Re: [hrl_2] Kaya's Temporal Paradox: about "Phonology"
Dear Shanti Light and Ari Akkermans,
My response is inline with your posting.
In dialog with Shanti Light, Ari Akkermans wrote:
Arri Akkermans: "I am anxiously waiting for phonologicalproof (historically, that is) that the words came fromModern Turkish into Ancient Greek and not the otherway around.
a) Ari Akkermans is either intentionally distorting or does not understand what I say. I never said that "the words came from Modern Turkish into Ancient Greek". Such a twist of my words is misperception or deliberate misrepresentation, and in either case it is not scholarly on his part.
b) Ari Akkermans insisting on the "phonological" proof as if he knows the true nature of the word "phonology" other than it being defined as "the science of the speech sounds" is again nothing but the muddying up of the waters. Phonology in this context is mostly the study and understanding of the formation of mouth in order to produce different sounds.
The voice or sound generating mouth is a naturally built "wind instrument"(wind pipe system) that can generate sounds such as the "vowels" and consonants used in speech, and also musical tones used in singing , etc.. One of the most important features of this sound system is "blowing" the inhaled air through this pipe, just like blowing air into a flute or any other "wind instruments" (nefesli sazlar) to produce sound. Sound (Turkish "SES"), when modulated in the mouth cavity, becomes the "words" (Turkish "SÖZ"), and when it is sung then it becomes singing, that is, Turkish "SAZ". The blowing of air through the mouth is expressed by the word "ÜFLEMEK" in Turkish. For example, the air can be blown through the lips in such a manner that the produced sound is a "whistle" (Turkish "ISLIK" (ISLIH)) or in a such way that it becomes any one of the endless number of words.
Incidently, even the English word "WHISTLE" in which the bogus letter W really = UU (thus making the word "UUHISTLE"), when rearranged letter-by-letter as "ESLIHTU-U", reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ISLIHTU U" (ISLIKTI O) meaning "it is whistle". Therefore this is another stolen word from Turkish.
Sound production by the mouth is more culture dependent than anything else. If a Greek born child goes to school say in a Turkish speaking community, he/she learns to speak Turkish perfectly well. Similarly if he/she goes to a Greek school where Greek speaking teachers do the teaching, then he/she speaks that language very well and readily. But in the latter case, for example, all the Turkish "Sh" sounds are converted to "S". Thus he/she speaks Greek the way that it is taught to him/her.
The artists who play all kinds of stage personalities in plays are taught to speak a given language in various ways as the requirements of the play may be. It all depends how one forms his mouth cavity to say any word in anyway one wants to. Eliza Dolittle the London street flower girl in My Fair Lady speaks in the "cockney" dialect of English as spoken in the streets of London. However, after going through vigourous training she becomes a perfect speaker of English and becomes an acceptable society girl. Thus "phonology" cannot be a dependable criteria because it is culture based. Many people get along well with a given language even if they speak the language with an accent. Particularly, if the communication is on paper, then one does not care about the "phonology".
Thus the so-called "phonological changes" is nothing but skillful "artistry", i.e., a pretention that becomes a base for a language. Thus phonology depends on how one forms his/her mouth cavity to say any word anyway one wants. Such culturally motivated training is the main factor in phonology. Hence "phonology" cannot be a reliable "critera" in comparisons of languages. Hence Ari Akkermans requirement of "phonological evidence" is nothing but hot air criteria based on deceptive and/or false reasoning on his part. I do not need to provide anything of the kind to serve his falsehood.
Here it must also be said that neither Ari Akkermans or Shanti Light or Neda can have their cake and eat it too. When they try to relate the so-called "Indo-European" languages to each other they go after the "words" themselves, but no "phonology of words", etc. is required, but when I show a different path indicating the true nature of what has taken place, then the rules of the games are suddenly changed and phonological evidence is required. It is like asking for an audio or video casette recording of the Greek words from ancient Greek times. It seems that the sophistry played by Ari Akkermans and his co-defendants have no boundary. Evidently sophistry is an effective way used to con the peoples of the world on any subject.
