Sayin Turhan Tisinli bey,
Greetings. Thank you for your response to my posting entitled, "Words under the lens:
"APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY",
"ALLEGORIKOS" and "ALLEGORIKON""
You wrote:
Sayın Polat Kaya bey
Will you at least give those non-Turk linguist-priests generous credit for inventing the "concept" of "world‐consuming holocaust", let alone concocting the term "apocalypse" to name it. I said non-Turk linguist-priests, because if they had been Turks they would have created one (both the concept and it name) for Turkish too: To the best of my knowledge, the concept of apocalypse and its name, "kiyamet", in Turkish are "loan"s from Arabic, even if you claim that Arabic was manufactured from Turkish, which you do. This is because Turkish does not produce new words by anagrammatizing, therefore, for example "allegory" or "kiyamet" cannot be considered Turkish words.
I am afraid I don't see things the same way you do. You cannot expect me to
give generous credit to
those who
intentionally usurped from the Turkish language - and after restructuring it,
sold it back to the Turks and the world as their own language without ever remembering
the name Turkish. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose someone stole
your car and after re-painting it and altering some visible aspects etc., made
it unrecognizable to you. After this fantastic embellishment, he took it
to the market and somehow sold it to you as his car. You as the original owner
did not recognize it as your own car nor did you suspect it was your car.
However, after a while, you somehow discovered that it was indeed your
car. Now, in view of this discovery, would you be praising and giving
"generous credit" to the seller for doing such a good job of stealing
your car and reconditioning it so well that you did not even recognize your own
car while it was being sold back to you? I think not. Additionally,
I must note that the usurper had neither invented nor built this stolen and
embellished car. Everybody must understand that
the repainting and embellishment of a stolen car is much easier to do than
building that car from scratch.
Manufacturing words that are the restructured and altered forms of Turkish
words and phrases is very much the same thing. After discovering this fact, you
cannot expect me to be googly-eyed about IE words like "apocalypse"
or "apocalyptic" just because Turkish does not have such words. I
would also think that you would not be so generous in giving credit to those
who not only usurped from the Turkish language for their own benefit but also
confused the one language that the world spoke - so that the speakers of that
language would not understand each other.
After having said this, I must also point out that from the point of view of
their own benefits, they have done a fantastic job in manufacturing so many
similar but yet different languages from Turkish. By doing that, they
furthered their own cause and survivability at the expense of the Turanians. I
have recognized their illegal achievements and mentioned in a number of my
previous papers but in spite of my recognition, the result is unchanged. That
is to say, historically, the Turkish language was usurped and together with it,
the ancient Turanian religion, civilization and even the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz
peoples were taken over by deception.
In this process, if anyone should be given "generous credit", it
should be the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples who developed a peerless
language with mathematical precision - called "Turkish" (Türkçe) more
than ten thousand years ago - and that language has been
the world language for a long time before new "languages" were
generated from it. In that process, the monosyllabic resources of Turkish were
used as "source material" for all IE and Semitic languages and
others.
You say that it was those non-Turk
linguist-priests who invented the "concept" of "world‐consuming
holocaust", and the term "apocalypse" for which they
should be given generous credit". To this I say, I wish they had neither "killed"
so many human beings, nor had they "invented" the so-called concept
of "holocaust" and the word for
it. It can also be said that the term "holocaust" is a recent
one. Most likely, it was neither new nor was the concept "invented"
for the first time.
The term "holocaust" essentially describes an event of
"mass-killing" of people. In "Latin", there are also some
words like this. For example, there is the word "TYRANNICIDA" supposedly
meaning to "
kill a tyrant" - but in actuality this
is a bogus definition in order to cover up the mass-killings of the native
Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples of "Europe" and elsewhere - that took
place during the spread of Christianity in Europe and elsewhere.
When the word "TYRANNICIDA" is
rearranged in the form of "TYRANNI-CIDA", we
find the
Turkish expression "TURANNI KIYDI" (TURANLI KIYDI, TURANLIA
KIYDI) meaning "mass
killed the Turanians". The Turkish word "KIYIM" means
"cutting or chopping into small pieces" - as in the case of
"chopped meat", that is, Turkish "KIYMA". "KIYIM"
also refers to the "mass-killing" of people. A similar word is
Turkish "KIRIM" which also describes "mass-killing"
- and the word TURANNI (TURANLI) meaning "people from
Turan". Thus, the source of this so-called "Latin"
word was from Turkish. Evidently, "TYRANNICIDA was
'invented' by some "linguist-wordlifters" - to describe in a
secretive way what happened to the ancient Turanians of Europe.
