Re: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: "APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY", "ALLEGORIKOS" and "ALLEGORIKON"

Sayin Turhan Tisinli bey,


In your postings, you changed the subject from what I have been talking about into some other subject.  You did not comment on any of the words I analyzed.  Each one of those words is powerful evidence backing up my finding regarding the makeup of languages, and therefore, they are crucial for proving the validity of what I am talking about. Hence, you cannot overlook them as if they are never mentioned. You will remember that I paid close attention to your first posting almost line by line.  I even added new words to the list.  I did that because I know that those so-called "Indo-European" words are not authentic, but rather, were manufactured from Turkish. Yet, you are silent about them.  In a conversation like this, you are expected to air your thinking. 

In this posting, you said: 

You claim that the rest of the languages on earth are derived from Turkish through some kind of word scrambling technique.  If I exaggerate some and say that there are 650 million Turks in the world, then this will make percentage of Turks within the world population 200 million / 6.5 billion = ~ 3 % .  If the whole population of the world was Turkish, why should 97% of the ancient population of the world create different languages for themselves and separate themselves from the Turks?  What was so terribly wrong about being a Turk?! 

Polat Kaya: Your quoted population figures, even with the "correction" you made, are based on the present day numbers of the world population. Hence it is not relevant to the ancient world. 

There are many evidences that the ancient world was a Turkish speaking world and the ancient Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples were widely distributed on earth and were the leaders of large masses of people with their very tolerant Sun, Moon and Sky-God believing religion.

It was not the 97/% of the world population that got involved in word alteration to come up with new languages, but rather few small secretive priest groups who wanted to start new religions, and hence, new world orders for their secret purposes. Such a wandering small groups of "priestly" people after infiltrating in ancient Turanian city states, were organized in a secretive manner to change the world structure in order to gain from the confusion. Still there are that kind of people who confuse the world in many ways.  

All this language changing most likely took place since the times of the Semitic Akkadians - who are known to have invaded Sumer, usurped everything from the Turco-Sumerians and confused the one-language that world spoke. As the Akkadians and the so-called Aryans (from Turkish "Arayans") developed new languages from the very ancient language of Turkish, they kept enriching their newly organized languages further. 

Finally, to answer your question "What was so terribly wrong about being a Turk?", I say Nothing!  I never said there was something wrong with being a Turk.  The thing is that the ancient Turanians were the people who gave civilization to the world.  This is so huge that, it was not easy to accept by some groups. This alone was and still is enough for some religous organizations to villify the Turks continuously.  Particularly those "black" believing (SETI) secretive religious organizations.   

Let me remind you of two supposedly Greek names.  For example, "historically" there are the names ANTIGONUS and ANTIOCHUS, both in the second half of the first millennium B. C.  These names are the altered forms of the Turkish phrases "GÜNEŞI ITEN" (GÜNEŞ DININE KARŞI) and "OGUZU ITEN" (OGUZA KARŞI) respectively. These Greek and Macedonian groups who made their names from Turkish were some of the most vigilant groups against the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and their Turanian civilization in ancient Thracia, Anatolia, Middle East, Europe, Masar (Misir) and other North African lands, etc. They were collectively organized to wipe away the Turkish peoples and their civilization from history and they more or less did by altering the ancient Turanian names. 

For example, the name of the so-called CONSTANTINE the Great is nothing but the altered form of Turkish expressions "GUNEŞTI ADIN" meaning "your name is sun", and/or "GÜNISTAN ADIN" meaning "your name is Sun-God" or alternativly, "ISITAN GÜN ADIN" meaning "your name is the sun that enlightens" and "your name is Sun that warms".  These Turkish titles were very elevating for Constantine who was a mere mortal. Yet he was presenting himself to Rums (Greeks) and Romans as the God-king. The decipherment of many king titles and/or titles for popes and others religious personalities tell us that this kind of noble and divine "title" manufacturing from Turkish was the most common activity in ancient times. Such names made from Turkish exalted them as divine and noble in the eyes of public, yet they were Seti believing wanderers in secret. Once they got the Judeo-Christian religion going, theyforcibly christianized all of the native Turanian peoples along the Medeterrenian Sea costs, Thracia, Anatolia, Middle East, Europe, North Africa, etc.. For example, after the conversion to Christianity by Greeks and Romans, the name of ancient Masar became "Egypt" and the people of that ancient Turanian country became "Egyptians", thus, assuming "the wandering gypsy" name.  Now, the people of the world refer only to the artificially concocted "Greek" civilization which was all stolen from the ancient Turanians. 

