Re: [hrl_2] Kaya's Temporal Paradox: about "Paradox"
Dear Ari Akkermans and Shanti Light,
During these past few weeks there have been many postings from both of you in the [hrl_2] group. In one sense, I am glad that you show interest in my writings but unfortunately you are not dwelling on the words that I present. Rather you go off in a tangent and talk about things that are not immediately relevant to the subject. Worst of all the two of you display an air of insolence with your verbosity which is pure sophistry and not much different from a rhetorician who uses a bagful of words but in actuality says very little.
In your responses, while holding each other's hand, you two also seem to be playing the "yes-man" role to each other. After reading and rereading your postings I find that you have conveniently dodged all the Greek and IE words that I presented without offering a single comment. However irrespective of your word juggling capabilities, nothing you say will change the fact that Indo-European languages are artificially manufactured languages from Turkish and that the words of these languages have been abducted from Turkish and structured into "inflected" languages - so-called Indo-European and Semitic. You would not know this fact even if you had ten doctorate degrees in linguistics or any related field. You have only heard this fact for the first time from me.
Nevertheless I will respond to you where you need responding. But before I do that, I would like to refresh some short memories regarding the contribution of ancient Greeks. For example, I will give you once more what Will Durant writes:[Will Durant, "Our Oriental Heritage, Part-1, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, p. 116.]
"The "Aryans " did not establish civilization they took it from Babylonia and Egypt. Greece did not begin civilization- it inherited far more civilization than it began; it was the spoiled heir of three millenniums of arts and sciences brought to its cities from the near East by the fortunes of trade and war. In studying and honoring the Near East we shall be acknowledging a dept long due to the real founders of the European and American civilization."
This passage is very much along my views that I have been indicating in my writings. Not only did the Aryan Greeks not establish civilization, but the Greeks had nothing of their own as civilization and similarly for the Semitic Akkadians. The above passage states that they "inherited" three-thousand year old civilization but the concept of inheritance originates from father to son. The Turanian Sumerians were not the "fathers" to the Semitic Akkadians and the Turanian Ioneans (Ay-Hans) were not the "fathers" to the Aryan Greeks. Therefore these invading wanderers did not inherit, but rather, stole the much earlier civilization of Turanians which they then called as their own. The world has been conned by verbosity and propaganda into believing that civilization was started by the wandering Akkadians and Greeks. Now I am questioning what has been written about the ancient world and the biases built into those writings. Now is the time to question all of this distorted ancient history. Truth searching scholars should read these passages by Will Durant and some other writers carefully and without any bias to really understand who created civilization and who usurped that very ancient Turanian civilization. It should be distinctly understood that the term "inherited" used in the above citing is a kind word used to launder what really took place. For example when the Greek wanderers (arayans) invaded ancient IONIA (Tr. Ay-Han-Öyü or Yunanistan) presently called "Greece" - and the Semitic Akkadian wanderers invaded Sumeria (Kungur/ Güngör/Kiengir) and its surrounding areas, they were not "inheriting" what was there. They were forcefully and unlawfully taking over, looting and destroying the already established Turanian civilization. Ever since that invasion, the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk civilization has intentionally been suppressed and obliterated by ancient Greek and Semitic wanderers.
H. D. F. Kitto, a Professor of Greek at the University of Bristol (1962), in his book entitled "The Greeks" [H. D. F. Kitto, "The Greeks", Penguin Books, 1957, , p. 7-8.] also writes the following:
"The reader is asked, for the moment, to accept this as a reasonable statement of fact, that in part of the world that had for centuries been civilized, and quite highly civilized, there gradually emerged a people, not very numerous, not very powerful, not very well organized, who had a totally new conception of what human life was for. This statement will be amplified and, I hope, justified in what follows. We can begin the amplification now by observing that the Greeks themselves felt, in quite a simple and natural way, that they were different from any other people that they knew. At least, the Greeks of the classical period habitually divided the human family into Hellenes and barbarians. The pre-classical Greek, Homer for example, does not speak of 'barbarians' in this way; not because he was more polite than his descendants, but because this difference had not then fully declared itself. (Highlighting is by PK).
