Re: [hrl_2] I would like to see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words

Dear Petr,

I read your response and to my amazement I found that the quality of your writing went from bad to worse. So I was not wrong in spotting sophistry in your writings early on. I found only one small segment of your response worth dwelling upon. My response will be in blue.



Petr Hrubis wrote:
 

Dear Polat,

 

Thank you for your response. Mine will be green this time, if you don't mind

 

Before you read further, I would like to summarize my current position in a few points:

 

1. I admit I misunderstood, but that was, unfortunately, also your fault, as you had misused some the terms (e.g. encryption and decryption), or understood them in a way quite different from mine. Let's agree on, say, SHUFFLING and UNSHUFFLING(alternatively reshuffling), if you don't mind. Then, of course, all the algorithm stuff is irrelevant - I admit and stress that.


Polat Kaya:   I did not misuse any terms!  You were at fault by misunderstanding all along and now you are trying to blame me for your shortcomings.  Every time I write, I explain things in clear and simple terms which can be readily understood by all. When I used the terms encryption and decryption, I also used explanatory terms like manufactured, anagrammatized, concocted, rearranged, restructured, disguised, camouflaged,  etc..  I never needed a fixed "algorithm" for deciphering the IE words.  I only needed the meanings of the words.  You wrongly assumed that I needed an algorithm.
 

 

 

2. As I began to get more insight in your theses, I - of course - deleted the repetitive points on en/decryption vs. un/shuffling, as they became obsolete.

 

3. I have learnt that you do not deny the existence of spontaneous language changes. That's great, because from the little I had known about your hypotheses I had feared you'd have dismissed the great lot of undisputable work linguists had done.

Polat Kaya:   "spontaneous language changes"?  Languages are not like radioactive material that spontaneously "changes" into something else.  Languages are man made verbology which are changed by man alone.  They do not spontaneously "change" as you wrongly state. Some changes do occur from place to place in the pronounciation of consonants and vowels creating "dialects" of the same language, however, this does not change the language itself.  But, if the words and phrases of a language are intentionally altered and restructured or reshuffled to create new words of another fictional and manufactured language, then, that cannot be called "spontaneous change".  It would be much more correct to call it "deliberate change".  And when that "deliberate change" is kept secret, it is called "stealing".  This is what the secret manufacturers of the so-called "European" languages have done and cleverly covered up. Countless words listed in dictionaries are evidence to that fact. 

As for this "great lot of undisputable work linguists had done", I don't know what you are referring to. What I have seen so far does not impress me at all. 

 

 

 

4. As for the term Turanian, I don't mind using it at all. It's just another name, a little different convention. As far as I know, Turanian is sometimes used for the hypothetical Ural-Altaic macrofamily (please, let me know if your understanding of the term is different, so that we avoid further confusion). My personal opinion (from what I have read so far, and from the comparisons I've made) is that the Ural-Altaic grouping is a typological rather than genealogical grouping (a macro-areal), in which typological features (such as agglutination) are shared.

Polat Kaya:  TURANIAN is not just another term or name as you put it.  It is the name of a very ancient people that civilized the world. You cannot just reduce it to a mere "term" now.  The wanderers of ancient times such as the ancient Greeks, Romans and Semites deliberately destroyed anything and everything that the name TURANIAN stood for by their covert activities and war-like behaviour. Of course after destroying Turanian civilizations, they stole everything Turanian and claimed it as their own under different names.  Now everyone is falsely led to believe that it was the ancient Greeks, Romans and Semites that started civilization - when in reality it was the Turanians. Therefore TURANIAN is not just another name - although it has been deliberately removed from circulation.

Besides, your conventions are not accurate.  Your conventions are just assumptions, formulated by not-knowing or half-knowing linguists, to classify presently existing languages into some "order".  In doing that, they go by what they see on the surface but do not touch how those languages were made at the base. In the process, their hidden political agendas are not mentioned either.  Even the language-family name "TURANIAN" was replaced with "URAL-ALTAIC" - but for no good reason.  

I keep finding many IE  words with Turkish expressions at their source. This indicates that these "European" languages are all sitting on the shoulder of the much earlier Turkish language. Yet linguists keep marketing the IE languages as coming from a so-called "proto-IE language".  Nobody is saying how these "European" languages have been "engineered" from Turanian Turkish.  Linguistics, with its gobbledegook jargon and verbology, has conned and exploited the whole world with the artificial impression that "European" languages are the most developed languages of a civilized world while the rest are barbarian, underdeveloped, ignorant, etc..  Now we are seeing that the real picture is totally different. 

 

 

 

I also tend to think that the Uralic family is somewhat closer to the Indo-European one, which is probably something you will disagree with, as that's, perhaps, against your ideas.

If the "Uralic" language family is close to the so-called "Indo-European" languages, it is because of the common "religion".  Religions, with much greater political ambitions than worshipping alone, are the source of all the alteration and confusion of languages.  Whereever religions have gone, they have been the source and cause of assimilating, altering and eliminating everything owned by the invaded natives.  The present so-called Uralic language family, having a resemblance to the IE languages, is the result of the presence of Christianity among the so-called "Uralic" peoples.
 

 

As Hungarian is beyond reasonable doubt a Uralic language, I disagree with some people's idea that it would be any closer to Turkish than, say, to Finnish or Estonian.  

Polat Kaya:  Many Hungarians do not think that their language is Uralic in spite of the fact that the Hungarian language has also been altered by the Christian religious people and likened to the IE languages.  Many Hungarians think that they are Turanian people and that their language at its source was a Turanian language.  This is very contrary to what you think.  
 

On the other hand, there are apparent loans of Turkic origin in Hungarian, which points to the early Hungarians' contacts with some Turkic speakers.

