Re: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: English word "PORTMANTEAU"

Dear Turhan Tisinli, 


You were hasty to say that I missed identifying Turkish MEN as "I" in my posting regarding the English word PORTMANTEAU.  I have noted "MEN" as meaning "I" in many of my other postings. For example the following is a section of my posting regarding the Greek word "
PHOINIKOPTEROS" that is, "FLAMINGOS" where I have noted  "BEN (MEN)" as "I, I am". 


"(Greek "PHOINIKOPTEROS" from Turkish expression "BEN BOYA KUŞTUR")

(picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_flamingo.jpg)


When the name PHOINIKOPTEROS is rearranged (deciphered) letter-by-letter as "PEN-POIO-KOSHTIR", we see that it is an anagrammatized, Hellenized and disguised form of the Turkish expression "BEN BOYA KUŞTUR" defining a colored bird.  It literally means "I am paint bird" , that is, "I am colored bird".  As described in the above reference, Flamingos are "pink" or "red" colored birds".  Thus, this Turkish phrase, which has been anagrammatized into a so-called "Greek" word, is a correct description of the flamingo bird (see picture above).  Clearly this is another Turkish phrase that has been usurped and used by Greek linguists to make up this artificial "Greek" name.  

Turkish word BEN mean "I, I am", BOYA means "paint", KUŞ (GUŞ
) means "bird", KUŞTIR / KUŞTUR means "it is bird". 

and .... in explaining the word FLAMINGOS, I used the word MEN and defined it as:

Turkish words MEN means "I, I am", AL means "red" and GUŞ (KUŞ) means "bird" "



In my original writing, I wrote:


The English word PORTMANTEAU is defined as, "[French porte-manteau, from porter to carry + manteau mantle].  Chiefly British, a travelling bag or case, originally one adopted for use on horseback; now, especially a suitcase." [Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 774].

This etymology is a bogus one and its attribution of the origin of this word to "French" is deceptive and misinformative.  The source of the word is Turkish language and culture.

The word PORTMANTEAU, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "MEN-AT-TORPA-U", is the restructured, Anglicized, disguised and distorted Turkish expression "MEN AT TORBA" (MEN AT TORBASI, HEYBE) meaning "I am a travel bag for horseback".  The proper Turkish name for a bag that goes onto a horse is "HEYBE" which is a double-bag made of  piled Turkish carpet embellished with hand-woven designs and is meant to hang at the rear of the saddle.  


The Turkish word MEN means "I am", AT means "horse" and TORBA means "bag". The last word U (O) meaning "it is" has been used as an additional wrapping and it is not needed for concept definition. "

To this you said:


 

No.  "men" means "I", not "I am".  (Azeri Turkish for "I am..."   is    "men .... -(y)Am", where -y- is a connective used only when the noun ends with a vowel, and (y)Am means "am"  (the one used in "I am")    as in

"men Adem'em" = (I am Adem)

"men torba-y-am" (I am a bag)



Polat Kaya:  Your point is mistaken.  Please note that  the anagrammatized Turkish source text was "MEN-AT-TORPA-U" which I explained within brackets as (MEN AT TORBASI, HEYBE).  Please also note that the anagrammatized text was not "MENEM AT TORBA" or "MEN TORBA-Y-AM" as you imply.  So when I translated "MEN AT TORBA" into English, I used the term "I am" in the translation as in: "I am a travel bag for horseback" rather than literal "I bag horse" which would not be meaningful. 

Suppose you telephone your friend and when the other end picks up, you say: "Merhaba, men Turhan".  The meaning of this is "Hello, I am Turhan".  So while "Men" does mean "I" in Turkish as the personal pronoun for first person singular, it can also mean "I am" - when used in a phrase such as "Men Turhan".  So you are wrong by telling me that "men" only means "I".

Furthermore, it seems that you are missing the real message of my posting - which was to show that the so-called "English / French" word PORTMANTEAU was being attributed to wrong sources while, in fact, it was an usurpation from the Turkish language.  You should have commented on the correctness of this revelation rather than what you did.  Somehow you are very silent on that. 

Instead you said:  


"So "men at torba" should have been " men at torba-si-y-am".  But the extra letters of "-si-yam" would complicate your anagram, that is why you dropped them, right?"

Polat Kaya:  Wrong!  First of all, it is not "my anagram".  Somebody else stole the Turkish expression "MEN AT TORBA O" and anagrammatized it into English and/or French.  So there is no need for me to change that text to the proper Turkish expression of "MEN AT TORBASIYAM".  I simply took the English / French expression PORTMANTEAU and deciphered it to show that it was really made up from the Turkish expression "MEN AT TORBA O" I did not drop a part "-si-yam" that was not there. So, I do not see why you are making such a wrong assumption and pointing your finger at me.  Furthermore, you did not know the fact that PORTMANTEAU was made up from Turkish expression "MEN AT TORBA O" and neither did anyone else.  I revealed it.  Thus, saying that "you dropped them, right?"  is not only a wrong assumption on your part , but you are also not seeing the correct text used for the anagram.  