It was not , in fact, a matter of politeness at all. The Greek word "barbaros" does not mean "barbarian" in the modern sense; it is not a term of loathing or contempt; it does not mean people who live in caves and eat their meat raw. It means simply people who make noises like 'bar bar' instead of talking Greek. If you did not speak Greek you were a 'barbarian", whether you belonged to some wild Thracian tribe, or to one of the luxurious cities of the East, or to Egypt, which, as the Greeks well knew, had been a stable and civilized country many centuries before Greece existed. "Barbaros" did not necessarily imply contempt. Many Greeks admird the moral code of the persians and the wisdom of the Egyptians. The debt - material, intellectual and artistic - which the Greeks owed to the peoples of the East was rarely forgotten. Yet these people were "barbaroi", foreigners, and classed with (though not confused with) Thracians, Scythian and such. Only because they did not talk Greek? No; for the fact that they did not talk Greek was a sign of a profounder difference: it meant that they did not live Greek or think greek either. Their whole attitude to life seemed different; and a Greek, however much he might admire or even envy a "barbarian" for this reaon or that, could not but be aware of this difference.
We may note in passing that one other race (not counting ourselves) has made this sharp distinction between itself and all other foreigners, namely Hebrews. ......"
Polat Kaya: From above writing of Prof. Kitto, we understand that there was a very civilized and well established and much more ancient civilization of the native peoples before the "Greeks" or "Greece" ever existed. With that civilization is associated the names such as the Sumerians, Masarians, Thracians and Scythians. That ancient civilization was that of the Turanian Tur/Turk peoples contrary to denials and plays on words. It is curious that, Prof. Kitto calls the ancient Thracian peoples as "wild Thracians" and "Scythians" and classifies them as "barbaroi". One wonders how Prof. Kitto knew that those Thracians were "wild". Of course the name "THRAC" is nothing but the distorted form of the name TURUK or TURK which describes the Tur/Turk peoples. Thus the native peoples of the Balkans, including those who lived in the Aegean geography were TURUK (TURK, THRAC) peoples before the roaming people of Greeks (Roam, Rum) arrived in these places. Being bands of wanderers, they were, as Prof. Kitto puts it, not very numerous, not very powerful, not very well organized, yet they, together with the "Hebrews", implying the Jews, are portrayed as the civilization givers to the present Europe while the civilization of the native Turanians are not even mentioned. And, according to Prof. Kitto, somehow the language of those ancient civilized native peoples were "noise-like', that is, "bar bar" as compared to the speech of Greeks.
Yet in another location, such as the GENESIS: 11-1, it is said that: "Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words". Of course, that one language the world spoke was not Greek or Akkadian or any other Semitic language but Turanian Turkish. If that language was Greek or Semitic, not only would it not be confused or obliterated, but most certainly we would be told explicitly and over and over that that language was Greek or Semitic. But they confused that one language that the world spoke, because it was Turanian Turkish. Because it was the language of a world-wide religion and civilization. But the language of Greeks which probably started sometime in the 1st millennium B.C., was in fact a broken up version of that one language that the world spoke, which somehow sounded like noise and "bar bar" to the Greeks. Somehow in the distorted opinion of ancient Greeks and other Aryans and even modern "scholars", those who stole everything including the kitchen sink from the ancient native Turanians became the "front-runners" in civilizing the world, and those who actually gave civilization to the world (i.e., the Turanians) became the "barbaroi". Talk about an upside-down portrayal of reality as "history". What racism! Evidently the same racism by ancient Greeks against the Turanians has dragged its foot into the present day "scholarship". All this indicates that some people are very capable of selling lies as history.
Encyclopaedia Britannica World Languages Dictionary (1963, p. 1353) also refers to the ancient Turanians, that is, the Turkic speaking Tur/Turk peoples, although in the given definition somehow they cannot, most likely intentionally, say the name "Tur/Turk", as: "Turanian, Of or pertaining to a large family of agglutinative languages of Europe and northern Asia, neither Indo-European nor Semitic, specifically known as the Ural-Altaic languages, or any of the people who speak them. 1. One whose mother toungue is a Ural-Altaic language; a person of Ural-Altaic stock. 2. The Ural-Altaic languages collectively. 3. Theoretically, one of an unknown nomadic people who antedated the Aryans in Europe and Asia. [< Persian TURAN, a country north of the OXUS River."
Thus the ancient Turanians "antedated" the Aryans, that is, from Turkish "Arayan"(gezginci) meaning "the wanderer". TheLatin word "ANTE" in "ANTEDATE" is nothing but the Turkish word "ONTE" "ÖNDE" meaning "ahead, in front of, in the front, or ahead in time". Similarly, in the name Oxus River the word OXUS (> "OKSUS") is a distorted and Hellenized form of the Turkish word "OKUS SU" (OGUZ SU) meaning "Oguz Water (River)" which is a water body in ancient Turkistan.
These ancient Turanians, antedating the Aryans in Europe and Asia, in addition to the Tur/Turks of Central Asia, also included the Sumerians and Masarians, Anatolians, Caucasians, Minoans, Pelasgians, Thracians, Scythians, Hurrians, Mitannies, the Canaanites and the Medes of Iran and many more other Turkic speaking Turanians contrary to denials and plays on words of history writers. All of these Turkish (Turkic) speaking Turanian peoples believed in One Sky-Father-God, One Sun-God and One Moon-God all combined in one OGUZ religion. It must be noted that in Turkish, the word "BIR" means "one" and it represents the Sky God concept. This word "BIR" has readily been in the forms of "BER, BAR, PIR, PER, PAR", and even "PR" and other forms. For example in the Etruscan numeral system, "one" on the Etruscan "Tuscania Dice" has been shown as "PR" (PIR) which is the same as "BIR" in Turkish. And numeral "two" has been shown as "CI" (KI) which is the same as "IKI" ("two") in Turkish. These Etruscan numbers lining up perfectly with Turkish numbers 1 (bir) and 2 (iki) is very significant and should speak volumes to scholars.
After having noted this fact we can now turn to some of your other remarks.
Ari Akkermans wrote:
Shanti Light: "Written Turkish is not old enough tohave generated the influence you claim on all the indo-european andSemitic languages, and this is the strongest evidenceagainst you...
Polat Kaya: I have already responded to this remark. But the following citing is also relevant here. So there is no harm in repeating it once more. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge writes in his book entitled "Egyptian Language" written in 1910 in British Museum. [Reference source: Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "Egyptian Language", London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications Inc, Forteenth Impression, 1977, Introduction and Cover page.] and it states:
"The ancient Egyptians expressed their ideas in writing by means of a large number of picture signs, known as hieroglyphics. They began to use them for this purpose more than seven thousand years ago, and they were employed uninterruptedly until about 100 BC, that is to say, until nearly the end of the rule of the Ptolemies over Egypt. It is unlikely that the hieroglyphic system of writing was invented in Egypt, and evidence indicates that it was brought there by certain invaders who came from north-east or Central Asia; they settled down in the valley of the Nile, somewhere between Memphis on the north and Thebes on the south, and gradually established their civilization and religion in their new home. Little by little the writing spread to the north and to the south, until at length hieroglyphics were employed, for state purposes at least, from the coast of the Mediterranean to the most southern portion of the Island of Meroë, a tract of country over 2,000 miles long."
This says that there are evidences that "writing was invented in Central Asia" by the ancient Turanians who also migrated to the banks of the Nile river in North Africa and developed a fantastic civilization there. Hence those "certain invaders" were the Tur/Turk peoples of ancient Turan. And these ancient Masar (MISIR) peoples were Turkic speaking Tur/Turk peoples of Turan contrary to perpetrated disinformation. Of course these migrating Turanians brought their knowledge of pictorial writing with them wherever they went. There are thousands of Turkish "damgas" embellished on stones, that is, ancient symbols that Tur/Turk peoples have used for identifying themselves and their needs. They are the forerunners of pictorial and alphabetical writing systems.
All of this information that I provide above indicates that the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples were far earlier than the Indo-Europeans. Those who stole the words and the phrases of Turkish could not be expected to admit what they did. Thus Shanti Light's claim that "written Turkish is not old enough to have generated the influence you claim on all the indo-European and Semitic languages" is baseless and false.