Polat Kaya: You are painting a false picture here trying to give the impression that early Hungarians were very different from Turkic people. The early Hungarians were Turanian Tur/Turk people, the HUN Turks and others.  They eventually got separated from the other Turks (just like the Turkic Bulgarians and others) and were converted to Christianity whereupon their Turanic language, religion and identity were all changed (i.e., Romanized).  Everyone must understand that entering into a new religion should not mean that one loses his/her original identity or ethnicity.  Entering into a religion is like entering a political party.  For example, if a Turk of the Republican party decides to leave his party and enter the Democratic party, he is still a Turk.  Similarly, if a Turk believing in his ancient Turanian Sky-God / Sun-God / Moon God religion accepts Christianity, he is still a Turk.  Politicians and religious people with their "linguist" helpers would like us to believe that when a Turk enters Christianity or Judaism, he changes into some ethnicity totally different from what he was before.  This is a total con game of people theft and identity theft.  A person's religious belief is totally different from his ethnic identity.  A person's religious belief can change - but his ethnic identity does not change!  For example, when some Hazar Turks believing in the Sky-God religion accepted Judaism as their religion, their Turkish identity did not become a "Jewish" identity.  In other words, they were still Turks but believing in the religion of Judaism only.  It is just like Turks believing in Islam.  They are still Turks and Islam does not change their Turkic ethnicity and identity.
 

 

 

I do agree that the individual Turkic languages are relatively close to each other. I wonder then, whether you've read the Etymological Dictionary of Altaic languages by Mudrak/Dybo/Starostin. If not, I will gladly send you the introductory part, in which the regular correspondences are analyzed and listed. Also, the Proto-Altaic morphology is discussed in the book, so you can compare your views with theirs, if you like.


Polat Kaya:  No I have not seen the dictionary you are talking about.  Thanks for your offer anyway.  The so-called "Turkic languages"  are dialects of the main language of TURKÇE / TÜRKSHE / TURKISH /TURKIÇ. They are not different languages but rather dialects of TURKISH.  The Soviets concocted one different alphabet for each Turkish group whose Turkish dialect was somewhat different.  This was designed to tear apart Turanian Tur /Turk /Oguz peoples in order to divide and conquer them.  It had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics - and "linguists" helped those politicians to achieve their assimilation and elimination policies.  
 

 

 

Anyway, I do think that - at a much deeper time-depth - the Uralic and Altaic languages are related, but that would, perhaps, be on the, still controversial, Nostratic level. Anyway, in the end, Hungarian and Turkish would be related in this respect.

As far as the Altaic family is concerned, I think there are three core-Altaic branches (Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic-Manchurian) and two peripheral branches (Japonic with various Japanese dialects and Koreic, quite similarly)

Polat Kaya:  The term NOSTRATIC is a bogus term invented to hide what linguists did to the Turkish language in the areas invaded by Romans and the Christian religion.  The "PANTHEON" in ROMA was the creation of the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples in ITALIA - so called PAGANS.  The name ITALIA is a disguised form of the Turkish word "ALTAI-ÖY" meaning"ALTAY HOME",  and similarly the name "LATIN" is a distorted and Romanized name for the ALTAI Tur/Turk peoples who lived in ITALIA far earlier than when the wandering Europeans arrived there.  Unfortunately, the tolerance and civility of those ALTAI Tur/Turk peoples in ITALIA also resulted in their demise by being the target of "tyrannicide" killing and forceful assimilation by the invading Romans and Christianity. 

Hungarian and Turkish were the same before the religion of the Hungarians was changed.  Hungarians were Turkic peoples and this is unquestionable.  At a much deeper time-depth when there was no Christianity, the Uralic and Altaic languages must have been related and most likely were the dialects of the same language, which was Turkish!  After the arrival of Christianity in the Uralic lands and other parts of Eurasia, the artificial changes started to take place continuously. Thus each group ended up having a different language.  Now linguists are classifying those presently spoken languages without referring to what existed at their foundation. This is pure misrepresentation according to the whims of linguists.


 

 

 

Now, see below, please. But be prepared, I haven’t got rid of irony and sarcasm, yet. They’re a part of my mental patterns. Also, my comments are filled with open disagreement and critique of your methods, thoughts and conclusions, so do not get discouraged. I have slightly different beliefs. And for that, I’m not going to apologize.

  

Polat Kaya:   I do not appreciate nor subscribe to your sarcasm or irony methods What you are saying is that you want to be as obnoxious as you please, and that I should tolerate your hooligan behaviour and not be discouraged.  I think you are being sarcastic because you know I am correct in what I am saying.  But this is not a welcome situation for you and the establishment you are part of. The "establishment" seems to have trained many in the way that you behave, that is, present an intimidating front with putdowns, sarcasm and ridiculing so that the other side is hopefully intimidated or terrorized into backing off.  So basically you try to win the "argument" for free by being a bully and making lots of noisy insults instead of using amicable language and presenting logical arguments.  Then you try to cover up your inexcusable behaviour with lame excuses like "that is the way I am" or "they are part of my mental patterns" or "that I haven't got rid of yet". This is a con artists trick.  It is not honest or scholarly debating. Your war-mongering style is designed to distract attention away from the IE words that I correctly analyze as having been plagiarized from Turkish.  This kind of ill-mannered tactics may be agreeable to your "mental patterns" but it is against my upbringing. I do not behave this way to others and I will not tolerate it being done to me.  You must change your crude "mental patterns" and talk about the words that I show being manufactured from Turkish. Otherwise I am not going to allow you to play your dishonest games of sophistry.       

 

 

Polat Kaya:    I use the term "so-called Indo-European" because initially there was no such family of languages.  There was only the one language the world spoke as pointed out in Genesis 11 - which I am saying was Turkish.  I am also saying that Turkish was the progenitor language - at least for the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages and probably others.  Additionally I am saying that these "IE" languages were artificially manufactured from Turkish.  The words that I decipher from the dictionaries of the IE languages are evidence of this.