Let me also point out that there is the Latin word TYRANNIS meaning
"tyranny" which is very much the Turkish word "TURANNI" meaning "he
who is from Turan". Etruscans in ancient "Italia" were
also called "TYRRHENI", [Cassell's Compact Dictionary,
p. 259], indicating
that they were Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. It is curious that they do not
exist anymore in European geography. Etruscans were both assimilated and
annihilated - and their civilization was usurped (transferred) to the Romans.
Furthermore, during the spread of Christianity in Europe, it is known that
millions of men and women were burned to death in Europe by the guidance of the
Church leaders under the pretext that they were practicing "witchcraft".
Most likely, they were the native peoples of Europe, that is, people who were
ancient Turanians practicing their very ancient Sun, Moon and Sky-God (TANRI)
believing religion. Those who were being burned to death were not the
Christianity believing men or women.
This word "TYRANNICIDA" is like the following words:
a) GENOCIDE meaning "mass killing".
When GENOCIDE is rearranged in the form of
"GENE-CIDO", we find the Turkish expression "CANA KIYDU"
(CANA KIYDI) meaning "killed men women, killed living
beings".
b) SUICIDE, meaning "killing oneself". When SUICIDE
is rearranged in
the form of "USE-CIDI", we find the Turkish expression "ÖZE
KIYDI" (KENDINE KIYDI, CANINA KIYDI) meaning "killed
himself/herself". In "Latin", the letter "C" is
voiced as "K".
Other examples can be given. So you can see that all of
these "sophisticated" words are all made up from Turkish expressions
that were taken without permission.
That Latin word "TYRANNICIDA" was a word coined to secretly express
the destruction of the Turanians - but with a deceptive meaning assigned to it
- i.e., supposedly meaning to kill a tyrant.
Now let us turn back to the term HOLOCAUST. I will show you that it is
not an IE invention but rather the alteration and restructuring of an existing
expression.
Let us rearrange the term HOLOCAUST letter by letter
as "OLO-CASTH-U", where the letter "C" is the
disguised letter "K", and the voiceless letter "H" is not
only an "H" but is also a disguised Greek "I". When
we replace these letters in the word, we end up with the deciphered expression
of "OLO-KASTI-U". You, yourself being one who knows Turkish,
will recognize that this expression is a distorted form of the Turkish
expression "ULU KESTI O" meaning "it is the great
cutting" , "it is the great slaughter", "it is the great
massacre". So this word HOLOCAUST is also sourced from a
Turkish expression.
Now let us turn to your example of the "Arabic" word KIYAMET used in
Turkish because supposedly Turkish did not have such a word and had to import
one from "Arabic".
The term KIYAMET means "1. Resurrection of the dead; last
judgement; doomsday. 2. Great disaster, tumult, disturbance," [Redhouse
Turkish-English Dictionary, p. 660].
First of all, none of these concepts belong to "Arabic". They
are all from the ancient "Masarian" (falsely so called
"Egyptian") religion. The ancient Masarians were neither Arab,
nor Semitic nor Gypsy nor Indo-European. They were ancient Turanian
Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and the civilization that they created around the river
Nile was a Turanian civilization. I hope you read my last two revealing
Masarian papers given at:
http://polatkaya.net/Part-3_Masar_Turkish-1.html (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/469) and
http://polatkaya.net/Masarian_had_letter_L.html (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/472)
Furthermore, the word KIYAMET has the Turkish word KIYIM (mass
killing), KIYMA (killing, chopping, mince making), TAM
KIYI (complete
killing) and KIYIM ET or KIYIM ETME (doing mass killing)
expressions in it. This is not a coincidence. It looks like someone
used the Turkish language as a source to come up with the word KIYAMET.
Incidently, the so-called "doomsday" or "kiyamet" takes
place for any person when he/she dies - whether peacefully or by violence.
For the dead person, death is his or her doomsday. Any attempt to
theorize a future "doomsday" for all humanity is nothing more than
"witchcraft".
When you say that
"for example "allegory" or "kiyamet" cannot be considered Turkish words."
I say "yes", because that is stating the obvious. But
I did not say that "allegory" or "kiyamet" was Turkish.
I said "allegory" and its supposedly mother source, that is,
the Greek "allegorikos" or "allegorikon" were made up
from a Turkish source. This makes the Turkish language as
the "model" and the "source" language and puts it ahead of
the other newly generated ones. So let us not distort and/or confuse my
words.