Without the words themselves, phonological studies amount to nothing. Only after knowing the structure of the word, and knowing the syllabic pronounciation of the alphabetic letters, that is , "a-be-ce-de", etc., can one say something about its sound system. Therefore "phonological changes" cannot be regarded as "criteria" for the identification of an ancient language. Particularly, if the words are presented only by their consonants alone, as is the case in the so-called "Semitic languages", then one can pronounce the word anyway they want. Of course this way of representation of the words is also part of the "confusion" trick that has been used since ancient times.
Since Ari Akkermans cannot accept the fact that all of these languages are artificially made up from Turkish, he is trying the easy way out, that is, to deflect away from this fact that shines like a star.
After having said this, I want to dwell on the subject of "phonology" further. Thus let us now go further into the depths of the Greek terms that supposedly form the basis for the term "phonology" and other related words.
PHONOLOGY is defined as "1. phonetics, phonemics, or both together. 2. The phonetic and phonemic system or the body of phonetic and phonemic facts of a language."(Random House Dictionary, p. 1083) . Science of speech sounds, including especially the history and theory of sound changes".
By another source PHONOLOGY is defined as "a. the science of speech sounds, including especially the history and theory of sound changes. b. That part of the grammar of a language which describes its sounds and sound changes; also the sound system of a language". [Webester's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 747].
Again by another Webster's Dictionary: "1. The science of speech sounds including especially the history of sound changes in a language or in two or more related languages. 2: the phonetics and phonemics of a language at a particular time." Supposedly the word "phonology" was first introduced in the year "1799". [Webester's ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1991, p. 884.]
Thus, according to the third reference, the concept of "phonology" was first introduced in year 1799, which is a recent phenomena as compared to the times of the "classical" times of the ancient Greeks. Therefore to ask for any "phonological evidence" is as ridicuolus as asking for the recording of the plays of Aeschylus in the stages of Athens. To ask for "phonological evidence" is a deceitful rhetoric on the part of Ari Akkermans and his collaborators. The identity of words are defined by their spelling. How they are voiced is the artistry of the "linguistic game". Evidently this game is being played as an additional blanket in order to either cover up the fact that the Indo-European and the Semitic languages were usurped from Turkish at all ages of their development, or, they don't know the truth about the makeup of the IE languages.
The Greek word PHWNOLOGIKOS is said to be the word corresponding to English word "phonologic, phonologically" [Divry's Dict. p. 235].
The word PHWNOLOGIKOS, where the bogus letter W really = UU in this case and the PH is an "F" sound, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "O-OGUS-UPHLONIK" and read as in Turkish, reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "O AGUZ UFLAMAK" (O AGUZ ÜFLEMEK) meaning "it is to blow out a word" or "it is to blow out of the mouth" or "it is to blow air through the mouth to make sounds" all of which describe the production of sounds via the mouth by way of blowing air through it.
It must be noted that there has been an M to N al phabeticshift in the formation of this Greek word which is an alteration and disguising trick that is used frequently in the anagrammatizing of Turkish into IE languages. In fact "N" is a double agent letter in many of the Greek words that start with "PHWNO-" prefix. This Turkish expression "AGIZ UFLAMAK" is like the Turkish saying "NEY ÜFLEMEK" (kaval üflemek) meaning "blowing the flute". From the root of this Turkish verb "ÜFLEMEK" comes the old Turkish word "ÜFÜ" (nefes alip verme, ses etme) meaning "blowing, breathing, sound making".