 

Petr:

 

They are far from that. They only prove how imaginative you can be on one hand, and , on the other hand, how blind you are a the same time.

 

Latin    Italian    Spanish    French
nocte    notte     noche       nuit    ‘night’
octo      otto       ocho        huit    ‘eight’
lacte     latte      leche        lait    ‘milk’
factu     fatto     hecho       fait    ‘done’
tectu     tetto     techo        toit    ‘roof’

 

Polat, if you look at the table above, you will see the regular sound correspondences. Now, did the shuffling happen before or after these languages arose from Latin? Similarly, Latin and Greek also display regular correspondences. They even correspond regularly with other ancient languages like Sanksrit, Avestan, Tocharian, etc. Even Hittite shows regular correspondences with them. Did the shuffling happen before or after these languages split from their proto-tongue?


Polat Kaya:  This is the only decent part of your response. Now we can talk about the makeup of these words rather than get bombarded with your abrasive verbosity.           

First of all the regular sound correspondences that you see are misleading. They are artificially made up like that. I will prove that to your satisfaction. The shuffling or restructuring of the Turkish source text happened as they were artificially creating these "IE" words. The apparent regularity is not the most important thing, it is the aspect that made them look regular that is most important. The confusion started when the words for the so-called Latin and Greek languages were being manufactured by the restructuring of Turkish words and phrases.  Latin and Greek display regular correspondences because both of them are artificially made up languages and those who manufactured them held hands not only in stealing but also in organizing the similarity.  I have demonstrated with ample examples that Turkish was the source language for both Latin and Greek. 

Now let us turn to your list of words.  There are a number of things in the list above that need to be brought to the surface. Those who manufactured these words from Turkish were much more clever and far seeing than many linguists today - but they were also dishonest.. All the words under Latin, Italian and French headings  plus the first two words under English are ending in a syllable in the form of "-TE, -TO, -TU, -HT" which are disguised forms of the Turkish suffix that appears as "-ti, tu, tü, di, du, dü, tir, tur, tür, dir, dur, dür" meaning "it is".   Thus, this Turkish suffix has been used in a clever way to make the new words appear similar or show sound similarity and regularity to each other.  At the same time, this Turkish suffix embedded in these new words is used to describe the concept that the word represents.   So, at the very least, the endings of these words are Turkish.  Surely you (and other linguists) did not know this. 


1.   NOCTE     NOTTE    NOCHE     NUIT  meaning "NIGHT"

These are restructured (shuffled) and disguised words made up from Turkish.  They have a number of things in common in addition to what is being seen on the surface. The words NOCTE, NOCHE and NIGHT are one group while  NOTTE and NUIT are another. 

Conceptually, DAY and NIGHT are the opposite of each other. Day is light and Night is dark.  Similarly, the dawn (sun rise) is the start of the day while dusk (sun set) is the end of the day and the beginning of night.  In Turkish GÜN (GUN) is "day" and GECE is "night".  Turkish TAN is "dawn". 

When we examine these three words NOCTE, NOCHE and NIGHT  as NOC-TE, NOC-HE and NIG-HT, we find that the Turkish word GUN, in reverse format, has been embedded in them, that is, in the form of  NOC (NOK), NOC (NOK) andNIG respectively.  Since, Turkish GUN is day, its opposite (i.e., backward) form NUG (NUK, NIG, NIK) would represent the opposite of GUN (DAY) which is the "night".  It must be noted that these three words NOCTE, NOCHE and NIGHTare made up with a word which is opposite of Turkish GUN (GÜN) - plus the Turkish suffix.  You will note that these words and the Turkish word "GÜNTÜ" / "KÜNDÜ" meaning "it is day" have the same lettering but different only in the root word GUN versus NUG, NOK, NIG.  This may be claimed as "coincidence",  but I do not think so.  The manufacturers of these words have cleverly used the opposite of Turkish GUN for describing night along with some "wrapping".  If you look closely, you will see what I mean.

Now let us add to your list the "Greek" word NUKTA meaning "night".  This too looks similar to the other so-called "European" words, however the similarity is artificial because the Greek "NUK-TA" is also the opposite of the Turkish word "KUN-TU"meaning "it is day" where Turkish  KUN (GUN) has been reversed.   

So you see that all of these Latin,  Greek, Spanish and English words meaning "night" are cleverly usurped, restructured and disguised  words of Turkish origin. 

In the case of the Italian NOTTE and the French NUIT, the source is the Turkish word "TAN" (dawn) the reverse of which is "NAT" (NOT, NUT).  The Italian word NOT-TE has been restructured from Turkish "TAN-TI"  meaning "it is dawn" - by reversing TAN.   In the restructured form, it is NATTI meaning "opposite of dawn" which is the "dusk" or "night". Thus, Italian"NOTTE" and French "NUIT" are made up from Turkish "TAN" but in reverse form.  As a result, they too have their source in Turkish. 

It is further interesting to note that even the English word "DAWN", when rearranged in the form "DAN-W" is the disguised Turkish expression "TAN O" meaning "It is dawn".  So it too has been usurped from Turkish and then disguised.

The Greeks have done the word for "dawn' differently.  The Greek version of "dawn" is given as "KSEMERWNW", [ 1, p. 79]. When the Greek word KSEMERWNW, where W is UU and UY, is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KUN YER-USUME", we find the Turkish expression "KUN YER-IShIMA" (GÜN YERI AGARMA) meaning "the sun place is lighting" (east is lighting up) which is again another exact definition in Turkish of the concept of DAWN.

Turkish GÜN means "sun", YER means "place", KÜN YER means "the place where sun is born" (i.e., "east"),  IShIMA means "lighting" and  AGARMA means, "becoming white with sunlight".

Another Greek word is KSEMERWNEI meaning  "it is dawning". [1, p. 609].  When the Greek word KSEMERWNEI,where W is UU and UY,  is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KUN YER-ISEME", again we find the Turkish expression "KUN YERi IShIMA" meaning "the sun place is lighting".  


So you see that Turkish words and phrases have been plagiarized by some "linguists" in manufacturing these words from Turkish to be used as words of  some concocted "languages", namely Latin, Greek, Italian, Spanish, French and English.Hence, as you must admit, these words in your list and the ones that I added all have their origin in Turkish.  This may be against your beliefs, but nevertheless, it is fact! 



2.      OCTO    OTTO    OCHO        HUIT    meaning  "EIGHT"    


The Latin word OCTO having the meaning of "eight" is an artificial word which I will prove now.

We have the Latin word OCTUSSIS meaning "eight asses", [2, p. 171].  When OCTUSSIS is rearranged as "SICUSS-OT"where the C in this case is a "K" and SS is a replacement for Turkish Z, we find the Turkish expression "SEKUZ AT" (SEKIZ AT) meaning "eight horses".  Turkish SEKIZ (SEKUZ)  means "eight" and AT means "horse".  Thus I have shown you that the so-called Latin word OCTUSSIS is indeed a bogus, usurped, restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SEKIZ AT" meaning "eight horses". So the anagrammatisers have even changed meaning between horse and ass(which is itself from Tr. ESSEK =>  ESS-EK  => ASS) thus adding further confusion and camouflage.  The important thing here though is that we find Turkish "SEKIZ" meaning "EIGHT" in this Latin word 
 OCTUSSIS.  The part "OCTO", artificially portrayed as meaning "eight", is just the front end of this restructured word OCTUSSIS.  Hence conveniently, cunningly and with dishonesty, an artificial "Latin" word was constructed from the stolen Turkish expression. 

I also want to show you that even the letter T is a double faced letter in the word OCTO.  Let me show you:

We have the so-called "Latin" word "OCTUPLICATUS" meaning "increased eight times" [2, p. 171]. When the word"OCTUPLICATUS" is rearranged as "SICUT-CAT-OLUP" where C is realy a "K" and T is a replacement for Turkish S and Z by way of Caesar encryption, we find the Turkish expression "SEKUS KAT OLUP" (SEKIZ KAT OLUP) meaning "it became eight fold".  The Turkish word SEKIZ (SEKUZ)  means "eight", KAT means "fold" and  OLUP mean"became".  Thus here again we find that this so-called "Latin" word was NOT Latin before it was artficially made "Latin".  It is actually a usurped, shuffled, restructured, and camouflaged form of a Turkish expression.  After it was restructured, it retained the meaning of the Turkish source text, where it gets its meaning of "eight" from Turkish word SEKIZ, its meaning of "fold" or "times" from Turkish KAT, and Turkish OLUP explains the transformation that it went through. Of course when one makes a number "eight fold", the resultant number "increases eight times".   We must note that in the restructuring of the Turkish source text, the Turkish letter Z  was intentionally changed to letter S and then alphabetically up-shifted into the letter "T".  Thus, not only is the particle OCTO the "cut-off" front and of the restructured word"OCTUPLICATUS", but the letter "T" in it is a "double-agent" spy letter that changes its identity as required.  And it disguises the Turkish source extremely well. So much so that nobody can tell the difference - except Polat Kaya. 

We also have the "Latin" word "OCTAVUS" meaning "the eight", [2, p. 171].  When the word "OCTAVUS" is rearranged as  "SACUT-O-V" where the letter "T" is actually letter "Z" as I described above, we find the Turkish expression "SEKUZ O" (O SEKIZ) meaning "it is eight". 

With these three examples, I have proven that the so-called "Latin" word OCTO is an "imposter", and is actually the front end of other longer words that have been manufactured from Turkish.

The remaining words 
OTTO,    OCHO,      HUIT   have gone through further alterations in order to give a different but related appearance to these Italian, Spanish and French language words respectively.  It is a well known fact that English, Italian, Spanish and French were manufactured languages from the so called "Vulgar Latin".  In other words, these languages were artificially concocted.  The manufacturers of these languages are the ones who knew exactly what alterations they inflicted on the so-called "Latin" word OCTO" meaning "eight" to come up with OTTO, OCHO and HUIT. 

Now let us consider the Greek form of the word.  In the Greek numbering system, we are given the word "OKTW" as meaning "eight".  This "Greek" word is also artificial and bogus just like the "Latin" word OCTO was.

We have the Greek word "OKTAGWNOS" meaning "octagonal" or "octagon", [1, p. 613]. in this word "OKTAGWNOS", the letter "T" is an up-shift from letter "S", and letter G, that is the Greek "gamma" is read as a G but also read as "Y" [1, p.10], and letter W is a bogus letter having a multitude of identities with UU, VV, YY, or any two letter combination of letters U, V, and Y.   Thus now, when the word "OKTAGWNOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOKUT-GAN O" or "SOKUZ YAN O", we find the Turkish expression "SAKUZ YAN O" (SEKIZ YAN O) meaning "it is eight sided" which is exactly what an "octagon" is.  So here too, our "illustrious" ancient Greeks conned the whole world together with their wanderer Roma brothers by stealing a Turkish expression describing an eight sided geometrical figure, restructuring it into a gobbledegook format, and then selling it to the world as Greek or Hellenic.  The bottom line is that the source of OCTAGON is neither Greek nor English but rather Turkish. 