I can also turn your concerns about Turkish around by saying: if
Turkish was such a "primitive" language, and those who
"invented" the words "apocalypse",
"apocalyptic", "holocaust",
"allegory" or the "kiyamet" were such
inventive linguists, why did they use the "simple" Turkish words in
the make-up of these "sophisticated" looking words? Why didn't
they use their own words?
I will tell you: because they did not have a language of their own to start with.
They were all speaking the very ancient language of Turkish. When they
wanted to separate themselves from Turkish, they used the anagrammatizing
technique to come up with a variety of languages for which Turkish was
used as the source. They used Turkish as an endless treasury of words and
expressions ready to be used for building new words by
linguist-priests who were the leading people of their wandering groups. It
seems that their hands are still dipping into that Turkish "cookie
jar" - picking up linguistic material as needed to manufacture new and
sophisticated looking words. They also know that by doing this, nothing will
appear to be visibly missing from the Turkish language. If nothing
appears to be missing, then nobody will know the difference and nobody will be
suspicious. It's almost the perfect crime. Except that they got
caught.
Now I would like to point out that although Turkish does not have words like
"APOCALYPSE or APOCALYTIC or HOLOCAUST or KIYAMET, as the progenitor
language, it has many expressions describing these concepts and events. For
example, read the following Turkish expressions:
"ulu kiyim, büyük kiyim, ulu kirim, ulu kesim, aga kirim, kökünü kazima, kökünü
kurutma, tas
tas üstünde birakmama, ocagini söndürme, neslini kurutma, soyunu yoketme, etc.."
I am sure you can add some more Turkish expressions like these to this list.
So, the Turkish language is not lacking such concepts, but rather it
expresses them all in "definition" formats natural to its own
linguistic character. For that reason, it does not have to invent bogus words
that do not fit into the structure of the Turkish language. You must also note
that any one of these Turkish expressions can be broken up and then
restructured into many new word formats that are not Turkish. Yet they would be
expressing these concepts with Turkish meanings attributed to them. Such a
wealth of Turkish expressions provides an endless resource for the "word
manufacturers" or "language engineers".
You wrote:
"It has been many thousands of years since "apocalypse" came to be, and inspite of this Turkish still doesn't have a term for apocalypse of its own ("kapı" and " aç" are simple words no language lacks)."
In answer to your statement, I just explained above why Turkish does not have
or needs not to have words like your "apocalypse". Because it
has them all in formats suitable to its own linguistic nature. Secondly,
words are names given to concepts to identify and separate them from other
concepts, just like the names of people. It does not make any difference
whether they are short or "simple" as you call it, or
"long". They have all the same mission in life: to identify a
"concept". In that regard, Tukish words "KAPI" and
"AÇ" cannot be regarded as simple as you call them. And for the
record, the "KAPI AÇILIPTI" expression is no more simplistic or
"primitive" then the word "APOCALYPSE" or
"APOCALYPTIC". Furthermore, "KAPI AÇILIPTI" is
authentic Turkish, but the words "APOCALYPSE" or
"APOCALYPTIC" are based on stolen and
restructured Turkish expressions. In other words somebody stole your car, and
after altering it and disguising it with embellishments, sold it back to you as
his car - and now you are admiring it.
From your statements above, you seem to be one of those who belittle Turkish
because of the shortness of its words. Please read the following Turkish
sentence:
"Türkçeyi sözcüklerinin küçüklügünden dolayi küçümser
görünenlerdensiniz".
Is there anything simple about the words of this Turkish sentence?
As I noted in my writing, Turkish is a monosyllabic and agglutinative language.
You can see this from my above given example. Therefore, its short
syllabic words are the basic building blocks of not only the Turkish language,
but also other languages. As we all know, bricks are small in size but
huge buildings are built with them. Similarly, with the short but effective
words and suffixes of Turkish, one can make volumes of writing
with extremely expressive and subtle expressions. For that reason, one
does not need to make words that do not fit into the mathematically organized
Turkish language. After all, atoms are also invisibly small
particles, but the universe is made up with them.
You said:
As a matter of fact, from the data you have been presenting about this "Turkish" and for so long, there is not even one single word that tells me that these Turks' language contained any sophisticated (cultural, philosophical, scientific) words of the caliber of "apocalypse", "eschatology", "allegory", etc. "
Turkish is an honest language and its every aspect is
visible. I have presented Turkish for so long and explained in many of my
papers that the language manufacturers have used Turkish phrases because long
phrases are easier to alter and disguise. They could not do effective
disguising if they used ordinary words of Turkish. But with Turkish
expressions using a number of ordinary Turkish words in defining concepts, it
is a totally different ball game. They can join together the words of those
expressions and manipulate the resulting long words in any way they want to -
without limitations. In my decipherments of the IE words, I identify the
individual Turkish words in a concept-defining Turkish expression that is used
as source for the make of each IE word. So, that is why my decipherments come
up with smaller Turkish words which you call "simple". Turkish
expressions are
perfectly suitable for being transformed into alien words.