They used Turkish for making new words, because the monosyllabic Turkish language preceded them by thousands of years and was most suitable for this purpose, particularly if you want to come up with a word for a new concept. Even presently they use Turkish as a source for naming new concepts and/or new situations.  I will give you a very subtle example.  

National Geographic magazine, February 2001, Article on MARS, pages 30-51.  On page 41, you will find the following writing, (you can check this on your own):


"Discovery of the newly seen layers, says Mike Malin, "is the most surprising result of our camera experiments - and the most profound.  "Scientists dream of robots and even humans having the chance to investigate areas such as COPRATES CHASMA (7).  Using images from Viking (below) to pinpoint a site to photograph, Surveyor's scientific team detected multiple layers on the slopes of a mesa (close up at right), a tantalizing record of Mars's dynamic past." 

In the article they are observing and talking about a "land slide" situation which they have named as COPRATES CHASMA on Mars. It is very ineteresting and enlightening that when the name COPRATES is rearraanged as "TOPRAC-SE", it reveals itself as the Turkish word "TOPRAK".  Additionally, when the word CHASMA is rearranged as "CAHMAS" where the bogus letter H is an I, it reveals itself as the altered and disguised form of the Turkish expression "KAYMASI".  

As a linguist, you can see for yourself and recognize that this so-called "COPRATESCHASMA" is nothing but the altered and disguised form of the Turkish expression "TOPRAK KAYMASI" meaning "land slide".  I doubt that you or any other linguist would have been able to recognize this deceptive word "COPRATES CHASMA" as being made up from Turkish"TOPRAK KAYMASI".  Evidently this successful deception and word generation is beingcarried out by some very secretive group(s). I ask you now, what do you make of this sophisticated looking so-called Indo-European "name" on MARS?  Would you not think that their hands are still in the cookie-jar of the Turkish language?  

Additionally, in above reference citing, there is the term "MESA" meaning a "flat-top hill" which is nothing but the altered form of the Turkish word "MASA" meaning "table" which is a flat topped and raised surface.  Such a hill with a flat top, (plateau) is indeed a "MASA" or a "MASA-TEPE" structure. 


You said:

"Ok, lets suppose that those languages were created the way you describe.  After having their own languages, why are their hands still dipping in the "cookie jar" till today?  Can't they anagrammatize from their own languages?  For being the "detective" who could descramble their doing,  you can act like one of them and create a word for Turkish from the English phrase "I am who I am", and another one for "to be or not to be".     ( I wonder what  Turkish phrases English words "I", "to", "or", and "be" where anagrammaitized from?!) "

Polat Kaya:  Yes they can anagrammatize from their own language. For example, they take the word ANAGRAMMATIZE which is an alteration of a Turkish phrase, and then divide it into say, ANAGRAM-MATIZE and present the first part as if it was the root of the word, and come up with the word "ANAGRAM". Additionally, their hands are constantly in the Turkish "cookie jar" because it is easier to use Turkish words and phrases to manufacture words for IE or other languages rather than already anagrammatized words. 

As for the expressions such as "I am who I am", and "to be or not to be", I am afraid you are making a big deal out of them. Turkish has many peerless expressions like them in its own way.  I am sure if you think carefully, you can come up with many yourself.  First of all, I do not need to take these "English" sayings as a model, because Turkish already has sayings like them.  Let me give you a few Turkish sayings such as: "kim isem oyum", "ben benim", "sen sensin", "ben bana benzerim", "biz bize benzeriz", "her koyun kendi bacagindan asilir", "olmak ta var ölmek te", etc., etc., etc.. Now what, if anything at all, would make these Turkish expressions be inferior to the ones that you mentioned? 