By the way and for the information of all, Encyclopaedia Britannica (1963, V0l. 1, p. 665, Figure 3) refers to an ancient alphabet by the name "AZARBA'AL" among other so-called "North Semitic" alphabets. This name strikes me as very similar to the name of "AZARBAYCAN" Turks and their alphabet. One of the so-called "North Semitic" alphabets is shown to be the name of "AHIRAM" in the same list after the inscription written on the stone tomb of the Phoenician king so-called "AHIREM" or "HIRAM" (969 B.C). [See "Maria Eugenia Aubet's book entitled "The Phoenicians And The west", Cambridge University press, 1993, p. 270]. For the information of the linguists, this name AHIRAM or (HIRAM) is not "Semitic" but rather Turkish. When the name AHIRAM is rearranged as "AHA-IRM", it reveals itself as the Turkish expression "AHA IRAM" (AGA ERAM) meaning "I am Lord Man". For a Phoenician king this is a very appropriate title in Turkish.
Ari Akkermans: It is not only a matter of strongevidence, it is a matter of unrefutable and ratheraxiomatic evidence. I felt dubitous as in regard tothe Turko-Sumerian kingship which has been indeedestablished, yet that doesn't prove anything in thelinguistic ground. Leave asides modern theoreticallinguistics, for not even the simplest structural orcomparative-philological point can be excerpted.Specially without a thorough knowledge of Sumerian andother ancient Semitic languages.
Polat Kaya: First of all, it's Turko-Sumerian kinship, not "kingship". Secondly, I have given many unrefutable evidences regarding the Turkish and Sumerian kinship. Please read them with open eyes and open mind. I get the feeling that you have been affixed on a certain way of seeing history suitable for the purposes of only few groups who did not have much of their own to claim. In order to overcome that shortcoming, they had to take over, by devious means, the creations of others. A very well known example of it is the Turko-Sumerian BILGAMESH versus the altered name GILGAMESH. Even the name GILGAMESH has been further removed from its Turkic source of AGILGAMESH which is Turkish and also equivalent to the Turkish word BILGAMESH. Did you ever stop and think about that? Or does it not suit you to think so deep?
Your "modern theoretical linguistics" is nothing more than a lot of concoctions intended to confuse rather than to explain.
Shanti Light: Both Arri and I have made this point which I wouldlike to bring together here for clarity because no matter how muchyou agree or disagree with our other points you have to addressthis paradox before ANYONE can accept your theory as valid.Ari Akkermans: This doesn't even deserve discussion,we are already aware that no scientific linguisticscan spring from this paradoxical theory, that findsitself probably better suited for theologians andcultural historians than for contemporary linguists.
Polat Kaya: I will answer your "paradox" case below in this posting. What is amazing is that a stolen Turkish expression comes out from under it also. As I have shown on many occasions, in every attempt to understand a Greek or Latin or other Indo-European word, I find Turkish under it. And it is not modern Turkish as you mistakenly say, but rather that very old Turkish which is very similar to modern Turkish coming to the surface. Modern Turkish is simply a continuation of the old Turkish which maintains its agglutinative and monosyllabic nature to present times.
You keep comparing my sayings to "theology". It is very interesting to hear this from you. As everybody knows, it is not the Tur/Turks that brainwashed the minds of peoples with the "mythologies" of Aryan and Semitic writings. Are you implying now that they were all false? How come "theology" suddenly became an unreliable thing? Was it not Byble that was being used as reference to all things? Why are you talking so slippery now? It seems that your contemporary linguists will have a lot of new studying to do.
Shanti Light: The paradox reworded simplistically, practically asa sound-bite: How can Modern Turkish data be manipulated intoAncient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic?Ari Akkermans: This question doesn't have a pointeither, as I mentioned before is simply logical thatsuch a manipulation is theoretically impossiblebecause the amount of data to be handled exceedslimits beyond even modern calculation and could onlygenerate enthropy, which linguistically speaking is arather limited phenomenon understanding languageeither as a biological symptom or as a culturalreality.
