans wrote:
Oh please... I really hope this is a joke. Have you ever heard about Uralo-Altaic languages? You are claming that Turkish is then the mother language of all of the Semito-European languages? Do you know that Greek (not in its actual form though) may be probably one of the oldest languages in the world going back in history at least 3000 thousand years in its actual form and 4000 years more in previous forms?. Your theories on vowel harmony and others are based on pure folk ethymology devoid of any scientific base.
I will refrain myself to comment anymore. Have you heard about the Anatolian theory? Oh yeah there's an Anatolian Theory, but it isn't Turkish what they mean but Proto-Hittite.
Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:
Dear Shanti and friends,
Thank you for writing your view, but I think you have misunderstood what
I am saying. Yes the external visuals and sound of the Greek language
places it into the "Indo-European" (IE) languages group and yes Greek is
very different from Turkish in its structure but all of this is due to
just what is seen and heard on the surface. When one digs deeper, as I
have, into the labyrinthine structure of Greek, there is another
substrata there that is not Greek at all but rather is pure Turkish.
I never said that "Greek is a dialect of Turkish". What I have been
saying all along is that Greek and the other so-called "Indo-European"
languages are artificially manufactured from Turkish. In other words,
Turkish is the source language for these languages although this fact
has been kept completely secret - until I discovered it. Although the
source material for IE words is Turkish words and phrases, they are
restructured totally differently from Turkish. In the process of
restructuring, the manufactured product has been structured by design so
that the Turkic identity of the source is lost and therefore not visible
anymore. The resultant languages are obviously not a dialect of Turkish
but, nevertheless, are made up from Turkish. Now these are two totally
different concepts altogether.
The "dialect" of a language is essentially the same as the mother
language but with some local variations. Some words and/or phrases may
be voiced somewhat differently. For example, there are the Turkish
words "TAShLI" meaning "with stone or stony" and "TAShLIK" meaning
"place with stones". Both of these are derived from the Turkish word
"TASh" meaning "stone". However if someone says "TOShLI" or "TEShLI" or
"TIShLI" instead of "TAShLI", then in this case, "TOShLI" or "TEShLI" or
"TIShLI" would be a "dialect" of the Turkish word "TAShLI". Similarly,
"TOShLIK" or "TEShLIK" or "TIShLIK" would be dialects with respect to
"TAShLIK". In these words, the Turkish suffix "-LI" means "with" and
"-LIK" means "place with". The letters Sh is used here to represent
Turkish sound "SH" as represented in English.
However, if someone takes the Turkish word "TAShLI" or "TOShLI" or
"TEShLI" or "TIShLI" and restructures it into the form of , say,
"LITHOS" and tells everyone that it means "stone", or rearranges the
word TAShLIK or its variations into "LITHIKOS" meaning "of stone", then
we have a totally different situation in our hands. As can be seen, in
this case not only was the structure of the original Turkish source word
changed but also its meaning was somewhat altered . This concept of
intentional restructuring and disguising the words or phrases of one
language into a new, structurally different format, unrelated to the
original language, is not the same as the concept of "dialect" although
the source is one and the same in both cases. They are definetely two
With this comparative explanation in mind, please note that "LITHOS" is
the Greek word meaning "stone" and "LITHIKOS" is the Greek word meaning
"of stone" and both are from Turkish "TASHLI" and "TASHLIK"
respectively. In these Greek words the letters "TH" is represented with
a symbol called "theta" which has a totally different form as compared
to TH. Thus this Greek symbol further alienates the newly formed Greek
words from its Turkish source by breaking the visiual connection with
the source word or phrase used in making up these words. The Greek
alphabet is full of these kinds of symbols which have more than one hat
to wear. In this forum, I have given the discussion of hundreds of Greek
words that have been made up in this manner from Turkish.
Please also note that the Greek words LITHOS and LITHIKOS cannot be
regarded as dialectal words of Turkish although they are made up from
Turkish. Curiously, "Greek" LITHOS which is made up from Turkish TASHLI
and TASH gets to be integrated into many other words such as the English
words LITHIC, LITHOGRAPHY, NEOLITHIC, MONOLITHIC, PALEOLITHIC and many
more. Yet, conveniently for the IE languages, there is no mention of
Turkish anywhere as the source. This is a very subtle way of plagiarism
Thus by way of this kind of restructuring from the model language
Turkish, one can come up with many different languages without giving
reference to the original Turkish source. Evidently this is a very
simple yet very important linguistic trick that has been used in the
manufacturing of the so-called "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages.
Additionally you said:
"Greek having no vowel harmony contrasts against Turkish which in this
respect is more similar to finnish than to Greek..."
Greek does not have a "vowel harmony" because it has intentionally
broken all that vowel harmony that existed in the Turkish source
material. Restructuring Turkish words and phrases into new inflected
forms does not leave behind any "vowel harmony". This is so because the
original Turkish source has been all intentionally broken up and
restructured so that the final product does not resemble Turkish. The
concept of "broken-ness" is expressed by the word "KIRIK" or "GIRIK" in
Turkish. The name "GREEK" is very much from this Turkish word indicating
that the "GREEK" language is a broken up, that is, "GEREK" (GIRIK)
language from a different source, i.e., Turkish. Note that even the
English word "CRACK" is also a rearrangement of Turkish "KIRIK" with the
drop of a vowel and insertion of an additional "C". These are not
coincidences but rather due to intentional "restructuring" by linguists
who knew Turkish and the technique of anagrammatizing very well.
"Apart from a long extended cultural shared heritage and lots of
borrowings and expressions and stuff like that, Greek and Turkish
cannot be seen at all as dialects of each other... that is simply
ignoring the evidence above..."
Even here we need to bring some clarification to the matter: If, for
example, the Greek language had taken Turkish words "TAShLI" and
"TAShLIK" and kept them as they were in Turkish, that would have been a
case of "borrowing". But they did not do that. Instead they
deceptively restructured these Turkish words into "LITHOS" and
"LITHIKOS" which involves a process totally different from simple
"borrowing". In other words they intentionally changed the appearance
of what they took and then called it "Greek". Please note that
"borrowing something" and "taking something without permission and then
repainting (restructuring) it so that the owner does not recognize it
anymore" are two different concepts.
I hope this will clear up the misunderstanding.
Best wishes to you and to all,
>As far as I'm aware Turkish and Greek are definitely not dialects of a
>single "Turkic" language. Greek is Hellenic and belongs to its own
>part of the Indo-European family whereas Turkish is part of the Turkic
>group of the Altaic family. The two language families are very
>dissimilar and this shows in the huge differences in the linguistic
>principles and parameters... I speak neither Greek nor Turkish but
>there are enough differences in all aspects of their language systems
>that disprove any link *beyond the thousands of years of borrowing and
>language contact* (this we must remember rarely affects the core grammar)
>WORD ORDER: Greek: SVO, VSO (alternants) Turkish: SOV
>this makes for very different syntax and would certainly not be
>considered a simple dialectical variation! Turkish has a word order
>that is more similar to Japanese than Greek.
>MORPHOLOGY: Greek: Fusional Turkish: Agglutinative (famously so)
>these two kinds of morphology are quite different in principle, so
>they are more similar to each other than they each are to chinese the
>type of morphologies are so different that Turkish is more like
>Swahili in morphological type than it is to Greek.
>Phonology: *vowel harmony Greek: No Turkish: Yes
>Turkish has 8 vowels that are in a completely productive vowel
>harmony, Greek has 5 or 6 vowels depending who's counting and
>certainly does not have a whisper of any vowel harmony, unlike all the
>other Turkic languages and Altaic languages generally...
>Greek having no vowel harmony contrasts against Turkish which in this
>respect is more similar to finnish than to Greek...
>Apart from a long extended cultural shared heritage and lots of
>borrowings and expressions and stuff like that, Greek and Turkish
>cannot be seen at all as dialects of each other... that is simply
>ignoring the evidence above...