Turkish speaking ancient Anatolian Farmers and the "Indo-European" languages.

Dear Friends,

Greetings to all. In this paper entitled "Turkish Speaking Ancient Anatolian Farmers and the "Indo-Europeans Languages", I will refer to and discuss one paper by Prof. Russel Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson. In one of our past communications with our friend Mr. Ari Akkermans, he was quick to put the question to me saying: 
"Have you heard about the Anatolian theory? Oh yeah there's an Anatolian Theory, but it isn't Turkish what they mean is but Proto-Hittite." By this he was saying that the name "Turkish" used in the paper was misleading, and not truthful. However I want to present a different view of the things regarding ancient Anatolian farmers in this paaper. Mr. Ari Akkermans was referring to a theory put forward by Dr. Colin Renfrew and also to a recent article written by Associate Professor Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson. The article was published in the British journal Nature and its misleading title as reported in the news read:"Indo-European languages traced to Turkish farmers".  

It seemed the mentioned theory was very much a case of using "science" for purposes other than science.  Evidently Mr. Ari Akkermans was quick to believe the so-called the Anatolian Theory. 

In our communications, I had replied to him saying that I was aware of that "theory" and I would write about it in a separate article. In this posting I will do just that. 

Actually I was aware of this article since its publication in the Journal Nature.  Its news title was: "Indo-European languages traced to Turkish farmers". The news about it said: 

"Auckland University researchers have stunned academics around the world by tracing the origins of the English language to Turkish farmers. Using a novel approach to develop an Indo-European language tree, the researchers say they have evidence the roots of the English language go back about 9,000 years to Turkey. Associate Professor Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson  published their research in the British journal Nature and their findings  on the long debated origins of the language have quickly spread in news  headlines around the world."



This headline and the accompaniying "news" item requires a lot of washing with water and soap to get rid of the camouflage cloaking on it. Particularly when it tries to take English to a date as early as 9000 years ago to "Turkish farmers in Turkey". As usual there is again play on words. English, like all other so-called "Indo-European" and Semitic languages, is an artificially manufactured language from Turkish. It is Turkish that was ancient - not the recently manufactured language of English. The people who manufacturered English used the ancient Turkish language as a data base and restructured Turkish words and phrases into "English" words. In the case of English, this language engineering is a recent event not earlier than say 1,000 years but certainly not 9,000 years. The Babylonian Semites and early Aryan Greeks and Latins were the frontrunners of such language engineering from Turkish. English is a recent development very much along the development of Judeo-Christian religious concepts whose origins are also deep in the ancient Turanian Sky-God OGUZ religion. The founders of these recent religions first destroyed and secondly usurped many of the tenets of the ancient Turanian OGUZ religion to which they keep referring to as "Paganism", "Heathenism", "Shamanism", etc. in order to obliterate the name "OGUZ" and to deceptively portray this ancient Turanian Single God concept as a "primitive" religion.


Below is a copy of Russell Gray's writing as forwarded by Kamil Kartal.  On the same subject, another posting forwarded by Kamil Kartal should also be consulted.  It was forwarded by Kamil Kartal as:


Kamil KARTAL wrote:
> 
Russell Gray  writes: 
> 
> 1.  Phylogenetic analyses of linguistic evolution. Questions about
> human origins have an enduring fascination. Where did the Polynesians
> come from? How did Indo-European languages spread over Europe?
> Genetic and linguistic evidence provide vital clues to solving these
> mysteries of our past. Recently there have been huge advances in the
> computational methods used to make inferences from genetic data.
> Languages evolve in remarkably similar ways to biological species.
> They split into new languages, mutate, and sometimes go extinct.
> However, despite these parallels linguists have not commonly used the
> phylogenetic methods that have revolutionised evolutionary biology in
> the last twenty years. This project involves analysing linguistic
> data using the kind of methods evolutionary biologists have developed
> to investigate molecular evolution. We are developing novel
> statistical models of linguistic evolution and applying them to large
> Austronesian and Indo-European language data sets. The analyses will
> be used to test hypotheses about the settlement of the Pacific and
> the spread of Indo-European languages. By placing genetic and
> linguistic evidence in a common methodological framework we will be
> able to make more powerful inferences about our past.
> 
> NEW Gray, R.D. & Atkinson, Q.D. (2003). Language-tree divergence
> times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature,
> 426, 435-439. (pdf)

The news title alludes to the origin of the English language to "Turkish" farmers.

