Re: [bcn2004] Re: [hrl_2] I would like to see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words
Dear Ram Varmha and Friends,
Thank you for your response which is very enlightening. Now the word NAKHTI has another alternative in Turkish. First of all, I am still behind what I said about the makeup of the IE words meaning "night". Day and night are opposite of each other. The Latin word NOCTURNUS being from Turkish expression "KÜNÜN TERSI" meaning "opposite of day" is a very logical definition of this word in Turkish. Other IE words meaning "night" have followed the same path. In this context, the Sanskrit word NAKTHI meaning "night" could have very easily been derived from a Turkish expression such as the reversed form of Turkish GÜN, that is, NÜG + TU where "TU" is the Turkish suffix meaning "it is". Now that you provided the additional missing information, that is, NAKTHI being "NA + AKHTU", we have an alternate explanation for the origin of the word NAKTHI being in Turkish. Let me explain.
Sanskrit NA meaning "NOT" is the altered form of Turkish MA meaning "NOT". I noted this Turkish suffix MA in my last posting to you. I already new that English NO, NAY, etc. were madeup from Turkish MA. In fact not only NO and NA but also the so-called "Latin" "IN" and "UN" meaning "not" and appearing as a prefix to Latin words are altered versions of Turkish MA. In the case of IE words NA, NO, IN, UN, etc., the Turkish letter "M" in "MA" has been alphabetically upshifted into the letter "N", thus making the word NA and still having the same Turkish negation meaning. Thus, your Sanskrit NA is a restructured form of Turkish MA. Obviously, this alteration has been done in all IE languages.
The so-called "Sanskrit" word AKHTU meaning "RAY, LIGHT, BRIGHTNESS" is nothing but the Turkish word AKTU (AGTU, AGDU) meaning "it is white, it is light, it is bright". Now when we put Turkish "MA + AKTU" it becomes an expression meaning "it is not white, it is not light, it is not bright", that is, "IT IS BLACK" which the NAKHTI (NIGHT) is. Thus, Sanskrit "NA + AKHTU" (NAKHTI) is a restructured form of the Turkish expression "MA + AKTU". Only it has not been done in the Turkish word structuring fashion which I explained in my last posting to you. Turkish word AK (AKH, AG where KH and G are soft "G" of Turkish), means "white, bright, light" and TU is the Turkish suffix meaning "it is". For example, we say "GÜNÜN AK OLSUN" meaning "may your day be white, bright, light, nice".
Similar to Sanskrit "NA-AKHTU", we have in Turkish the word NAHOȘ meaning "not pleasant", "unpleasant". The word NAHOȘ is said to be a loan word from Persian into Turkish. The Turkish word HOȘ means "pleasent, nice, good", NA is the altered form of Turkish MA. Thus, it is clear that even the Persian Linguists changed Turkish "MA" into "NA" and used it with the Turkish word HOȘ to come up with the word NAHOȘ meaning "unpleasant" and called it a Persian word. Yet it is clear that even this word of "Persian" origin is a restructured form of two Turkish words combined in one word and its origin is in Turkish.
"I mean no disrespect to any one. But, linguistics is a very difficult subject and many linguistic scholaes have spent an enormous time and effort to understand the intricacies of the development and origin of words in languages."
Polat Kaya: I do not dispute the difficulty involved in linguistics and the fact that some linguists may have spent a lifetime on it. But could it be that perhaps they were not following the right path? Perhaps all the time, they were trying to justify the originality of the IE languages rather than seeing the fact that IE languages could have been madeup from another language. I have shown repeatedly that IE languages are not authentic and they are made up from Turkish. This is a rather difficult problem for the linguists to accept, but nevertheless, it is a fact. The NAKHTI (NA-AKHTU) example above also proves me correct in my claim.
"This is not a light matter; sometimes it become embedded with politics, pride of one's own language, pride of one's own country, bitterness over past grievances etc."
Polat Kaya: Yes, established linguistics and history writing are full of politics and pride but I am talking about the word formations of Indo-European languages. This is a technical matter just like geometry. I hope you do not think that I am joking or taking the whole matter lightly. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very serious in what I am saying about the IE languages. And please believe me that when I say that words of IE languages are made from Turkish, I mean no offence to anyone. I am simply analyzing and explaining the makeup of the words I am studying.
"But, we must not forget that it is also important to follow well defined and scientifically accepted methods of interpretations and analysis and not "make as you go" derivations to suit the objectives one hopes to obtain to prove a point."
Polat Kaya: If I were to follow the so-called "well defined and scientifically accepted methods of interpretations and analysis", then I would not be writing what I have been writing. I do not need to repeat what others have done. I am bringing a fresh concept to linguistics based on my discoveries and insight. I know it is difficult for "linguists" to accept it - but so be it! It will be accepted some time in the future. You do not seem to be accepting what I am saying yet you are trying to force me back into the established interpretations. But this is what I am against.
Best wishes to you and all,
Ram Varmha wrote:
I forgot to add the following:
The Sanskrit word for NIGHT could not have come from Turkish, NAK + THI, because the etymology of the word NAKTHI in Sanskrit is made of two specific and common words: NA and AKHTU.
NA means NOT. Its cognate with IE, no, nay, nein etc
And, AKHTU means RAY, LIGHT, BRIGHTNESS.
Therefore, NA AKHTI = means THAT WHICH IS NOT BRIGHT; NOT LIGHT.
Sorry; it has nothing to do with the Turkish word derivation of NAK + THI. The logic is flawed and really meaningless. The less said about this the better.
I mean no disrespect to any one. But, linguistics is a very difficult subject and many linguistic scholaes have spent an enormous time and effort to understand the intricacies of the development and origin of words in languages. This is not a light matter; sometimes it become embedded with politics, pride of one's own language, pride of one's own country, bitterness over past grievances etc. But, we must not forget that it is also important to follow well defined and scientifically accepted methods of interpretations and analysis and not "make as you go" derivations to suit the objectives one hopes to obtain to prove a point.
Ram Varmha <varmha@...> wrote:
Dear Dr. Kaya,
Sanskrit is a complicated language in that there may be multiple words for the same meaning.
As a random example, the word "UNDERSTAND" has the following equivalents in Sanskrit. All these words mean the same and can be used in the same context. It is not logical to assume that all these words are derived from Turkish.
How many words would you say there are in Latin, Greek, Avesta, Old Persian and Sanskrit combined, some alike, some different? There will be millions of words. How is it possible for all those people to pick up Turkish words and rearrange them in some totally random way, without an algorithm, to establish their individual languages. The time and energy expended to do such a work will take thousands of years, if at all possible. This is just not logical. Which idiots will do silly things like that?
I'm sorry, but my meager mind is not able to comprehend the depth of knowledge of the scholars on this list who are of the opinion that tampering with the Turkish language resulted in the creation of the IE languages.
I have said what I needed to and I have other pursuits to follow in life. Therefore, I close my arguments on the subject. Further discussions will be circular and lead to nowhere. Perhaps you gentlemen and ladies have no better work to do than spend your time trying to figure out the permutations and combinations by which Turkish words were transformed to Latin, Greek, Sanskrit etc. If so good for you and I wish you the best success. One small suggestion: Expand your findings to outside BCN_2004 to Universities and linguistic establishments so that they will benefit from your findings. Of course, you will say that they are pro-IE and will reject the theory of Turkish language base. In that case continue posting new words discovered that are of Turkish extraction on BCN, and be happy with your achievements, even if you have to pat your own backs.
Or better yet, join forces with Dr. Loganathan, who says that Sumerian is South Indian Tamil.
With regards and good will to all.
Polat Kaya <tntr@COMPMORE.
Dear Ram Varmha and Friends,
Greetings. First of all I would like to send my best wishes to you and to all for a healthy and happy New Year. Ram I apologize for appearing silent on your questions, but it is not intentional. As you know I have been very busy in writing my postings. Writing a meaningful response to all inquiries is a slow process for me. I am presently working on your questions regarding OM and also the Sanskrit Language. So I ask you to please be patient.
In my response to Petr, I explained the DAY and NIGHT relation where one is the opposite of the other. This was reflected in the makeup of the IE words meaningnight and they included the Turkish word GÜN meaning day backwards. In other words, the IE words for NIGHT were composed by reversing the Turkish word for DAY (i.e., GÜN) and tacking on the Turkish suffix DI or TI meaning "it is". Thus making something like NÜK + TI from Turkish GÜN + TI meaning "it is day". Now, as you can see, the "NAK" in the Sanskrit word NAKTHI is the opposite of TurkishKÜN/GÜN meaning "day". And also, this "THI" in Sanskrit word NAKTHI is the Turkish suffix DI or TI.
The following Latin word also verifies this. We have the Latin word NOCTURNUSmeaning "nocturnal, nightly". When the word NOCTURNUS is rearranged as"CUNUN-TORS"
,we find the Turkish phrase "KUNUN TERSi" (GÜNÜN TERSI)meaning "opposite of day" - which is "night" or "nocturnal" or "nightly". This proves my point that the Latin word "NOCTE" has been derived from the opposite of the Turkish word "KÜN / GÜN". Turkish word KÜN (GÜN) means "day", Turkish suffix UN / ÜN means "of" and TORS (TERS) means "opposite". When one puts all of these three Turkish words together into one "Latin" word and restructures them into NOCTURNUS, then it can be said that it is a stolen phrase from Turkish. How else can I explain it? NOCTE is just the cut-off front end of the word NOCTURNUSdeceptively allocated with the meaning of "night". All of these correspondences cannot be due to "chance resemblances" as some would like us to believe. So here is a Latin word NOCTURNUS which I have demonstrated as being made up from Turkish. I hope this will satisfy your questioning.
In the case of Latin OCTO meaning "eight" and LACTE meaning "milk" I clearly explained with examples that they were just cut-off front ends of longer words that were made up from Turkish SEKIZ meaning "eight" and SÜT meaning "milk" related Turkish phrases. The meanigs of Turkish "SEKIZ" and "SÜT" were artificially transferred to OCTO and LACTE respectively. I suspect that the same has taken place in the case of Sanskrit ASHTA and LOKAKA. This we may be able to find out from some other Sanskrit words related to these concepts. Since you know Sanskrit, I am hoping that you will kindly help me in understanding this matter better.
I do not deny the fact that "there are literally hundreds and thousands, of words similar to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit, as well as Avesta and Old Persian" as you say. As far as Latin and Greek are concerned, I have no doubt that they were manufactured from Turkish by way of restructuring the Turkish words and phrases. I have also seen similar cases with some of the Sanskrit words, although very limited in number. For example SARASVATI was one of them. I also wrote a paper giving a list of Avesta words that were manufactured from Turkish as we were having some discussions with Dr, Loganathan. So let us be patient and examine the problem with open mindedness and maybe we can explain the problem.
You ask "Why not create a brand new word rather that take a word and jumble it up to form a new word?" The simple answer is because creating words from nothing is very difficult - never mind creating a language from nothing. Have you ever tried to create a brand new word for something? If nobody else questioned your final product, you yourself would question it. It would take a very long time (maybe thousands of years) to develop a coherent and meaningful language. But, if someone were to start with the words and phrases from an already working language where their meanings and usage were already established, and then restructure and disguise them as words for a new language, his work would be reduced to years - if not months. Turkish is a monosyllabic agglutinative language in which most of the syllables have meanings as root words, verbs, adjectives or suffixes etc.. They constitute the building blocks of much longer words in Turkish. Besides, I have shown over and over that the Sumerians, Masarians ("Egyptians"
), Pelasgians, Minoans, Etruscans, Troians, etc were all speaking a form of Turkish. This means that Turkish was not a recent language in world history as it is wrongly portrayed to be. Just yesterday, I wrote that the name of the most ancient Sumerian epic story of Gilgamesh was actually Bilgamesh coming from the Turkish word BILGI meaning "knowledge". So we are talking of at least six thousand years plus history for Turkish.Ș provides this additional meaning.
You also asked "Why would one even want to twist and jumble up words from any language to form a word of their language." Because changing the language of the earliest Turanian civilizations such as Sumeria and Masaria (and others) into something not readily understood by the public must have initially been part of the "religious' rituals". When the "religious rituals" are "mysterious" with language that is not understandable, then it is overpowering and gives the impression that the priest is talking God's language. If everyone understood what the priest was saying and doing, he would be questioned by some because he was not convincing. Making it garbled makes it mysterious which then elevates those who use the "non-understandable
" language to a "godly" status and puts them above the normal ordinary trusting peoples whom the "religious" group wants to take advantage of. This is an exceedingly good and valid reason why the religious peoples have an overwhelmingly superior status above the other people. It is a very good business. Normal people always regards them with respect and in the process, the "religious" group gets to be rich and holds the contolling corner positions of society. This creates a racist class system where the "religious" group constitutes the top level and the rest are subordinate to them. All of these are exeedingly good reasons why they would change a language that every one understands. Furthermore, if the public is speaking one language common to all, and the "religious" group is speaking another non-understandable language, they may even regard themselves a distinct groups superior to others.
Let me give you an example regarding Turkish morphology. David has also been asking about such information. The following is a rather long Turkish word. I believe Kamil Kartal had given even a much longer one in this group.
TIR-A-MA-meaning " DIK-LAR-I- MIZ-DAN-MI- SI-NIZ?
Are you one from (of) those whom we have not been able to send to school?".
Now let us understand the agglutinative nature of this word. Actually there are no dashes between syllables, I put them there to show the joining of syllables to each other to make this word. The following explanations are not fully accurate. Some Turkish linguists could do an even better job of translating the addition of each syllable below. I give them to demonstrate my point.
OKUL (school); OKUL is the root word in this case.
OKUL-LU ( student, he/she who goes to school, he/she who is with school.). The LU suffix or infix achieves this meaning.
OKUL-LU-LAS- (become student, become one with school); the infixLA
TIR-(make him one who is going to school); addition of TIR gives this meaning.
TIR-A-A infix together with the following MA gives a meaning of "incapability" , that is, "not being able to achieve a desired result".
TIR-A-MA-MA is the Turkish negation infix here which negates the meaning of the word.
TIR-A-MA-"he could not make him/her to become someone to go school and become involved with schooling".suffix is the verbal suffix for third person singular, past tense case. Turkish DI suffix gives this change in meaning. DI-
TIR-A-MA-"We could not make him/her to become someone to go school and become involved with schooling". Turkish K suffix is the verbal suffix for first person plural meaning "WE". DI-K-
TIR-A-MA-LAR is the plurality suffix. DI-K-LAR
TIR-A-MA-"Those whom they could not make go to school" DIK-LAR-I
TIR-A-MA-"Those whom we could not make go to school" DIK-LAR-I- MIZ
TIR-A-MA-DAN suffix provided the meaning of "from" or "of" to the word. DIK-LAR-I- MIZ-DAN
TIR-A-MA-MI suffix is the question (interrogating) suffix making the meaning of the word as: "is he/she one from (of) those whom we have not been able to send to school? DIK-LAR-I- MIZ-DAN-MI?
TIR-A-MA-SIN is a form of the personal pronoun for second person singular SEN. This makes the meaning of the word as: "Are you (singular) from those whom we have not been able to send to school?" DIK-LAR-I- MIZ-DAN-MI- SIN?
TIR-A-MA-The last IZ is the suffix that converts the suffix SIN into SINIZ as verbal suffix for second person plural. In this last form, the meaning of the word becomes : DIK-LAR-I- MIZ-DAN-MI- SIN-IZ?
"Are you (formal case and/or plural case) from those whom we have not been able to send to school?
Other word formations in Turkish are similar to this fairly long word. I hope I have demonstrated what it means for the Turkish language to be "agglutinative"
. It should be noted that each addition is a syllabic word.
When I say IE languages have been stolen from Turkish, it is not my intention to insult anyone. I also say that ordinary people had nothing to do with this changing or restructuring of Turkish. Most likely they were the special secretive groups whose hobby was to generate "cults" and declare them as "religions" by means of which they exploited and controlled the ordinary people. By using the word "stolen", I am trying to accentuate the fact that the words of these languages have been restructured from Turkish words and phrases and also hidden so that the Turkish source is not visible anymore. For example, when one takes the Turkish word YOGURT and uses it, as it is, in his language, that makes TOGURT an imported loan word. If, however, someone takes Turkish YOGURT and changes it into some other form by means of restructuring and wrapping with additional letters or even words so that it still means "yogurt" but is no longer recognizable as the Turkish word YOGURT - and furthermore makes no reference that it came from a Turkish source, then, one wonders what should this be called? I hope this clarifies your questions. As for your earlier questions to me, I am working on them.
Best wishes to you and to all,
Ram Varmha wrote:
Here are some Sanskrit words which are etymologically connected with Latin, for example.
Nocte = Night = Nakthi
Octo = Eight = Ashta
Lacte = Milk = Lokaka
There are literally hundreds and thousands, of words similar to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. As well as Avesta and Old Persian. Sanskrit along with the others form part of the IE family of languages. I do not know Latin or Greek, or Turkish, but I do know Sanskrit. I wonder if there are any old etymological or transformed words connecting Turkish to Sanskrit? Now there are number of Turkish words into Hindustani and Urdu because of contacts between the Turks who advanced to India through Persia or Iran in the 14 and 1500s and settled in the sub-continent. This is history and we know that. But, to the best of my knowledge I do not find any connection between Sanskrit and Turkish.
There are numerous learned scholars on this list. I will appreciate if any one of you will kindly show me some words in Sanskrit that can be transformed to Turkish. Perhaps, you may be right in finding jumbled up words in Latin from Turkish root. I am unable to be pro or anti to your findings. But, as I said I know Sanskrit and I am interested to seek your help in finding concocted Sanskrit words from Turkish.
Sanskrit, though part of IE was not born from Latin or Greek. Latin and Sanskrit are related, one did not give birth to the other. They had an ancient parent in proto-IE from which all those different languages diverged. So, if you gentlemen can find, let us say, a word in Turkish that is said to be concocted to form the Latin word Nocte for Night, then can you also say that the word Nakhti is some how a concocted word from Turkish as well?
So, how does one find the logic in saying that words are taken from Turkish and purposely twisted or encrypted to form IE languages. Why would one even want to twist and jumble up words from any language to form a word of their language. Why not create a brand new word rather that take a word and jumble it up to form a new word? Let us say that the word "Italia" is derived, purposely concealed, from "Altoi-Oy" or some thing like that. Why would any one go to that extent to cover up a word from another? I fail to see the logic of it. What would be the purpose?
But, I'm deviating from my basic theme re Sanskrit, as an IE language. My problem is that the scholars on this site are always referring to Turkish being stolen by IEs. If you are so convinced that Latin and Greek are prone to have stolen from Turkish, so be it. But, unless any one of the scholars here can show that an IE language like Sankrit has also stolen from Turkish, then, you should delete references to IE and stick with just European as the thieves. Or prove it otherwise.
That is the point I'm trying to make.
With the best regards for a Happy New Year to one and all.
Polat Kaya <tntr@COMPMORE.
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:
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 andUNSHUFFLING (alternatively reshuffling)
, if you don't mind. Then, of course, all the algorithm stuff is irrelevant - I admit and stress that.
The rest of the posting was cut off.