The anagrammatizer is not interested in whether the stolen Turkish text is in perfect Turkish form or not.  He is only interested in making a new word out of a Turkish text so that the resulting word does not resemble Turkish.  And he achieved this by using what he used, that is "MEN AT TORBA" with the additional "O" as wrapping.  If he wanted to, he could have used the source expression "MEN AT TORBASIYAM" to construct his new word - in which case he would have concocted another word having a format different than PORTMANTEAU 

You said: 


 

"Portmateau can be anagrammaized from "at torbasi" too, it only needs more "wrappings".  Why not, aren't they free of charge?! :)"

 

Polat Kaya:  Yes, but what you say is irrelevant here because the anagrammatizer have used some other expression.  Additionally, I am not the anagrammatizer.  I detected and revealed what was stolen from Turkish.  I do not see what might be your point when you say: "Why not, aren't they free of charge?! :)"  I must add that nothing is "free", not even the words.  While someone is gaining, some other person(s) is paying the price. Your above statement sounds like anagrammatizing is just a game - and you are condoning it.  Anagrammatization used as a technique to convert Turkish words and phrases into some other languages is not a game.  It is a very sophisticated and deceptive way of STEALING from an already existing Turanian Tur/Türk/Oguz civilization to build new "NATIONS" and to build NEW LANGUAGES for these new nations.  In the process, not only the Turkish language but also the civilization that was created with that language and the people who created that civilization and culture are stolen.  The crime doesn't end with just anagrammatization.  They then go on to artificially erase the people that created that source language and civilization from history.  Lastly they attribute that source culture and civilization to another group identified with themselves. Are you condoning the stealing of another civilization?  Don't you think linguists should have the decency of not stealing and not lying?  

You said:


"
To produce a new language from another it would be way more cost-effective to replace the consonanats (and vowels) of that  language with randomly drawn consonants (and vowels), for example here is a sample Turkish (source language) dictionary: "

Polat Kaya:  What you are saying here is very different from what the "IE linguists" did. They took Turkish words and phrases and rearranged them, softening or hardening consonants, replacing, deleting or adding to the original vowels and even using linguistic wrapping - to conceal what they did.  They then assigned a meaning to the newly manufactured word based on the original meaning of the Turkish text.  They did not replace the original consonants with randomly selected consonants. In fact they used some encryption technique they call  "CAESAR CIPHERING"  which actually has nothing to do with the name "CAESAR" as they claim.  The word is actually the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "KAYIŞAR" from Turkish verb "kaymak" and/or "kaydirmak", that is, replacing a letter by another letter in their alphabetical order by up or down shifting it. 

In the old days, they would accomplish all this with brain power.  Nowadays, as I have said many times, they most likely have some sort of computer program that takes Turkish expressions as input and generates all kinds of potential "Indo-European" looking words.  Yes, the process is very cost-effective - but so is the bank robbery, that is if one does not get caught, so is the plagiarization of some other person's literary work. "Stealing" is very cost-effective but it is also very-wrong - and when a crook gets caught, they lose all credibility and face. 

With your "BARA-IC" dictionary, you are basically admitting what I have been saying all along, that is, constructing a new language from another language is easy.  In your suggestion, you take Turkish words as source material, change consonants and vowels randomly - and add wrapping randomly.  This is one way to steal from another language although it is simplistic and unsophisticated.  They have done a much better job in manufacturing the Indo-European and the Semitic languages from Turkish.  

You know what is disappointing Turhan bey?  Instead of replying to my huge revelation about the bogus identity of the so-called IE word  PORTMANTEAU (and many other Greek, Latin, English etc. words that verify my revelations and I have shared them with you all), you chose to dwell on insignificant and irrelevant points - almost to the point of taking side with the usurpers of the Turkish language.


Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya

13/10/2008 



Turhan Tisinli wrote:
 

Hide message history

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Polat Kaya

Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 7:52 PM

Subject: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: English word "PORTMANTEAU"


 

 

The Turkish word MEN means "I am", AT means "horse" and TORBA means "bag".  
 

 

 

No.  "men" means "I", not "I am".  (Azeri Turkish for "I am..."   is    "men .... -(y)Am", where -y- is a connective used only when the noun ends with a vowel, and (y)Am means "am"  (the one used in "I am")    as in

"men Adem'em" = (I am Adem)

"men torba-y-am" (I am a bag)

 

So "men at torba" should have been " men at torba-si-y-am".  But the extra letters of "-si-yam" would complicate your anagram, that is why you dropped them, right?

 

Portmateau can be anagrammaized from "at torbasi" too, it only needs more "wrappings".  Why not, aren't they free of charge?! :)

 

 

To produce a new language from another it would be way more cost-effective to replace the consonanats (and vowels) of that  language with randomly drawn consonants (and vowels), for example here is a sample Turkish (source language) dictionary:

 

el

ayak

et

yat

torba

....

 

And here is the vocabulary list for the new language (call it Bara`ic) that will carry their corresponding Turkish words' meanings:

 

Turkish        Bara`ic

el                yad

ayak            ricl

et                lahm  

yat               nam

torba            haqibat

...

 

The number of letters of each produced word can be increased or decreased to disguise the "ushurping"...

 

To use this simple algorithm, a simple computer program written in a few minutes would create a dictionary of this language to Turkish (that is Bara'ic - Turkish Dictionary or even Bara'ic-Bara'ic Dictionary) in a matter of seconds, assuming that the Turkish dictionary , say Güncel Türkçe Sözlük, is supplied in a text file or as a spread sheet, database, etc...  Of course the grammer of this language would be the same as that of Turkish.  

 

 

Turhan Tisinli