Yes the origin of English is actually in the Turkish language of the Turkish farmers of Anatolia but not the way that Russell D. Gray portrays. He implies that English, or for that matter other so-called "Indo-European" languages, existed some 9,000 years ago in Anatolia and spread from Anatolia to Europe. However, Indo-European languages did not exist than. What he reports is not only total fallacy but is sophistry as well. 

The paper by Russell D. Gray and Q. D. Atkinson using computer generated results implies an Anatolian origin of Indo-European languages. What is not clear is how the computer processing pinpointed the name  "Anatolia" as being the origin of the so-called "Indo-European languages". 

The alluded result is not well explained. They want us to believe that since a computer came up with a result indicating Anatolia as the place where "Indo-Europeans" started farming some 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, it should be credible. What they neglected to tell us was that their computer, most likely, was "instructed" to come up with that answer.  The title of their paper would have been much more accurate if it had referred to the Turkish language as the language spoken at the time of early farming by the native Tur/Turk Anatolians before the arrival of "Indo-Europeans" into Anatolia. Only then would the claim of the paper have some credibility and relevance. 

Aryan Indo-Europeans were wanderers before they settled anywhere - as the name ARYAN is from Turkish word "ARAYAN" meaning "wanderer" or "searcher" (note the drop of one vowel "A" after the letter "R"). The paper does not make any reference to the fact that the Indo-European languages were intentionally manufactured from the Turkish language of the native Anatolian Tur/Turk peoples at much later times.


In the paper reference is made to: 

> A rival theory, proposed by Dr. Colin Renfrew of the University of
> Cambridge, holds that the Indo-Europeans were the first farmers who
> lived in ancient Turkey and that their language expanded not by
> conquest but with the spread of agriculture some 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.


With due respect to Dr. Colin Renfrew, I disagree with his theory that the Indo-Europeans were the first farmers who lived in ancient Turkey and that their language expanded not by conquest but with the spread of agriculture some 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. This is just a conjecture or a misrepresentation and nothing can be further from the truth. As usual, there is game-playing with words going on. There was no Indo-European languages, let alone English, spoken in Anatolia earlier than 3000 years ago let alone the 10,000 to 8,000 years ago. When we consider the fact that all Indo-European languages were artificially engineered languages from Turkish at a much much later time, such a statement becomes incredible. 

It is most likely that Dr. Renfrew knows that the ancient Anatolians were Turanians and that their language was Turkish. He probably also knows the fact that the Turanians antedated the so-called Aryans (wanderers) both in Asia an Europe.  [1]  The Greek wanderers supposedly were the first Indo-Europeans who arrived in the area presently so-called "Greece" about the beginning of the second millennium B.C.  [2]. When they arrived, they already found that there was a flourishing civilization of Tur/Turk peoples all over Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Thracia, Europe, north Africa, and the Middle East. So they brought nothing with themselves except whatever the wanderers could carry with them. So about the years 10,000 to 8000 years ago there were no Indo-Europeans in Anatolia let alone the name "Europe". In actuality, the European "continent" is an artificially created one. The truth is that what is called "Europe" is really a continuation of the continent of Asia. The name "Europe" starts with a Greek mythological story and carries on to the present times. The natives of Anatolia were Turanian Turkic speaking Tur/Turk peoples and hence they were also the first Turkic farmers who initiated the farming in Anatolia. Thus his proposed theory is unconvincing. 

If these researchers are trying to tell us that the native peoples of Anatolia from eight to ten thousand years ago were so-called Indo-Europeans, they have to provide better evidence than what they get out of a "loaded" computer program. It should be remembered that what comes out of a computer is directly related to the input. Most likely, the name of "Anatolia" was part of the input parameters into the system and hence that is what conveniently came out. And the hidden message in their computer program’s result is that "Ancient Anatolia was an Indo-European land". Of course nothing could be further from the truth.

It is not clear how can a computer program distinguish among so many different geographical areas of the world that it was the Anatolian land that this so-called "Indo-European farmers" came from. How would the computer know that unless it was loaded so as input parameters? 

If the earliest Anatolian farmers were Greeks or any other Indo-European, the name of the grains that the earliest farmers cultivated in Anatolia and the Middle East would be in an Indo-European language.  But it is not so. 

For instance, "BARLEY" ("ARPA" in Turkish) was one of the grains that was cultivated by the ancient Anatolian Turkish farmers. I say "Turkish farmers" because "Anatolia" has always been "Turanian and Turkish speaking" long before the wandering Greeks ever arrived there. Greeks seem to be one of the earliest Aryans arrivals in the area. Two names are given in Greek related to the name of "barley".  KRITHI for "barley" and "KRASOPATERAS" for "barley-corn"  [3]. "Barley-corn is defined as "a grain of barley".   [4] It is unusual to relate "barley’ and ‘corn’ to each other, but nonetheless they have done it, most likely for camouflaging purposes. Now let us examine the second so-called "Greek" word KRASOPATERAS for its origin.

The name "KRASOPATERAS" is an anagrammatized word as is the case with most of the other Greek words if not all. When the word "KRASOPATERAS" is deciphered (rearranged) letter-by-letter as "OKESSA-ARPATR", and read phonetically as in Turkish, it is found to be a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "OKUSSA ARPATIR" (OGUZCA ARPADIR) meaning "In Oguz language it is ARPA". 

The word "OKUSCA" ("OGUZÇA") means "in OGUZ language’ which is another name for "TÜRKÇE" meaning "Turkish".  The linguists will know it as such.

Now this is most revealing.  This Greek name tells us that: a) there was a language in ancient times and its name was "OGUZÇA" which is another name for Turkish; b) the name of "barley’ in that language was "ARPA" which is exactly what it is in Turkish.  

The obvious question for the "linguists" is, how is this possible if Turkish did not exist at the time of "ancient Greeks"?  Is it my deciphering of this Greek word that is in "error" or did some clever linguist with loose hands incorporate this Turkish expression into a "Greek" looking and sounding word for themselves? Evidently, the word changer did not realize that while he was altering Turkish expressions into "Greek" he was also leaving his fingerprints behind. In his alteration process he also preserved the Turkish text that he was taking and disguising.  In other words they forgot to wipe away their fingerprints. Evidently the linguists have a lot to explain about this disturbing picture!!!

Additionally if we were to rearrange the word KRASOPATERAS letter-by-letter as "TOREKSSA-ARPA" (TORIKSE-ARPA), we find the Turkish expression "TURIKSE ARPA" (TÜRKÇE ARPA) meaning "in Turkish it is ARPA". This again verifies that Turkish word ARPA was the earliest. In other words, whichever way one deciphers this Greek word, the name OGUZ or TURKSA/TURKÇE/TORIKCE, together with the Turkish name "ARPA" for "barley", come out.  

The analysis of this "Greek" word "KRASOPATERAS" is most revealing. It shows that:

a)  The Greeks did not have a name of their own for "barley" at the time when they came to ancient Greece. Instead they constructed a name from an OGUZCA (Turkish) expression that described barley as "ARPA" in Turkish. 

Such linguistic deception by ancient Greeks and others has been embellished in many ways in the manufacturing of new Indo-European languages right to present times which has deceived the people of the world.

b) Additionally this Greek word also admits that there was another previous language whose name was "OKUSSA" (OKUSCA, OGUZCA) in which the name for "barley" was "ARPA". Of course, this other previous language "OKUSSA" was nothing but the language of "OGUZCA" which is another name for "TURKISH" language.  This verifies the fact that OGUZCA (TÜRKCE) was an earlier language and was the reference language.  It is no wonder then that Genesis 11:1 states there was one language the whole world spoke.  That unnamed language must have been the reference OGUZ language – by another name Turkish.

c)  In this anagram, embedded into the so-called "Greek" word  of KRASOPATERAS are also two Turkish suffixes. The Turkish phrase "OKUSSA ARPATER" (>"OKUS-SA ARPA-TER") is made of two Turkish nouns with two Turkish suffixes.  The nouns are: OGUZ (OKUS, OKUZ) and ARPA, and the suffixes are "SA/ÇA" and "TER/TIR/TUR". This indicates that the agglutinative nature of the Turkish language was already established a long time ago, and Turkish was a very advanced language of Anatolia at the time when Greeks were manufacturing a language for themselves from Turkish. Turkish was already a fully developed language both grammatically and vocabularily wise contrary to all misinformation under the curtain of "being scientific". 