We have another "Greek" word in the form of "OKTAPLASIAZW" meaning "I increase eight fold", [1, p. 614]. When this word "OKTAPLASIAZW", (where W is UY in this case, thus making the word as "OKTAPLASIAZUY"), is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SAKIZ-YAT-OLUP-A" or "SAYIZ-KAT-OLUP-A", we find the Turkish expression "SEKIZ KAT OLUP O" meaning "it became eight-fold" which is just another way of saying "I increase eight fold". In this arrangement, Turkish SAKIZ (SEKIZ) means "eight", KAT means "fold" and OLUP means "became" and O means "it".  Thus, this "Greek" word "OKTAPLASIAZW" and the "Latin" word "OCTUPLICATUS" are exactly the same, except that they were structured in slightly different formats just to con the world - particularly those who regard themselves as "all knowing linguists".  In both these words, we see apparent sound similarities and construction similarities yet these similarities are not due to an "Indo-European" sourcing but rather to a Turkish sourcing.   Thus, both the Latin and the Greek dishonest word manufacturers have made "children" out of us all!   Surely this is the zenith of stealing.  A fantastic linguistic fraud executed with admirable cleverness by the the ficticious "civilization givers" -  the Greeks and Romans!!!

I have shown that the "Greek" word "OKTW" meaning "eight" is bogus, artificial and not truthful.  It is an artficially made up word for an artificial language called "Greek" which has been manufactured from restructuring of the words and phrases of the model language of TURKISH!


3.    LACTE    LATTE    LECHE    LAIT meaning 'MILK' 

These so called IE words are also made up from Turkish. Let me show you:

We have the following so-called "Latin" words: 
"LACTEOLUS"
 meaning "milk-white"; 
"LACTEUS"
 meaning "milky; full of milk; milk-white; the milky-way"; and 
"LACTO"
 meaning "to give milk" [2, p. 141]

Now, when the word "LACTEOLUS" meaning "milk-white", is rearranged as "AC-SUTLE-O-L" , where C is K,  we find the Turkish expression "AK SUTLU O" meaning "it is milky white" or "with white milk".  Turkish "SÜT" means "milk","SÜTLÜ" means "milky"  "AK" means "white".  So, it is clear that this so-called "Latin" word  "LACTEOLUS" has been restructured (shuffled), Romanized, disguised and stolen from the Turkish expression "AK SÜTLÜ O".  This is an exact correspondence that cannot be denied.  It is not a "chance coincidence"!  As you can see, the Latin word "LACTE" is just the front-end of this Romanized Turkish expression which has been artificially called "milk" coming from the original Turkish word "SÜT". 

Furthermore the English word MILK is an Anglicised form of the Turkish word "EMLIK" (as in Tr. "emlik kuzu") meaning"milk sucking baby or lamb".  As you can see, this Turkish word EMLIK has been conveniently restructured into"MILK".  

When the "Latin" word "LACTEUS", meaning "milky", is rearranged as "AC-SUTLE", we find the Turkish word "SÜTLÜ"meaning "with milk" or "milky".  Additionally we find the Turkish expression "AK SÜTLÜ" meaning "with white milk"which is the same as "milk-white".  As it is known, milk is a white substance. Again we find that even the Latin word"LACTEUS" has been restructured from a Turkish expression. The word LACTE is just the cut-off front-end of the restructured Turkish expression. As can be seen, the Italian, Spanish and French words are just the front ends of different formations of the main Turkish expression. So this is not coincidence or my imagination but rather the fact indicating that the so-called "Roman Languages" were all manufactured from stolen Turkish. 

The Italian word LATTE is also a bogus word.  There are many Italian words that LATTE is part of. However, the meaning "milk" does not come from the word LATTE but rather from the Turkish word SÜT which has been disguised into the so-called "Italian" words related to "milk".  For example, we have the Italian word LATTEO meaning "milky".  In this word one of the T's is an upshift from letter S which is hidden in the word by clever manipulation.  When the Italian word LATTEO is rearranged as "TOT-ELA" where the first T is an S, we find the modified Turkish expression "SUT ILA" (SÜT ILE)meaning "with milk" which is exactly the same as "milky". 

We have the Italian word LATTICINOSO again meaning "milky" regarding "plants that produce milk when broken", [3, p. 223].

When the "Italian" word LATTICINOSO is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOTLI-OT-CANI", we find the Turkish expression "SÜTLÜ OT CANI" meaning a "milky plant-life", that is, "milk producing plant".  This exact correspondence tells us that the Italians also stole the Turkish words and expressions in manufacturing words for an artificially manufactured language so-called "Italian". 


We have the "Greek" word "AMELGW" meaning "I milk". [1, p. 408]. As it is seen, this is a riddle definition.  What kind of word says "I milk"?  Also given is the Greek word GALA or GALAKTOS meaning "milk". 

The Greek word "AMELGW", when rearranged as "EMLAK-W", we find the Turkish expression  "EMLIK O" meaning "it is milk suckling baby". 

When the Greek word GALAKTOS is rearranged as "AK-SOTLA-G", we find the Turkish expression "AK SÜTLÜ" meaning"with white milk".  Again we find that even this so-called "Greek" word has been stolen from the Turkish expression "AK SÜT" or "AK SÜTLÜ".   You must note that the Greek word "GALA" is just the front part of the word GALAKTOS which has been made up from Turkish "AK SÜTLÜ".

The Latin word "LACTEOLUS" (LACTEUS) meaning "milky-way", when rearranged as "AC-SUT-LOLE", we find the Turkish expression "AK SÜT YOLU" meaning "white milk way" which refers to a pathway that is whitened by spilled  milk.  The "milky way" "galaxy", to which our solar system belongs to, appears as a long white pathway in space.  The Turkish name for the "Milky Way" is "SAMAN YOLU" meaning the "a path spilled with cut-straw" where the "cut-straw" is white in color. The Roman anagrammatizers of the Turkish language used milk in place of straw for this fabricated "Latin" word. Now you must note that both the "Milky Way" and "Saman Yolu" have the concept of "way" (yol) in it. Why are we seeing these close correspondences if Latin and Turkish were independently developed languages?   The answer is that the source was Turkish.



4.    Now let us examine the words FACTO    FATTO    HECHO    FAIT  meaning  ‘DONE’.  These are again made from Turkish. Let me show you:


First of all the so-called French word "FAIT" meaning "done" is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish word"ATIF" (EDIF, EDIP) meaning "done".  Thus, you see this so-called "French" word is a restructured and disguised form of the stolen Turkish word "EDIP". 