Alternatively, when the word PHWNOLOGIKOS is rearranged letter-by-letter as "UPHUNOK-OLGUSI" or "UPHUKON-OLGUSI", it reveals itself to be made up from Turkish "UFUNUK OLGUSU" or "ÜFÜKAN OLGUSU" (SES OLGUSU)respectively meaning "making of sound", "formation of sound" which again explains the meaning of the Greek word. It must be noted that these Turkish words (i.e., "UFUNUK" and "ÜFÜKAN") are like the widely used Turkish words OLANAK and OLAKAN (OLAGAN).
Similarly the English word PHONOLOGY, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "YPHLOGON-O", where the bogus letter Y is really a U, it reveals itself to be a form of the Turkish expression "UFLAGAN O" (ÜFLEYEN O) meaning "it is that which blows", "it is the breathing mouth" - which again describes the concept of PHONOLOGY.
Similarly if the word is rearranged letter-by-letter as "YPHLONOG-O", with an M to N shift, it reveals itself to be a form of the Turkish expression "UFLAMAK O" (ÜFLEMEK O) meaning "it is blowing from mouth".
Also the Greek word PHWNETIKOS is given as meaning "phonetic", and PHWNOLOGIKWS meaning "phonetically". [Divry's p. 235], hence they are also related to Turkish verb "üflemek". This we can see below.
The word PHWNETIKOS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "UPHUKEN-OSTI", reveals itself as a form of the Turkish expression "ÜFUKEN AGUSTI" (ÜFÜGEN / ÜFLEYEN AGUZTI) meaning "it is sound making mouth".
Similarly the word PHWNOLOGIKWS, meaning "phonetically", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "UPHULOKIN-OGUS U", is the restructured form of the Turkish expression "ÜFÜLEGEN AGUZ O" (ÜFLEYEN AGUZ O) meaning "it is air-blowing mouth" or "it is sound producing mouth".
The Greek word PHWNOLOGIKWS meaning "phonological", can also be deciphered letter-by-letter as "UPHUKIN-OLGUSU-O", where it reveals itself as the restructured form of the Turkish expression "ÜFÜKEN OLGUSU O" (SES OLGUSU O) meaning "it is the formation of sounds".
Thus the source for both the Greek and the English words are unquestionably Turkish in origin although they have been skillfully altered. No sophistry of "air blowing" by anyone will change this fact. Evidently somehow someone stole these Turkish words at some time and converted them into "Greek" and "English" words as they did with a countless number of other Turkish words and phrases.
In order to show you and all that I am not conning anyone, let me give you another Greek word for the verification of the fact that the Greek language has manufactured most of its words from Turkish words and expressions.
There is the Greek word PHWNIENTOLIKTOS meaning "ending in a vowel". [Divry's Greek-English Dictionary, p. 735]. It is curious that they should have such a word for such a concept because the so-called Greek word sounds more like a sentence than a word.
When this word PHWNIENTOLIKTOS is rearranged letter-by letter as "UNLITH-PITEN-OKUS-O" where the bogus letter H is an E in this case, it reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ÜNLITE PITEN AGUZ O" ("ÜNLIDE BITEN AGUZ O", "ÜNLIDE BITEN SÖZ O") meaning "it is the word that ends with a vowel". Surprize surprize! In this Greek usurpation of a Turkish expression, "ÜNLI" means "vowel", "-TE" is the dative suffix, "BITEN" means "that which ends", "AGUZ" means "word" and "O" means "it is". Any linguist of integrity and honesty will see that there is no way that one could get this kind of correspondence unless this Greek word was made up from Turkish. And of course no sophistry and/or verbosity by any "linguist" will change that fact.
For the time being and for the purpose of responding to Ari Akkermans and his co-workers, this will be sufficient. With all this, I have shown to all that the actual source of the Greek words starting with PHWNO- and supposedly forming the basis for the English word "phonology" - are all sourced from Turkish. There is no need to give a "date" attachement to these words as it is not a requirement for the sound producing aspect of the mouth.
After having noted this fact about the concept of "phonology", we can now turn to some of your other comments.
Shanti says that:
"Shanti Light: "Written Turkish is not old enough to have generated the influence you claim on all the indo-european and Semitic languages, and this is the strongest evidence against you... "
Polat Kaya: On the contrary this is a misconception and disinformation that has been perpetrated by the propagandists of the groups whose aim in life has been "anti-Oguz" (Anti-Turk) since ancient times. It should be remembered that, after the military expedition of Alexander the Great, there was at least thirteen Greek kings in history that used the title of"ANTIOCHUS" meaning "anti Oguz", "Anti Tur", "Anti Turk". The word "ANTIOCHUS", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "OCUSH-ITAN" where the bogus letter C is a K and H is an I, reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "OGUZI ITAN" (OGUZU ITEN) meaning "he who rejects OGUZ". To this list of titles, one can add others with similar titles such as "ANTIGONUS" which is simply restructured from Turkish "GÜNESI ITEN" meaning "he who rejects the Sun". All of these titles express an ongoing antagonism against the ancient Turanian SUN religion. It is amazing that these ancient Greeks in one hand rejected OGUZ but in the other, they adopted this name in the name "ORTODOXUS". One wonders why there was so much anti-Turk and anti-Turanian sentiment among the Aryans and Semitic groups? Clearly the reason must be that it was the Turanians that gave the world a universal religon thousands of years before the Greeks and Semites ever attempted. In view of what has taken place in the past against the ancient Turanians, the present propaganda against the Tur/Turk peoples is not a new phenomena!
Contrary to what you may know which is pumped by the propaganda medium, the Turkish language is older than other languages both in "oral" form and also in "written" form. In fact one can go into the "written" form of a language only if the language is phonetically straight and agglutinative like Turkish. No "inflected" language would have been suitable for the invention of "writing". When you do not ignore the fact that Sumerian and ancient Masarian were forms of Turkish, then your claim that "Turkish is young" becomes false by itself. When there was "Turko-Sumerian there was no "Semitic". As I have said before, even the word "Semite" comes from Turkish word "ESMETI" meaning "it is blowing of wind". Similarly, the word "SEMITIC" is from "ESMECITI" meaning "it is pertaining to the wind" or "it is the practicer of wind-believing". These ancient Semitic people have taken this restructured Turkic word as an ethnic name for themselves because they were "wind-god" believers.
In the ancient world, tribes took on the name of the deity they believed in. For example the name HELLENE - as an ethnic identifier for the Greeks, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "ELLE-HEN", reveals itself as the restructured form of the Turkish expression "YELLI HAN" or "YEL-HAN" meaning "Wind Lord" (which is very similar to Sumerian "EN-LIL"- which is also from "YEL-HAN"). Greeks prefer to be called HELLENE. The name IONIANS (AY-HAN, YUNAN)for the pre-Greek people in that area, indicates that they were the "Moon Believers" . That is why the name has in it Turkish AY, disguised as "I", meaning "moon".
Note that both Turkish AY and GUN (KUN/KÜN/HUN) meaning "moon" and "sun" respectively are monosyllabic words coming to us from the very ancient past. Even the ancient Mayans in Central America used the word "KIN" (KUN) meaning "sun".
and"You take Modern Turkish words, change the order of the letters around until you get words that look like Modern Greek then you take these words and posit their manipulation from Modern Turkish into either Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic. Proto-Altaic would not have looked, or sounded ANYTHING like Turkish does today, therefore the manipulated word would not have beenmanipulated from Turkish at all... and it would not bear anysignificant correspondence with modern Turkish..
Polat Kaya: I have already pointed out to both of you that I do not use "modern Turkish" for my decipherment of Greek or any other Indo-European words. It is the Greek and the other Indo-European words that give away their secrets as I examine them. Of course, in analyzing these words I need to give the modern version of the Turkish expressions for the benefit of my Turkish readers also. Additionally "old Turkish" is not much different from modern Turkish. The claim that languages change over time is a false claim. A language would only change if someone intentionally changes it. The native peoples of the Americas spoke their language for thousands of years until the European missionaries came and obliterated their languages.
Both Arri and I have made this point which I would like to bring together here for clarity because no matter how much you agree or disagree with our other points you have to address this paradox before ANYONE can accept your theory as valid. The paradox reworded simplistically, practically as a sound-bite: How can Modern Turkish data be manipulated into Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic? This seems like a fantastic little temporal paradox which must be addressed before you even start addressing all Arri's and my comments on your theory (if you notice, we do not at all come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguistics yet we come up with practically the same points in disproving your theory). Hey if you want to birth a theory you could start by naming this: the Kaya's Temporal Paradox.
Polat Kaya: The only thing worth dwelling on in this paragraph of yours is the word "paradox" which I have reponded to separately. In closing, it is unfortunate that both of you are extremely shallow in science and scientific matters. To overcome that deficiency, you seem to be efficient in verbosity. However the latter talent of yours does not fill your deficiency.
Ps. Something I have been itching to say maybe Arri has too? You keep talking about us scientific linguists scratching the surface of languages whereas you have `delved deep into the languages':What you are doing is not digging anything, what you do is re-arrange the surface forms without giving any consideration at all of the underlying forms/UG/principles parameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing constraints/ anything at all! Fiddling with the orthography will not dig into the linguistic structures at any level at all... Shantixxx
Polat Kaya: Yes indeed, linguists have been guided by the established norms. The all-trusting students of linguistics are not in a position to challenge their teachers or superiors. You were not aware of what I am saying until I said it. What else could you have done except continue as you have been taught?
I have provided a lot of new insight in my writings regarding linguistics and the make up of the words of IE languages. These insights of mine do not appear by themselves. They only come to the surface and into the daylight after I dig and uncover them. I did it. You did not. Now you are opposing it. That is how we stand.
I also told you that even the term "ORTHOGRAPHY" was not IE in origin but rather in Turkish. If you are a linguist, you cannot ignore all these and hope that it will go away. You have to deal with them.
Best wishes to both of you and all,
Arri Akkermans: "I am anxiously waiting for phonologicalproof (historically, that is) that the words came fromModern Turkish into Ancient Greek and not the otherway around. Hasn't the Turkish language evolved at allever since the so-called Turko-Sumerian? If that's so,then I wonder how those "artificially made up"languages did evolve."Shanti Light: "Written Turkish is not old enough to have generated the influence you claim on all the indo-european and Semitic languages, and this is the strongest evidence against you... and"You take Modern Turkish words, change the order of the letters around until you get words that look like Modern Greek then you take these words and posit their manipulation from Modern Turkish into either Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic. Proto-Altaic would not have looked, or sounded ANYTHING like Turkish does today, therefore the manipulated word would not have beenmanipulated from Turkish at all... and it would not bear anysignificant correspondence with modern Turkish..."Both Arri and I have made this point which I would like to bring together here for clarity because no matter how much you agree or disagree with our other points you have to address this paradox before ANYONE can accept your theory as valid. The paradox reworded simplistically, practically as a sound-bite: How can Modern Turkish data be manipulated into Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic? This seems like a fantastic little temporal paradox which must be addressed before you even start addressing all Arri's and my comments on your theory (if you notice, we do not at all come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguistics yet we come up with practically the same points in disproving your theory). Hey if you want to birth a theory you could start by naming this: the Kaya's Temporal Paradox.Ps. Something I have been itching to say maybe Arri has too? You keep talking about us scientific linguists scratching the surface of languages whereas you have `delved deep into the languages':What you are doing is not digging anything, what you do is re-arrange the surface forms without giving any consideration at all of the underlying forms/UG/principles parameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing constraints/ anything at all! Fiddling with the orthography will not dig into the linguistic structures at any level at all... Shantixxx