d)  This is proof that the language of native Anatolian farmers was Turkish (Oguzca) rather than so-called "Indo-European", and that the Turanian Tur/Turk peoples of Anatolia used the word "ARPA" to describe this earliest developed and domesticated grain.  This ancient Turkish word has come down to present times.  It also indicates that farming was a Turanian Tur/Turk peoples' invention rather than the "Indo-Europeans". If "Indo-Europeans were in Anatolia some 8,000 – 10,000 years ago, Tur/Turk peoples must have been far earlier than the Indo-Europeans. 

e)  This ancient Turkish name "ARPA" in the Greek word for "barley" also indicates that the "Indo-European theory of Anatolia" by Dr. Colin Renfrew is incorrect. Dr. Colin Renfrew’s assuming that "indo-European" languages existed some 8,000 years ago in Anatolia is a fallacy. Evidently he is a victim of the misinformation campaign trying to artificially create an "ancient Indo-European languages" concept. 

f)  The plough was the instrument that was used in cultivating the fields for planting "barley" (arpa).  The Sumerian word for this instrument is given as "gis.APIN"   [5]   [6].  It is most enlightening to compare this word with the Turkish word SABAN (SAPAN) for plough. Linguists should readily see that the Sumerian and the Turkish words for "plough" are one and the same. I am of the opinion that when the Sumerian texts were read, the Sumerian word for "plough" was "SAPIN" (SAPAN), but it was presented to the world as "gis.APIN" meaning "wooden plough" in order to distance the Sumerian word from Turkish "SAPAN" (SABAN). 

Turkish "SABAN" (SAPAN) and Sumerian "gis.APIN", being two words for "plough", makes Turkish and Sumerian equally aged languages in time while leaving out of the picture the so-called "Indo-Europeans" languages until much later times. 

In view of these revelations deciphered from the Greek word "KRASOPATERAS", it would be much more accurate to say that "the native ancient language of Anatolian farmers was Turkish and much later Indo-European languages were artificially fabricated from Turkish of Anatolia."  Particularly, after the invasion of Anatolia by Alexander the Great, the ancient Turkish language of Anatolia was changed and converted into "Greek". 

It is curious to note that the Greek name THORICOS (TÜRÜK, TORIK, TURK) appears as one of the names of people settled along the coastal lands of Attica as shown on a map in the book called "A Concise History of Ancient Greece" by Peter Green.   [7]  The name "THORICOS" is the ancient hellenized way of saying "TÜRÜK" (TORIK) meaning "TURK". 

In addition to the name of "barley" (arpa), there are some other names that are also very revealing. For example, the term for "grass" in Greek is also a suspect as being from Turkish source.  The Greek term for "grass" is given as XORTAPI   [8]  

When this term XORTAPI, where Greek "X" represents "KH", is rearranged letter-by-letter as "IAPRHK-OT", it is the Turkish expression "YAPRAK OT" meaning "leaf grass" or "leaf plant".  Indeed "grass" is a plant which is made up of straight and thin leaves.  The Turkish term OT means "grass". Turkish "YAPRAK" is the name for "leaf" which comes in many shapes. So the Greek linguists combined Turkish words "OT" and "YAPRAK" and restructured them into the Greek word XORTAPI meaning "grass".

Even the English word "BARLEY", when deciphered letter-by-letter as "ARBELY", where Y=U, and read phonetically as in Turkish, is an anagram of Turkish expression "ARBALU" (ARPALI) meaning "with barley".  "Barley" (ARPA), probably being the first domesticated grain and being the most consumed and important human nourishment source, must have been and still is one of the most wanted grains in the world.  Therefore it has probably been in the human diet since the very early history of man. These linguistic evidences show that domestication of ARPA, and its plantation by way of "ploughing’ was a "TURANIAN" invention and its development was by Turkish speaking Tur/Turk peoples of the ancient world. 
 
Interesting discussions have been presented regaarding Anatolia in my posting:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/287


One of the earliest utilized wild plants in Anatolia must have been the wild "RYE".  The Greek word for "RYE" is given as "SIKALIS".  [9]  The Turkish name for this is given as: 

a) "ÇAVDAR", botanical name "SECALE CEREALE", 

b) "DELICE OTU" meaning "grass that makes one crazy", and  

c) "ÇAYIR OTU", botanical name "LOLIUM TEMULENTUM"   [10] 


Now let us examine some of these names.  

The word "CEREALE" when rearranged letter-by-letter as "CAERLEE" is a restructured form of the Turkish expression "ÇAYIRLI" meaning "from meadow". Indeed, all cereals are "from the meadow" (ÇAYIR ) including "RYE". 

The supposedly Latin word "TEMULENTUS" or "TEMULENTUM" is given to mean "drunken, tipsy"  [11]  The Latin word TEMULENTUM, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TELU-ETNUM-M", is the distorted form of Turkish expression "TELÜ ETENUM" (DELÜ EDENÜM) meaning "I make crazy" or "I cause delirium", "I cause drunkenness". 

It is no wonder that the "Latin" meaning of this word is "drunken or tipsy".  This is very interesting, because one name of "RYE" in Turkish is given as "DELICE" (item b) as I noted above, meaning "wild, crazy like, madly". So this botanical name of RYE in Latin has also been manufactured from Turkish "DELU" (TELU) meaning "crazy" and "EDENUM" meaning "I make".  The name must have been coined due to some chemical quality of this plant that when eaten gives the effect of drunkenness or tipsyness. Ancient Tur/Turks noted this and accordingly named the plant  "DELICE". 


The Latin name "LOLIUM" means "darnel" in English and it in turn means "DELICE OTU" or "KARAÇAYIR" in Turkish. Here again we find relatedness of "LOLIUM" and "DARNEL" to the  Turkish word "DELICE"  given as a name to this plant by Turkish farmers. 

In the latin name LOLIUM, if the first letter L was replaced by "D", the resulting word "DOLIUM" and Turkish word "DELIYUM" meaning "I am crazy" would very much have the same form and the same meaning. Turkish "DELICE", that is< "darnel" or "lolium" come from the Turkish word "DELI" meaning "crazy". 
 
The name "DARNEL", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "DELRAN" is from Turkish word "DELIREN" (DELIRTEN) meaning "crazy maker".  Again the meaning is along the meaning of the Turkish word "DELICE" given above.

The word "SIKALIS" or "SECALE" and the Turkish DELICE are very much related to each other.  Particularly when the letter "D" is downshifted to letter "C", and "C" is often vocalized as "S", the relation becomes even more obvious.  This shifting of letters up and down by one letter is called Ceasers’s encryption (one up or down shifting in encryption) and is commonly used in European encryption processes of Turkish words.

Similarly, the other botanical name "SECALE" is very much the same as the Greek name "SIKALIS".  If we were to change the first letter "S" in "SECALE" with the letter "D", we get the word "DECALE".  This word when rearranged as "DELECA" is again a distorted form of Turkish word "DELICE", that is, one Turkish name for "RYE".

Thus the "scientific term" "SECALE CEREALE" is in fact made up from the Turkish expression "ÇAYIRLI DELICE" or "DELICE ÇAYIR OTU".

There is also the Greek word SIKALIKOS for RYE.  This name seems to have been formulated from another Turkish word that describes a feature of grain plants such as barley, wheat and Rye.  These plants have thin arrow-like extensions that come out from ARPA and similar grains on stalk.  This thin extension is called "KILÇIK" in Turkish meaning "fishbone, fishspine" as in fish and botanically "awn" of wheat and barley,   [12]  English "awns of barle" means "arpa dikenleri", "arpa kilçiklari", "arpa sakali" in Turkish.  The rye plant also has awns. 

Thus the Greek word SIKALIKOS, when rearranged as "KILSIKSA-O" is the distorted form of the Turkish phrase "KILÇIKCA O" meaning "it is like fishbone", ‘it is awn".  

So all these correspondences cannot be found unless some clever European linguists manipulated these Turkish expressions into corresponding "words" of the so-called European languages.

All of these indicate that the names of these plants in Anatolia were originally in Turkish rather than Greek or any other "Indo-European" language.  There was no Greek or Indo-European languages while all were speaking a Turanian Turkish language. Thus the conclusions based on the computer analyses carried out by Associate Professor Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson are incorrect.  The same applies for the so-called theory of Dr. Colin Renfrew stating that "Indo-Europeans were the first farmers who lived in ancient Turkey and that their language expanded not by conquest but with the spread of agriculture some 10,000 to 8,000 years ago.".  

Additionally, this statement of Dr. Colin Renfrew implies that the language of the so-called Anatolian Indo-Europeans spread into Europe by "peaceful" means (i.e., "expanded not by conquest but with the spread of agriculture").  This is not true either because stealing words and phrases from the native Turanian language and then restructuring them into words for the so-called "Indo-European" languages is not a peaceful activity.  In fact, it was very intentional but hidden hostility towards the native Turanians of Anatolia.  On top of all this, agriculture was the invention of the Turanians – contrary to all the verbosity under the guise of science.


Furthermore and as a final note we should also investigate the words used for ploughing and the related concepts in Greek since "ploughing" is the essence of farming". The Greek words AROTRIASIS or AROTRIASEWS or AROTRIWSIS are given as words for "ploughing, tilling",  AROTRIASTES for "ploughman" and AROTRON for "plough, plow".  [13]

First I must note that the Greek symbol for letter "S" ending these Greek words is a very deceptive one: it is not like the normal letter S. It has a shape that can replace the sounds S, Sh, Ch and Z in Turkish source texts.  This is also the case in the following Greek words. 

The Greek word AROTRIASIS meaning "ploughing", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOR-ISITAR-A", is the restructured form of the Turkish expression "SÜR IShITIR O" (sürme ishitir o) meaning "it is the work of ploughing".  Türkish word "SÜR" from verb "sürmek" is the term used for "ploughing the fields" as in the Türkish expression "tarlalarin sürülmesi" meaning "the ploughing of the fields".  Thus we have an exact correspondence although the Greek word has been deliberately distorted and alienated.

AROTRIASEWS meaning "ploughing", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SORWE-ISATAR", is the restructured form of the Turkish expression "SÜRME IShITIR" meaning "it is work of ploughing". The Greek bogus letter W in this case replaces the Turkish letter M as the inverse of W is the letter M and vice versa.  Again we have an exact correspondence.

Similarly the Greek word AROTRIWSIS meaning "ploughing", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SORWA-ISITR" is again a restructured form of the Turkish expression "SÜRME IShITIR" meaning "it is work of ploughing".    

The Greek word AROTRIASTES meaning "ploughman", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SITSE-ARTAR-O", is the restructured and Hellenized form of the Turkish expression "ÇÜTCÜ ERTIR O" (ÇIFTCI ERDIR O) meaning "he is the ploughman", "he is the farmer".  Again we have an exact correspondence.

Finally the Greek word AROTRON meaning "plough, plow", uses a different concept in Turkish related to plough in coming up with the Greek word for "plough".  The "plough" as it is pulled by a pair of oxen and as guided by the ploughman, upturns the soil or turns the soil sideways. Thus a plough works as a device that turns the soil over. Now with this concept in mind, when the Greek word AROTRON meaning "plough" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TONAROR", it is found to be a restructured form of the Turkish expression "TÖNdERER" (DÖNdÜRER, DÖNdÜRÜR) meaning "it turns it over". The word is from the Turkish verb "döndürmek".  It is most likely that one of the letters D or T in the Turkish source text has been dropped for the purpose of disguising.  As noted again we have a correspondence.

It must be noted that the Greek linguist has avoided using the Turkish word "SABAN" (SAPAN) for "plough" and has utilized a different concept related to "plough" in Turkish to achieve the desired camouflage and alienation. 


We have a somewhat different situation in the case of Latin and Italian languages.  It is a known fact that the newly "ploughed" fields appear as if they have been "combed" with an iron-toothed comb that penetrates and upturns the soil. The side-by-side furrows that are left over by the plough, that is, the up-turned lines that are called "karik", "herik", or descriptively "sabanin actigi iz" in Turkish, that is, "furrow", appear as if they were the traces of a comb. In this context, a "plough" is a kind of "comb" that conceptually combs the surface of the field.  


With this context in mind, let us now examine the Latin words "ARATRUM" (plough), "ARATOR" (ploughman), "ARATIO" (ploughing, agriculture).  [14]

The Latin word ARATRUM meaning "plough", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TARARUM", is the rearranged form of Turkish "TARARUM" meaning "I comb", "I scan", that is, "I am a device like a comb". This is what a "plough" does in ploughing the fields.

Similarly the Latin word ARATOR meaning "ploughman" is from Turkish expression "TARAR O" meaning "he combs" which is what a "ploughman" does.  He "combs" (scans) the entire face of the field one furrow at a time thus leaving behind a "combed" look to the field. 

The Latin ARATIO for "ploughing" is from Turkish expression "TARAYI O" (tarayor o) again meaning "it combs".  

All these supposedly Indo-European farming terms are actually manufactured linguistically from the Turkish verb "taramak" meaning "to comb", "to scan" and hence their origins are in Turkish rather then "Indo-European" languages. This means that farming was originally a Turanian culture and the farming terminology was originally in Turkish. Turkish was not only the "model" (proto) language but it was the antedated language of them all not only in mainland Asia but also in Asia-Minor (Anatolia), Middle East, Europe and North Africa. These facts must be known to some European and Semitic linguists.

In view of all this, it can be said that the method used by Associate Professor Russell Gray and PhD student Quentin Atkinson to use a computer program to investigate things that evolve naturally and randomly may be a valid approach, but, using the same technique to investigate languages that are culture based and man made (i.e., artificially manufactured from another language) is not a valid approach. The investigated subject is already heavily loaded and distorted. Deriving from this computer study, the conclusion and the claim that Indo-Europeans were the first agriculturalists in Anatolia is misleading and fallacious. They overlook the fact that Indo-Europeans were wanderer groups who had no land of their own until they settled in smaller groups here and there on native Turanian land and started learning everything including agriculture from the much earlier settled Turanians.

After having said that, I want to restate once again that there were no "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages before - in Anatolia or anywhere else. There was one language that was spoken very widely in the world, as also reported in GENESIS 11:1, and that unnamed language was Turanian Turkish. The credibility attributed to "Indo-European languages" as "authentic ancient languages" is now lost because they are discovered to be artificially manufactured languages and their words have been madeup from Turkish words and phrases by way of restructuring and disguising (anagrammatizing).   

Thus the news flash saying that "Auckland University researchers have stunned academics around the world by tracing the origins of the English language to Turkish farmers" is inaccurate and untruthful.  The present world has been conned and shaped by this kind of misinforming propaganda.  The English language is probably not much older than a thousand years. It wouldn’t be surprising if this whole episode was an attempt to artificially extend the roots of English back in time by 9,000 years to ancient Anatolia where the native farmers were Turkish speaking Turanians.


REFERENCES:

[1]    Encyclopaedia Britannica World Language Dictionary (EBWLD), 1963,  Vol. 2, p. 1353.
[2]    Peter Green, "A Concise History Of Ancient Greece To The Close of Classical Era", Thames and Hudson, 1981, p. 14. 
[3]    DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary, p. 35.
[4]    Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 85.
[5]    Dr. Mebrure Tosun ve Dr. Kadriye Yalvaç, "Sumer, Babil, Asur Kanunlari ve Ammi-Saduqa Fermani", Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara, 
        1989, p. 305.
[6]    Edgar H. Sturtevant, "A Hittite Glossary", Yale University by The Linguistic Society of America, "WILLIAM DWIGHT WHITNEY             
         LINGUISTIC SERIES", 1936, p. 24.
[7]    Peter Green, "A Concise History Of Ancient Greece To The Close of Classical Era", Thames and Hudson, 1981, p. 95.
[8]    DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary, p. 742.
[9]    DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary, p. 674.
[10]    Ingilizce-Türkçe Redhouse Sözlügü, Istanbul, 1980, p. 849.
[11]    Cassell's Latin - English Dictionary, Compiled by D. P. Simpson, MACMILLAN, , USA, 1987, p. 222.
[12]    Ingilizce-Türkçe Redhouse Sözlügü, Istanbul, 1980, p. 650.
[13]    DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary, p. 438. 
[14]    Cassell's Latin - English Dictionary, Compiled by D. P. Simpson, MACMILLAN, , USA, 1987, p. 19.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya
24/01/2006

Note:  I had completed the draft form of this paper by 08/12/2004. Because of some of my other studies, it had to wait until now to make it final. 

***