Although they thought that the deception would never be detected, they forgot
that the original information still existed in the newly restructured words.
Thus, the original Turkic identity was saved in those encrypted and
"sophisticated" looking words that were generated from Turkish. From
these invisible fingerprints left in those so many sample IE words, I
discovered a very cleverly disguised linguistic deception that others have not
been able to see for so long. Even those who knew what was done have not
admitted that fact.
You too seem to be deeply influenced by the IE words and their apparent
"sophistication". Words such as: sophisticated, cultural,
philosophical, scientific, etc., and other words of 'caliber' such as "apocalypse",
"eschatology", "scatology", "allegory", etc. have
created an artificial dazzling effect on many people. Somehow, you too do not
seem to be interested in what lies at their root - which I explained so clearly
with so many examples in my writings.
For your benefit and also for the benefit of all those who doubt the
"proto-language" status of Turkish, I will decipher the following
words.
1) The word "SOPHISTICATE" [supposedly from M.Latin "sophisticatus"],
is defined "to
deprive of genuineness, naturalness, or simplicity; to disillusion; to make
wordly-wise", [ Webster's , 1947, p. 949]. In other words, to
make something artificial, concocted, not genuine. Thus, the words that you
admire as "sophisticated" are actually artificial, that is,
"sahte" in Turkish". This we can see when we rearrange the Latin
word SOPHISTICATUS
letter-by-letteras "SAHTI-UOPISST- C" ,
where U = Y =V, SS is for Turkish Ş and Z, and read as in Turkish,we find that
it is the Turkish expression "SAHTE YAPIŞTI" meaning 'it
is being made artificial" - which is another way of saying "to
deprive of genuineness".
2) The term CULTURAL supposedly is from Latin
"CULTURA" meaning "culture,
cultivation; agriculture; mental culture", [Cassell's Compact Latin-
English Dictionary, 1962, p. 66].
CULTURA rearranged in the form "TURLACU" or
"TARLUCU" is very much the Turkish word "TARLACU" meaning "farmer" who
does "cultivation
of the fields and agriculture". This correspondence cannot be due to
coincidence. So this Latin word unquestionably is from an altered Turkish
source and so are all other words that claim to be from this word.
Related to the term "agriculture" is the word
"AGRICULTURAL". When this word is rearranged letter-by-letter and
viewed as "R-TARLACILUGU", we find that it is the Turkish expression
"ER TARLACILUGU" meaning "agricultural
occupation of man in the fields", "man farming the fields",
"it is man's working the fields."
So this word is also made up from a stolen Turkish expression.
Additionally, when the "Latin" word CULTURA is
rearranged letter-by-letter and viewed as "TURACUL", we find that it
is the Turkish word "TÖRECIL" (töre sahibi, kültür sahibi, adet ve
anane sahibi) meaning "he who has culture,
traditions, laws and orders, etc.." Thus, this is the second
meaning of the word "CULTURA". Again we find that its source is
Turkish.
3) The word "PHILOSOPHICAL" means "love
of wisdom", [Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 746].
When this word is rearranged letter-by-letter and viewed as "PIL-SAPHICOLOH",
where PH = F => V, we find that it is the altered and restructured Turkish
expression "BIL SEVICILIK" (BILGI SEVICILIK) meaning "it
is love of knowledge", "it is love of science". You
will agree that this is not coincidence either. Thus, the linguistic material needed
for the make up of this word has also been stolen from Turkish.
4) The word SCIENTIFIC, rearranged letter-by-letter
and viewed as "CC-FEN-ISITI",
where CC is KK, is
found as the altered and restructured Turkish expression "KÖK
FEN IŞIDI" meaning "it is the root
science work" which is what the word "scientific"
means. Turkish words KÖK means "root", FEN
means "science",
and IŞIDI means "it
is the work". Thus, the linguistic source material for this word
is also from Turkish.
For the rest of your "caliber" words, that is, "apocalypse"
or "apocalyptic", "eschatology", "scatology" and
"allegory", I already explained them in my last posting to which you
responded.
As can be seen from all of these decipherments, all of these so-called scientific "Greek"
or "Latin" or "English",
etc. words are all made up from the resources of one language - which is
Turkish. The technique used for this usurpation is simple yet very effective.
