Re: [hrl_2] follow up from last message on Kaya's theory
"Showing correspondences to Sumerian does not help me see correspondences to other languages, and I believe scholars have faked the decipherment of Sumerian, so it is likely to skew any theories. Probably one of the decipherers of Sumerian had knowledge of Turkish and found what he or she was subconsciously looking for. Well that is my opinion. I think decipherment of such an abstract system of symbols would require more than a known closely related language. I say this from the perspective of being a decipherer myself, having done work in and continue to do work in Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherment."
Regarding your comments in red which you call your own opinion, you are actually agreeing with my beliefs that I made earlier regarding the msreading of the Sumerian texts by "sumerologists" and that sumerologists had knowledge of Turkish which they used to read the Sumerian texts. However, when they did their transcriptions, they presented them in such a way that the transcribed Sumerian text did not resemble Turkish. Additionally, they called the Sumerian a dead language but in fact, as I pointed out, Sumerian was not dead but rather was a dialect of Turkish and was still living in Turkish. My views are noted, for example, in my paper N0 283 in Polat Kaya Library. The following paragraph is from that paper of mine:
Jul 13, 2005
"Polat Kaya: Throughout the Indo-European and Semitic languages I find so many cases where the Turkish letter "C" has been changed into S, C, or K. This allows me to say that most likely they changed Turkish "C" to "S" here also. What follows from this is that it is very likely that those who read the Sumerian texts read them in Turkish first, but then presented the results in a form that does not look Turkish. Thus showing an original "CEM" as "SAM" should not be a problem for some of these linguists. After all Turkish "SÖZ" was also presented as ZEUS! For example, the Sumerologists somehow came up with LAL as the Sumerian word for "honey" which has the Turkish form BAL. How do we know that the Sumerologists did not read it as BAL first and then change it to LAL? The Sumerologists read EN-LIL as the Sumerian "Wind God" which has the Turkish form "HAN YEL" meaning "Lord Wind". How do we know that the original Sumerian was not HAN-YEL or EN-YEL? They read Sumerian "LALARTU" as meaning "phantom" but they do not indicate that this could be the Turkish expression "LAL ARTU (LAL ERDÜ) meaning "tongueless man" (i.e., a phantom). Are these all coincidences or is somebody intentionally ignoring or suppressing the Turkish aspect of Sumerian? Was it not the "Babylonians" who confused the "one language that the world spoke"? What god ordered that to be done? After all most of the readers of the Sumerian texts were scholars who pobably knew Turkish well. How do we know that they did not utilise their knowledge of Turkish in reading the Sumerian texts but then paint a different picture in the transliteration? Of course the "Semitic" aspect is pushed to the front as usual. Remember in many books the name "GILGAMESH" (BILGAMESH) is indicated as "Assyrian -Babylonian" rather than Sumerian or Turkish. Do you not find these things questionable? Very conveniently the Turanian or Tur/Turk aspect of the ancient Masar/Misir civilization is suppressed and the name MASAR or MISIR is replaced with EGYPT meaning "Home of Gypsies" or "Home of Wanderers". Were ancient Turanian Masar people "gypsies"? Of course not! Gypsies do not build pyramids or those most magnificent stone monuments of ancient Masar/Misir. "
As you know, I have been saying over and over again that there has been anagrammatizing from Turkish into Indo-European and Semitic languages. Greek, Latin, English, Italian and others are living examples of such languages. To prove my point I have given so many papers discussing subjects that cover a large spectrum. In response I get sophistry and putdowns or the silent treatment. Now you are saying the following which agrees with all the things that I have been sayingand of which I am happy that you are saying:
"Three different claims can be made, and I think Kaya is making these:
1. There is anagramatizing from Turkish to other languages in derivation by morpheme mix-up or reordering.
2. There are basic word correspondences between Turkish and other classic languages.
3. Turkish has an ideal morphology.
4. Turkish is the Original Language."
And I must note that there is no ifs or buts about what I am saying, although you say the above view with some conditions. Regarding item 3 above, I gave a sample of Turkish morphology where monosyllabic suffixes are added to a root word to come up with long words with refined meanings. I will stop my comments here but, if need be, I may return to the subject again.
Best wishes to all,
David L wrote:
I want to clarify (make clear) something I was saying in the last message.I do not know what percentage of words Kaya says is derived from Turkish. When I say that I agree that some Turkish is related to other words of other languages, other scholars would also agree.I am sure that there are some words related between Ancient Hebrew and Turkish that scholars have not noticed, I gave a couple of example in one of my recent messages this December.Showing correspondences to Sumerian does not help me see correspondences to other languages, and I believe scholars have faked the decipherment of Sumerian, so it is likely to skew any theories. Probably one of the decipherers of Sumerian had knowledge of Turkish and found what he or she was subconsciously looking for. Well that is my opinion. I think decipherment of such an abstract system of symbols would require more than a known closely related language. I say this from the perspective of being a decipherer myself, having done work in and continue to do work in Egyptian hieroglyphic decipherment.I need to see a set of correspondences (with no long explanations) to prove "anagramatizing" (mixing up) of morphemes. Such correspondences should be shown to languages of whatever language family we are trying to prove a connection to. Because of a mixing up of letters, a lot more evidence than usual will be needed. But if there is a language which is not thought to have any connection to Turkish and you show that there are 4 or more correspondences, which are straight forward (no anagramatizing), then we have established that there was a connection and then we can look at possible cases of anagramatizing.It would be nice to find at least 10 correspondences for anagramatizing between Turkish and one other language compared.Three different claims can be made, and I think Kaya is making these:1. There is anagramatizing from Turkish to other languages in derivation by morpheme mix-up or reordering.2. There are basic word correspondences between Turkish and other classic languages.3. Turkish has an ideal morphology.4. Turkish is the Original Language.
These are separate claims and they must be established separately, even if the evidence for one is the evidence for another part of the theory.I do not think any book shows that Turkish has an ideal morphology (claim 3 from above) the way I understand an ideal morphology.claim (1) from above is not proven to my knowledge, and I have not seen a concise list of evidence.Kaya seems to be saying that conditions 1, 2, and 3 are required for theory 4. But again 1 and 3 have to be proven.Dave