Re: [hrl_2] follow up from last message on Kaya's theory
"I believe you are discovering important things.
But I do not see the anagramatizing evidence clearly enough, because I need a concise list of at least 20 examples. I do not know what amount of data would be statistically significant in this anagramatizing theory."
Please see my discussion of Latin words related to OCTA I posted at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/387.
There you will see how the anagrammatizing have been done clearly.
You also said:
"I also do not know how you can prove weather a form was anagrammatized borrowed from Latin into Turkish or borrowed from Turkish into Latin."
You are still talking about "borrowing" while I have been clearly demonstrating "taking and hiding". "Borrowed" words stay the same in their original format. But when words and phrases are altered from their original forms and become disguised, then, then, they are not "borrowed" anymore. The borrowed things are returnable in their original form. In all my analysis, I have shown that linguistic transfers, that is, anagrammatizing, have not been from Latin into Turkish, but rather have been from Turkish into the manufactured Latin and Greek. This you do not want to see. I get the feeling that you are just playing games and pretending to give the impression that you do not understand. I am sure you understand clearly what I have been saying and how the anagrammatizing of Turkish was done into Greek, Latin, English, French and the rest of it. But it is so very difficult for all out there to admit that Turkish has been usurped into newly manufactured languages. What I say is so very contrary to all the things that have been wrongly taught where no mention of Turkish is ever made. In the presented ancient world, everything was either Greek, Semitic or Latin, etc. but of course - no Turkish. Suddenly I brought to the attention of everyone a totally new and different situation where Turkish is the primary source language and the others were manufactured from it. Of course my revelation pulls the rug out from under the Greek, Latin, and other languages. That is rather stunning for a lot of people and hard to accept. I am sure that in time though, linguists will come to understand that I am correct and that not only has an unimaginable linguistic fraud been perpetrated throughout history to present times but also an ancient Turanian civilization has been obliterated and stolen. Until I mentioned the fact that European languages were anagrammatized from words and phrases of Turkish, we Turks did not even know what anagrammatizing was while others knew it and practised it since the time of the Akkadians.
Best wishes to all,
David L wrote:
I believe you are discovering important things.But I do not see the anagramatizing evidence clearly enough, because I need a concise list of at least 20 examples. I do not know what amount of data would be statistically significant in this anagramatizing theory.I also do not know how you can prove weather a form was anagrammatized borrowed from Latin into Turkish or borrowed from Turkish into Latin.But I am concerned with the limits and possibilities for proof, and what we can say on scientific grounds. So I will continue to investigate.If we are going to make the case for anagramatizing from original language then we must deal with basic vocabulary.When I finish editing my article on Ancient Hebrew Derivational Morphology I will present it so you can see how I present the data.(May be some day we can get together and publish a book containing various theories of what the original language was like, and show evidence for those theories, "Theories on the Original Language" by Mozeson, Kaya, Ruhlen and Leonardi.) just a thought.Dave--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:David,You said:"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.