Polat Kaya: Both of you are so shallow in
linguistics that it could be likened to wading in a childs' wading pool of
linguistics. You do not even know how to write plainly. You are scared
that people may understand your weakness and cut you down therefore you try to
dazzle others with verbosity and jargon. Speaking in bafflegab has become
a tradition to those on the weak side of a debate.
Shanti Light: (if you notice, we do not atall come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguisticsyet we come up with practically the same points in disproving yourtheory). Hey if you want to birth a theory you could start by namingthis: the Kaya's Temporal Paradox.
Polat Kaya: Now let us come to your "Kaya's Temporal Paradox" coinage. The proper name for it would be, "Kaya's Revelations" rather than "Kaya's Temporal Paradox". First of all, I assure you, there is nothing "temporal" about what I say. You may continue to fool yourself, that is your choice, but it will not get Greek or Latin or any other European and Semitic languages off the hook, that is, linguistically.
I have some more news for you. Listen and read carefully. Let us now examine the definition of the word "paradox" and its etymology. The term "PARADOX" is defined as follows:
1. Random House Dictionary of English Language, (1967, p. 1046): "1. A statement or proposition seemingly self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expressing a possible truth. 2. An opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion. [from Latin "paradoxium" from Greek "paradoxon", unbelievable, literally, beyond what is thought. adj. paradoxical]. "
2. Britannica World Language Dictionary, (1963, p. 914): "1. A atatement, doctrine, or expression seemingly absurd or contradictory to common notions or to what would naturally be believed, but in fact really true. 2. A statement essentially absurd and false. See synonyms under RIDDLE."
3. The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, (1971, p. 977): "1. A statement seemingly absurd or contradictory, yet in fact true. 2. A statement essentially self-contradictory, false, or absurd."
4. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (1947, p. 718): "1. A tenet contrary to received opinion; also, an assertion or sentiment, seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense, but that yet may be true in fact. 2. A statement actually self-contradictory or false."
Thus from all of these definitions the first one states the "TRUE" aspect of the stated doctrine. Only second definition talks about the false aspect of the statement. Thus what may seem "unbelievable" to you can actually be a fact, which is the case ofKaya's Revelations. Additionally, these definitions are attributing two contrary meanings to the same word - therefore the definition itself is a paradox. This gives cinics like yourself the opportunity to make false attacks.
A similar historical case was that which involved the great man Galileo Galilei. condemned by Roman inquisition. Even he had his "paradox" which the so-called "intellectual scholars" of the time could not stomach and therefore were making fun of his ideas. They almost killed him. It turned out that those who laughed at him became the laughable ones themselves. Make sure that you two do not fall into that category.
The Greek word for "paradox" is given as PARADOKSOLOGIA meaning "telling strange things, strange talk, paradox". [Divry's Greek - English Dictionary, p. 628].
When this Greek word is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KARIP-AGOSLODO-A" and read phonetically as in Turkish, it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "KARIP AGUZLUDU O" (GARIP AGUZLUDU O) meaning "he/she is with strange talk", "He/she talks of things which are contrary to known opinions". The Turkish word "GARIP" means "strange" and "AGUZLUDU" means "with words" or "with speech" or "with sayings". Thus even this so called "Greek" wordPARADOKSOLOGIA has its origin in a Turkish expression. Evidently the word is another stolen one from Turkish otherwise there would be no such exact correspondence. This is the clear evidence showing that someone or some special cabal group had their hands in the Turkish-language cookie jar and they did not know when to stop eating the free cookies.
Similarly the Latin word "PARDOXIUM" (> PARADOKSIUM), when rearranged letter-by-letter as "KARIP-AUSDOM" and read phonetically as in Turkish, is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "KARIP AUSDUM" (GARIP AGUZDUM) meaning "I am strange talk" or "I am strange sayings". In these Turkish expressions, Turkish word "GARIP" (KARIP) means "strange and "AGUZ means "talk, word, mouth, speech". Thus this Latin word too was also made up from the Turkish language.
Although this is what is understood from this definition of "paradox", the etymology given is not truthful.
Similarly the English term PARADOXICAL, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "KARIP -AKOSLAD", is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "GARIP AGUZLUDU" meaning "he/she is with strange sayings" which is the definition of this word.