The Latin word "FACTU" is related to the Latin words "FACTUM" meaning "to make" and "FACTIO" meaning "making, doing", [2, p. 98]. 

When the word "FACTUM" is rearranged as "UFMACT", where U is YU or YA, we find the Turkish expression"YAFMAKTU"(YAPMAKTU) meaning "it is making", "it is doing".  In the Azeri dialect of Turkish you will find the Turkish words ending with the Turkish "-IP" suffix  such as in EDIP and YAPIP or YAP, being pronounced as EDIF, YAPIF, YAF.  In other words, the letter P is turned into "F".  

Similarly, when the word "FACTIO" is rearranged as "IAFTOC", we find the Turkish expression "YAFTOK" (YAPTUK, YAPTIK) meaning "we did it" which is the same as "done" again. 

The Italian and the Spanish forms of the so-called "Latin" word have gone through further anagrammatizing thus they are much less obvious although their origins are also in the Turkish verb "YAPMAK" meaning "to make, to do". 



5.  The words TECTU     TETTO     TECHO      TOIT   meaning  'ROOF'  are also Turkish based. Let me explain: 

The Latin word TECTUM means "roof, shelter, dwelling" and TECTUS means "covered", [2, p. 249]. 

When the word "TECTUM" is rearranged as "CETU-TM", we find the Turkish expression "ÇATU aTiM" meaning "my name is roof". 
or "CETUM-T from Turkish "ÇATIYUM" meaning "I am roof".

Similarly, when the Latin word TECTUS  is rearranged as "ST-CETU", we find the Turkish expression  "ÜST ÇATI"meaning "the top roof".  This is a Turkish expression used frequently, when the house has several levels of roofing. The Italian TETTO is just a variation of the "Latin" word "TECTU" which is from Turkish.  The  Spanish TECHO, when rearranged as "CHETO" or "CHOTE"  reveals itself as the disguised form of the Turkish word "CHATI" meaning "roof". 

To this list we can add the "English" word "THATCH" meaning "roof with straw". It is said to be from the Anglo-Sakson"THOEC" meaning "covering for a roof, grain stack, etc., made of straw, rushes, reeds, or leaves." [4, p. 1033"].

When the word THATCH is rearranged as "HT-CATH", where H is I, making the word "IT-CATI", we find the Turkish word"OT ÇATI" meaning "roof made of straw, rushes, reeds, or leaves."  Turkish word OT means "plant, grass, straw, hay, etc" and "ÇATI" means "roof".   

The Greek word "STEGASMA" or "STEGASMATOS" [1, p. 682] means "roof; shelter".  When the word "STEGASMA" is rearranged, as "STE-ASMAG", we find the Turkish expression "ÇATI ASMAK" meaning "hanging a roof", "putting up a roof".  Turkish ÇATI means "roof" and ASMAK means "to hang", "to put up".   Thus this so-called "Greek" word is also taken from Turkish. 

Similarly, the Greek word "STEGASMATOS", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SSATE-(A)SMAGTO" where SS is a replacement for Turkish Sh sound, we find the Turkish expression "ShATI ASMAKTU" (ÇATI ASMAKTU) meaning "it is hanging a roof", "it is putting up a roof". We must note that in this form of the "Greek" word, the Turkish suffix TU was added to the source Turkish text.  Hence it was possible to further alienate the Turkish source from its Turkish identity. 

Again all of these show that your list of words
 TECTU     TETTO     TECHO      TOIT   meaning  'ROOF'  were also usurped from Turkish and restructured as words for the manufactured languages of "Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and Greek". 


With all of these explanations, I have demonstrated that both the "Latin" and "Greek" languages are concocted languages artificially manufactured from one worldwide spoken language of Turkish in the very ancient world that we have been made to forget.  The words that I discussed above are unquestionable proof that what I say is correct. Of course all of those later so-called "European" languages, which are said to be made up from Latin and Greek, are also the product of the same kind of usurpation and restructuring activities of the European language makers. These so-called "Indo-European" languages have been well disguised by the language "usurpers" who had all the time in the world in their comfortable quarters to create new languages from Turkish for the new religions of the world.  So, you see Petr, with all of these correspondences that I showed above, you are "checkmated".  The match is over! 

Clearly the linguistic system that you are heroically defending has failed you.  They did not tell you the truth.  They lied endlessly to con everybody.  They conned the world. They did not tell us that the world was speaking one language named "Turkish" before it was confused by the wanderers of the world.  They only told us that the world was speaking one language without identifying that "one father" language. If it was their own language that the world spoke back then, you can be sure that they would have flooded the world with its name by now as they did with their ficticious and manufactured languages.  They just kept quietly stealing from the Turkish linguistic data bank.  The ordinary people had no alternative but to believe what they were told.  After all, this kind of stealing is not like stealing someone's car where the victim immediately realizes his car is missing.  This kind of stealing is very subtle and invisible.

In spite of your ignorance, I want to thank you for your participation in this discussion.  I am glad that you provided the list of words of your choice and gave me the opportunity to prove that you are totally in the dark! With that list of yours, you contributed to further understanding of the most amazing fraud in the history of civilization committed by secretive groups. Now we know where everybody stands in the spectrum of civilization.  

The rest of your comments do not contribute to the discussion.  Rather, they are an extreme case of polemic.  A lot of  noise showing how experienced a hooligan you are.  For that I will not congratulate you.  I have collected a sampling of your offensive comments just below to show the readers how ill-mannered your "mental patterns" are.  



Dear Polat, you're forever prooving to me how little you actually know about (whether "so-called" or real) Indoeuropean languages.

A pity that you don't have this basic knowledge.


Dear Polat, your ignorance of the facts is evident here, again.

Shuffle your cards again, please. 

If you really knew some Latin (instead of stupid browsing through dictionaries, which every child can do)

Dear Polat, can’t you see the obvious fact?

If you really knew some Latin or Greek, you would hardly claim anything like that.

Have you discovered America again?

Dear Polat, no matter what you think somebody knew, you evidently know little about Latin. Or am I wrong? Prove to me that you’re divine – change my water into wine! 

You’re confusing things again. Never mind. The answer is because:

You would know that all if you (a) read something on linguistics, (b) something on phonetics and phonology, (c) knew something about the individual and intertwined histories of various European countries and nations, (d) knew something about any science at all. One more point – please, use some up-to-date literature, instead of the decaying bibles of the forgotten pasts.

Don’t be silly,

No, the bogus is yours. You should tidy up a bit. I seriously demanded an explanation, you gave me one (decryption ain’t decryption, ‘cause encryption ain’t encryption either – clarified once for all) 

Finally a little correct terminology. I'm pleased. 

it is you who sells the goods (actually bads, in my view).

Actually, even the Turkish word is onomatopoeic...well, provided that you know what, on dear old Earth, that means...

I won’t repeat the well-known information for you here, as you can find it on the Net (unless you want me to – I will gladly open your eyes, but let’s go on for now...)

Sorry, but it’s been your fuzzy terminology that is constantly puzzling me. Vocalizing has its own meaning in phonetics and phonology. And you're not using this term correctly, in my humble opinion of a humble student of phonetics (among other things).

Oh, Polat, you don’t really know how the whole etymology stuff works, do you? There are people called philologists (find that word in your clever books), they read and analyze various texts, old and new, analyze the language, describe their observations and publish them. Specialists, called etymologists, on the basis of regular sound correspondences and attested or documented materials (by whom? By the philologists, of course), reconstruct the older stages...very briefly, of course...

I'm quite sure they would call you a fool – forgive me that word – to tell you the bitter truth, but I’ll be better, more patient, I’ll take you out of the darkness and bring you to the light. Anyway, they would call you like that not to harm you, but because it is self-evident you’re lost and you’ve been caught in your erroneous beliefs, perhaps of a nationalistic origin.

If you really are as clever as you seem to consider yourself, 

Are you clever enough? 

Actually, you must be blind if you cannot see what's obvious and crystal-clear.

 

It is you who is hiding himself in the safety of his ideological conch like an intellectual snail.

 

If you did your homework

You know virtually nothing about linguistics. 

I'm afraid you don't know the history of your own mother tongue.

Wrong! Are you trying to lie or what?

How come? :-) An Angel whispered to you when you were sleeping?

No, it is your dishonesty. 

Your faith in yourself is really strong. I think you’ve got so far that you can even pray to yourself. Nevertheless, I’m not sure if your prayers are ever heard of, since the saint ears are deaf.

By the way, I never claimed it was *ja, I claim it was *jar’. You can shout, you can hit the table with your angry fists, but that won’t help you win the struggle...the ghosts are in your mind, Polat.

I think it is YOUR wishful thinking, but never mind, let's go on...

But not the idiotic way you’re used to 

Your argumentation is childish, so to speak.

Again, your ignorance of facts is apparent here. 

(I wonder whether you know what analogy – specifically – in linguistics means).

A stronger wish is still a wish, not a fact, Polat. Have you ever read anything on historical linguistics? Or are you just slinging mud at something you do not know at all? If you want to criticize something, you need to learn something about it, first. You don't actually know what you're criticizing, do you? No, you definitely don't. I wonder whether you've read anything on linguistics at all...really...

You must be dreaming...perhaps a night-mare...? 

Aha, how do you know what I’ve been taught, why, you know nothing about linguistics??? Where’s the brilliant logic of yours? 

Moreover, the rest of what you claim is simply ignorant.

 

 If you want me to change my mind, you have to show me real evidence. Not a pile of nonsensical claims that have no support in what I consider to be facts
It ain't, dude. :-)

 

You’re wrong as usual. 

 

What do you know about Sanskrit, Polat???

 

By no means, Polat. I'm as calm as a piece of ice . My ego hasn't been hurt yet. And won't be...perhaps your will....


No, I think you simply don’t want me to destroy your daydream.


Will you be so kind and “unshuffle” the Czech text for me? Will you be my eye-opener, please? Will you be my enlightener? My messiah? My savior?


Here we go. I reduced the text to only a few sentences, to make your task easier. 


Of course, it is irrational, since your hypothesis and methods are stupid.


Do I really have to show you everything? Look here


Only an idiot with no knowledge of German would not see the self-evident compound. Are you an idiot? (That’s a question).


but is you who doesn’t seem to able to read between the lines...


Oh, you can be surprisingly clever...oh, sorry, you don’t like irony, but I do 


That was another - intentionally stupid - analogy to provoke you to show me how you actually think.


You’re telling me no news.


Not like your fantasies...


You don’t know what you’re writing about. 


Ha ha ha, then you really know little about, biology, psychology and linguistics. 


You’re blind and deaf.


My opinions ARE humble


Think of yourself. Be ashamed a little.


as what you arrogantly assert to be evidence is a fart in a tornado.


You haven’t been polite enough to learn something about those you criticize. That’s the fraud.


Well, I know you know that I know you don’t know. You’ve been caught.


Oh, indeed, folks! The poor guys thinks he’s found America!


Apparently, you wouldn’t be able to understand a single Sumerian sentence.


It’s you who’s haunted by nightmares. Your brain doesn’t have time enough to recover and suffers from illusions, I suppose...


Stop insulting me, please. I’m not an inquisitor.  I wouldn't harm a fly. I won't burn you, do not worry.  I'm a peaceful man.


What you claim is an obvious lie. 


Aha, so now all languages are man-made. Congratulations. You’ve stolen that privilege from God...from nature...from whatever and whoever you consider to be the Creator.


No, you have given a pile of bold claims, very skillful and creative tongue-equilibristic. 

 

Only you are one of the lazy ones, perhaps – too lazy to follow them, too lazy to read the links I’ve provided, too lazy to think...or afraid?
 

 


Hm, I have an hypothesis: You are so used to your claims, you’ve got so used to the raster of seeing, that you fear “what on Earth would life be without my never-ending ‘analyses’”?


 

I DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE THAT ANATOLIA WAS THEIR HOMELAND!
 

 


...everyone is a “wanderer”. And you are a “sorcerer”, Polat.

I see, Polat. A book written for children in 1921 – another ultramodern reference!

And? Invasions and conquests are just like that. There were times for sure when Turks did the same.

And please, answer without propagating the silly stuff of yours, 

If you really knew some inflectional IE languages, you’d see things in new light.

PERFECT??? And you tell me that you’re HUMBLE? You nothing but a nationalist. By the way, .what other languages can you speak? Do you know Sanskrit??? Tell me, in what respect is the Turkish grammar “perfect”???

...please, stop using words (syntax) you don’t understand. What’s perfect in Turkish syntax???

Clearly you cannot read between the lines. He was sane not to include you unproven claims, just because his article would be deleted! That has nothing to do with YOUR sanity (although I have some doubts as to whether your thinking hasn’t been blurred somehow). Don't be touchy, please.

I have been doing YOU a great favor by patiently trying to understand your delirious reasoning. Your “clear cut terms” have lead to nowhere, as they are neither clear, nor actual terms, they’re only cut – cut off the reality.

I thought you wanted to prove your case. Was I wrong? You haven’t proven anything yet and I insist on that.

Your ignorance is your concern,

Really? Then prove to me you DO know an inflectional language.

No wonder you do not understand linguists and linguistics. Without basic knowledge of phonetics, you cannot read linguistic texts. Don’t be lazy, man, learn something.

However, I fear that you'll write something like "I don't have time to explain you again what I have already explained to you clearly." Am I right?

  
Or, do you fear that the results will show you’ve been wrong all the time??? That the thousands of hours of thorough reshuffling and comparing have been worthless?

 

...at the detective who uncovered the biggest sum of information irrelevant to the case...
 

 

 


Look, you’ve been as a detective, who’s found the surnames of all the musicians on the victim’s CD’s.


Why would I? Neither do I need the detective to find out for me, what’s on TV tomorrow.

I’ve given you much more attention than you ever deserve. Be grateful, you thankless desperado. ;-)

 

 But I didn’t know that the great Messiah himself was going to enlighten me in his postings.

 

You’re petulance is unmatched and unbelievable.


That proves how intolerant you are. Clearly, I’m much more tolerant than you, otherwise I wouldn’t ever have responded to your fantastic messages.   


I have no reason to be ashamed. I'm being critical. Is critical thinking a crime? Moreover, having to answer questions, we (and especially you) are improving our theories.
 

 

 


By the way, you might have wanted to enlighten me, but what you were really doing was ‘endarkening’. I have never turned around.


 

Please, don't tell me what to do.  I'm sorry if you think I was rude. It wasn't my intention. That depends on your definition of rudeness. As for the irony and sarcasm,


Well, isn't that special. I could respond very strongly to each and every one of these comments of yours - but I don't have to. They speak volumes about your "mental patterns".  There isn't an iota of scholarliness in the whole lot!  It is all villification, sophistry and intentional distraction which is a vivid example of hooliganism. None of it is scholarly contribution to the debate.  It is known that in a debate, the losing side resorts to sophistry and villification while the winning and correct side talks straight as an arrow.  What is obvious from your tantrum is that you are very bothered about my world-awakening revelations.  You are angry to learn from me that the notion of an "Indo-European" language family is not so independent and genuine.  You are angry to hear from me that Turkish is the progenitor language.  None of this has anything to do with my "nationalism".  I am simply reporting the biggest fraud in the history of civilization.

You also wrote:


Please, don't tell me what to do.  I'm sorry if you think I was rude. It wasn't my intention. That depends on your definition of rudeness. As for the irony and sarcasm, I won't apologize for them, as I don't consider them rude means of communication. They are very common here in the Czech Republic and everyone is used to them; people often smile and laugh and strike back with their own ironical comments. That's a good fun here. I'm sorry you didn't smile. I did  and I will.

You "don't consider them rude means of communication?" The above large collection of your comments is certainly a fine example of your rudeness though - and you know it.   But you are being dishonest by trying to legitimize your rudeness as some sort of "Czech" culture of irony and sarcasm.  This dishonesty of yours is itself a disservice to your own countrymen.  If I had used that kind of gutter talk to you, you would have gone ballistic.  Your pitiful communication style is far below the quality standards of this forum.  I trust the moderator will do his part to rectify this situation.


And lastly, you wrote:


 

Oh, that last sentence of yours is so sweet! :-) No I see you can strike back and I like that. If you are not afraid of opposition, a little irony and sarcasm and me, I’ll gladly crush your arguments to the dust in a one-to-one private chat session on MSN, ICQ and Skype.



You keep inviting me to have a one-to-one chat session but what you really want is to have a shouting contest.  Obviously you are far better at that, so I will gracefully decline your offer.  As far as you "crushing my arguments", I refer you back to my Checkmate comment that I made above with your own IE word list. Let me say that again: You will not be able to get out of it because I checkmated you!  This match is over Petr!


Best wishes to you and to everyone in the coming New Year,

Polat Kaya


REFERENCES:

1.    Divry's Modern English - Greek and Greek - English Desk Dictionary, New York, 1988.
2.    Cassell's Compact Latin - English English - Latin Dictionary, 1962.
3.    C. Graglia's New Pocket Dictionary of the Italian and English Languages, london, New York, 1864.    
4.    Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947, Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.

23/12/2006