To get you into another field, let me give you an example in the form of your beloved Hoyrat, one that I remember from my youth days, which should be so close to your heart as well. It says:
 

 

"Yüz aya değer // Yüzün yüz aya değer // Ay var bir güne değmez // Gün var yüz aya değer "
 


You may know many more enchanting hoyrats as this one and you will see many meanings embedded in them as it is in this one.  You will not find such expressions in English or other languages.  Now, I again ask you what would make these Turkish sayings in the Hoyrats be inferior to the ones that you mentioned?  Why are you feeling so inferior in front of such "European" words?  You probably feel awed when you hear the saying "VIS-A-VIS".  I can tell you without any hesitation that this supposedly "European" saying is a stolen and restructured form of the Turkish saying "YÜZ YÜZE". 

Furthermore, in manufacturing words from the already anagrammatized IE words, if they take already elongated and broken up words and make a phrase
 descriptive of a new concept, then the resulting phrase will be too long to be anagrammatized into one word.  Hence, it will be too cumbersome and unusable.  Instead they do it with Turkish which is most suitable for word generation for IE languages.  On top of that, no one will notice if a Turkish word or phrase is missing.

Yes, I am the detective who discovered that they stole from Turkish, but, I also figured out how they came up with those "sophisticated " looking words that 'fascinate' so many Turks (and others) and leave them speechless.  I do not make words from other languages into Turkish.  I do not need to because Turkish is already so rich with sayings and expressions that it does not require anagrammatizing or anything else.  I gave my examples above.  We do not have to be a copycat! 

After having said this, I also do not consider it my function to create new words for the Turkish language. In the past I wrote a lengthy book and gave guidelines for making new Turkish words. At present, I am interested in showing all those linguists or others who may be interested to know that what they know about the structure of words of the so called "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages is incorrect. 

As for your final saying:
 " ( I wonder what  Turkish phrases English words "I", "to", "or", and "be" where anagrammaitized from?!) "

Polat Kaya:  I can tell you this much:  "I" is the Turkish word "AY" which is the name of the moon, that is, as in Ay-Tanri.  Judeo-Christianity believes in the "Black Moon" as one of their divine gods.  Its source is Turkish "AY-HAN" - the name of one of the six sons of OGUZ KAGAN.  The ancient Turanian religion of GÖK TANRI and his two eyes GÜN-TANRI (Sun-god) and AY-TANRI (Moon-god) carried the tenets of a world-wide religion.  In addition to this, it was the "AL BAŞ", that is, "ER BAŞI" (the human head) that was at the root of all these so called religions. You should read my paper that I posted after Kamil Kartal's essay named "BILMEK". In that posting, I revealed a lot of knowledge related to "human head". 

As for your other words "to", "or", and "be", I do not know them presently since I never thought of them. Most likely, "be" is an emulation of Turkish "ol".  Additionally, I do not have to know the answers to all of your questions.  It is not fair of you to expect such knowledge from me for concepts that have been formulated ages ago.  I have given vast amounts of IE word decipherment that conclusively points to Turkish as the source. You should comment on the word decipherments I gave you instead of asking me this kind of questions.

With this, I believe I responded to your unnecessarily arrogant insinuations fully.


Esenlikler dilegi ile,


Polat Kaya 



Turhan Tisinli wrote:
 

Polat Kaya bey

 

Polat Kaya :

 

"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. "

 

Turhan Tisinli:

 

You claim that the rest of the languages on earth are derived from Turkish through some kind of word scrambling technique.  If I exaggerate some and say that there are 650 million Turks in the world, then this will make percentage of Turks within the world population 200 million / 6.5 billion = ~ 3 % .  If the whole population of the world was Turkish, why should 97% of the ancient population of the world create different languages for themselves and separate themselves from the Turks?  What was so terribly wrong about being a Turk?! 

 

Ok, lets suppose that those languages were created the way you describe.  After having their own languages, why are their hands still dipping in the "cookie jar" till today?  Can't they anagrammatize from their own languages?  For being the "detective" who could descramble their doing,  you can act like one of them and create a word for Turkish from the English phrase "I am who I am", and another one for "to be or not to be".     ( I wonder what  Turkish phrases English words "I", "to", "or", and "be" where anagrammaitized from?!)  

 

Esenlikler

 

Turhan Tisinli