As for Shanti Light's saying that "we do not at all come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguistics yet we come upwith practically the same points in disproving your theory)" I say I get the feeling that you two have quite a few things in common, coming from the similar or same backgound and most likely you know each other well. Additionally, both of you prefer deceptiveness rather than scholarly debate.
I think our disagreement of chomskian syntax/cultureas a biological symptom vs. crosscultural-contactsyntax/culture qua culture as a phenomenon havenothing to do with this funny paradox. Any thinker oflanguage from any school could discern the lack ofground in Kaya's theory that doesn't address anylinguistic issues but from the orthography and thelexicon, which leaves a lot be to imagined.
Polat Kaya: Again, I go back to what I said earlier, that is, what you have written here is a bagful of verbosity and jargon - but it is an empty bag. You are not truthful in what you are saying and you know it - but you are bluffing hoping that I will be impressed by what you say. I am not impressed. And calling a "paradox " funny is not a scientific comment. It is just a gobbledegook comment from someone who has nothing worthwhile to contribute, and therefore starts bad-mouthing .
Please see my posting to Shanti dated 10/26/2005 where I defined for you the term "orthograpy' and I showed that it was also stolen from Turkish. You seem to forget so soon that revelation. Here I give you that definition again.
When the word ORTHOGRAPHY is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TOGRY-HARPH-O" (where the bogus letter Y=U) and read phonetically as in Turkish, we find that it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "DOGRU HARF O" meaning "it is correct letter" or "it is correct lettering or spelling" which is exactly the same as the definition given for the term "orthography". Turkish words "DOGRU" means as given above, "HARPH" (HARF) means "letter" and "O"means "it is". It must be noted that the Turkish letter "F" has been disguised as "PH" which is the Greek letter "FI".
When you do not ignore these Turkish expressions deceptively encrypted as "Greek" words into Greek, not only does your "Greek" foundation fall apart, but also your "linguistics" falls apart. Orthography and lexicon are the backbones of linguistics. If they are taken away from language study, your "phonological" evidences would amount to nothing.
Shanti Light:Ps. Something I have been itching tosay > maybe Arrihas too? You keep talking about us scientific linguistsscratching the surface of languages whereas you have `delved deep into thelanguages':What you are doing is not digging anything, what youdo is re-arrange the surface forms without giving anyconsideration at all of the underlying forms/UG/principlesparameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing constraints/ anything at all!Fiddling with the orthography will not dig into the linguisticstructures at any level at all...
Polat Kaya to Shanti: Your "underlying
forms/UG/principles parameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing
constraints" etc., etc. are mostly new "gobbledegook"
designed to cloud and bury the actual foundation on which the present
linguistics sits upon. It is that actual foundation that I have
discovered and shared with everyone. What you are doing is ignoring the deep and damning evidences that
I keep giving.
Ari Akkermans: That is precisely my main argumentagainst Kaya. The so-called theory is everything butscientifically linguisitic. I must confess to be arelatively lenient linguist when it comes to scientismwhich I tend to reject, but Kaya's theory doesn't evenaddress the simples structural issue. Last but not least I must declare this to be my lastmessage in this thread from which I choose to withdrawnot because I am not a qualified linguist or becauseI'm unable to rebuke Kaya's arguments but simplybecause no evidence of linguistic scholarship has beenproduced by the argument and it is not my interest todiscuss history qua ethnos, which is an interestingsubject, but not so strictly linguistic. Kind regards
Polat Kaya: You know very well that you are skating on thin ice but that thin ice will not support you and your linguistics for long. You can be assured of an eventual dunking for the present thinking in the established linguistics. In this response to the both of you, as with every response of mine, I have provided more evidence than the two of you can grasp. As debaters, both of you have a bagful of verbosity that makes a lot of noise but at the end says nothing. If anybody is unscientific in this debate, it is the two of you. Your refuting my revelations is as unscientific as it is a whitewash trying to cover up an ongoing embezzlement of Turkish. In the end, however, it will not matter how energetically you play the sophistry game, it will not work.
My best wishes to you and to all,