With such a simple technique, those who work with it have realized that
anything and everything can be stolen from others without being detected.
With this technique, they give the impression that they are super
"beings" who can generate such 'dazzling' words, yet the
"Turks" cannot go beyond simple terms as
you also say and believe.
As you can see, I have confidently demonstrated that you are wrong in the way
you think about the Turkish language. After all these explanations, I
cannot be so google-eyed about these so-called "Indo-European" words.
(If I may use my Turkish here to say effectively: "Bana öyle geliyor ki
biz Türkler Avrupa dünyasina hep ŞAŞI gözlerle bakiyoruz. Baska bir degimle,
adesenin "büyütec" tarafiyla onlara ve "küçülteç" tarafiyla
da kendimize bakiyoruz. Bu yüzden de onlari hep büyük ve kendimizi de küçük
görüyoruz.)
You wrote:
If these priests where Turks, where is what they created for Turkish, if they were non-Turks, how did they get so smart knowing that they had no language of their own.?! Gurus of "Turkoliji" and "Turkiyat" in Turkish Universities are afraid to invent, never mind inventing, using an existing Turkic word that has been dropped from usage in favor of a "beloved" foreign word, like that of "uçmak" (heaven) instead of Arabic "cennet" (garden, paradise); afraid of being ridiculed by the centuries long linguistically challenged public who loves to use anything invented abroad, even if it is the term "mouse", or "Bakara" (cow). If the foreign word is not used why not translate it using an established loan like that of Arabic "fare" (mouse)!. Poor sıçan! (Is there any other language on the whole Earth that has borrowed the word for mouse from another language other than Turkish?! What a shame for allegedly mother-of-all-languages Turkish!!)
Esenlikler Turhan Tisinli
Those "linguistic priests" were not
"Turks" and neither were they that "smart" - as you think
they were. A simple technique of language alteration enabled them to get away
with endless usurpation of not only words of a language, but
also the
civilization, culture, people and countries of ancient Turanians - without
being detected. Those "linguistic priests" were
deceptive and destructive players, so
much so that they could take a world-wide spoken language and after changing
it, sell it back to world as if it was their own genuine creation.
On the other hand, those Turk "priests", that is, most likely were
shamans (e.g., "kam" in Turkish) who were working honestly and also
as intelligently, left to all Turks and the world a most systematic and
magnificent language ever developed by human beings. No one is in a position to
deny that fact.
What you say about the "gurus of Turkology" have merits. I also think
that they should be much more knowledgeable about the roots of the
Turkish language, develop self confidence and
be bold about their subject. I believe their timidity comes from the fact that
they have been surrounded, bombarded and guided by an established
"linguistic world" that promotes, since ancient times, the
artificially made up IE and Semitic languages above everything else. Thus,
those "gurus
of Turkology", not knowing what truly lies under so many
established and widely spoken languages, are intimidated into regarding them as
if they were independently developed and authentic languages. This way they are
forced to walk with the crowd and accept what has been placed on top of
the table and ignore what has taken place behind closed doors in the
past.
I agree with you about the fact that even at present as was done in the past
many Turkish words have been dropped and/or replaced by 'foreign' words.
This is unfortunate for Turkish because, as soon as a Turkish word is
dropped, it will be picked up by others and claimed as their own. At the
end of the day, Turkish will be depleted. Turkish words should never be
discarded from dictionaries, because they are the spoken and written evidences
for the ancientness of the Turkish civilization.
In concluding, you said: "what a shame for
allegedly mother -of-all languages Turkish!!"
I disagree with you on this last statement of yours. Firstly, your use of the
term "allegedly" is evidence of your not believing in Turkish being
the "mother of all languages". If you had read all my writings that I
shared with my readers on this subject for so long, you would have
been bolder than this. Secondly, I have been the one who has been saying this
and proving with many examples that indeed Turkish is the mother/father for
many languages if not all. I have conclusively shown that "Turkish is the source
for Indo-European and Semitic languages. And this is the "fact" - not
an "allegation" as you say. It will take time to accept that fact.
Finally, the term "shame" cannot be attributed to the Turkish
language. which
has the capacity to generate all kinds of expressive terminology defining
concepts. Those ancient Turkish linguists left a peerless language to
the Turkish
world. From that language many others have been made up. If you want to shame
anyone at all, shame those speakers of Turkish who do not know or appreciate
the real value of their language and frequently replace their own Turkish words
with "sophisticated" looking words of other languages
that they admire.
Best wishes to you and to all,
Polat Kaya
25/06/2008
Turhan Tisinli wrote: