Re: HOMINIS. (based on an earlier posting " Words Under the lens : Latin words "HOMO " and some related words)

This is a correspondence between Mr. Michele Sorice and myself that will be of interest to readers.  
The earliest communication is at the bottom. 

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

19/11/2009



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

Subject:

HOMINIS

Date:

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:36:24 +0200

From:

Michele Sorice <info@...>

To:

Polat Kaya <tntr@...>

References:

<26613FD546C344308B1F8CA244197817@fortem1> <4AFB7CE3.5020900@...><A7EFFD00960D4F8CA8601473D2D1EB25@fortem1> <4B02FDD0.1090105@...>



Michele Sorice wrote:
 

Dear Polat Kaya,

Thank you so much for the bottom of my heart for such a detailed answer, I really appreciate it.

I did not "change idea" after talking to you, I matured this idea slowly by reading upon reading of many books about ancient history.

"Primordial", scientifically I neither beleive in evolution nor in creation both being semitic stories, there must be another way. As I do not beleive in evolution I have the feeling that the Turkish language is more than a Progenitor Language it may well be first language from the beginning of Human's time consequently a language connected with God.

Once we take up the Turanian Flag and start saying that their language is the Progenitor Language etc..this has got profound implications in all fields of our life, everything must change accordingly from the beginning of time, this is not an easy thing to happen, normally such change happens through revolutions. I would like to be more proficient on the subject in order to be able to carry on this research, I would be glad to get more homework from you and glad at the same time if you could consider me a student of yours who wants to learn and know the truth about the world we live in.

Please forgive me if my writing is not structured as yours, I am a new comer I have to learn a lot more.

"The more I learn the more I realize how ignorant I am".

Do you live in Kars? provided that you would agree, I was wondering if I could pay you a visit in the future. Yours Faithfully

Michele Sorice

Dear Michele Sorice,

Thank you for your reply. I am glad to hear that you have changed your views to think that the Turkish Language is a very old language. You used the term "primordial" implying that Turkish has a very long history. The term "primordial" is defined as "existing at or from the beginning of time" - which is a very long time ago since, most likely, there were no humans then. So I would not go that far back in time. However, I have always used the term PROGENITOR to describe the Turkish language - claiming that Turkish was the "One-Father", that is, "BIR ATA" (or so-called "proto") language for most languages. The Turkish Language was present and widely used all over the world, at least, at the time the Last Ice Age started to retreat. That is to mean, at least, some 25,000 years ago. Such a unique language does not happen so readily. The Turkish language is the mental product of the ancestors of the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples who developed such a language of mathematical accuracy over many thousands of years. Those languages that were fabricated by anagrammatizing Turkish words and phrases are probably not much older than some 4000 years. Creating other languages from Turkish probably started with the so-called "Semite" Akkadians who infiltrated and invaded Sumer some 4300 years ago. These wandering Gypsies stole everything from the Turko-Sumerian language and civilization (by way of anagrammatizing) and then claimed it all as their own. For example, the Turko-Sumerian epic story called BILGAMESH (meaning "he who has attained high level of knowledge") was altered and presented to the world as GILGAMESH.

Similarly, the ancient Aryan Greeks (Hellenes) and Semitic Jews carried on with this altering and stealing tradition. The term ARYAN is from Turkish word "arayan" meaning "wanderer". The Aryan Romans did the same kind of usurpation of the Turkish language. The usurpation did not stop with the language, but carried on with the assimilation of the Turanian Turkish people themselves and, thus, taking over their Turanian civilization. Regarding the so-called "Anagram Theory of the Turkish language", I had the good fortune of discovering the fact that the Indo-European and Semitic languages were artificially manufactured languages and that they were made up from Turkish. Thus, I originated the idea that these Aryan and Semitic languages were manufactured by way of "anagrammatizing" Turkish words and phrases. I wrote about this concept in my papers entitled: "ANCIENT TURS/TURKS OF TURAN AND THEIR LEGACIES TO THE WORLD ("Sumerians" - Ancient Turanian Tur/Turk people)" Part-1, copyrighted 1999. http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur1.html, and "ANCIENT TURS/TURKS OF TURAN AND THEIR LEGACIES TO THE WORLD ("Oguz" - The Ancient Turanian Sky-God) Part-2, http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/tur2.html , and the paper Turkish entitled "TÜRK DÜNYASININ BILINÇLI OLARAK SILINMIS GEÇMISI", http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/turan10.html. These papers were the result of at least some five years of research and confirmation. Thus, the conception of the idea took place around 1995. It took me a long time to convince myself and verify that what I was seeing, regarding the makeup of the "Indo-European" and Semitic languages, was correct. That is, the words of these languages were actually made up from the Turkish language by way of altering (i.e., breaking and rearranging) the original Turkish words and phrases. At the same time I was busy reading the inscription on a Pelasgian tombstone found on the Island of Lemnos in the Aegian sea. I wrote my reading of this incription in the paper entitled: READING OF THE LEMNOS ISLAND INSCRIPTION (A preliminary report), http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/lemstelea.html, http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/lemsteleb.html and http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/lemstelec.html.

After reading that inscription, I was convinced that both the Pelasgians and the Etruscans were Turkish speaking peoples antedating the Greeks in that part of the world. Somehow, the world had been erroneously convinced that the Pelasgians and Etruscans were of unknown origin and no one knew who they were. Of course this was an intentionally manufactured lie trying to obscure these Turanians and also to divert honest people from learning the true ancient history - and its players. Using games like this, the Turanians were eliminated (i.e., obliterated) from the record of ancient history.

They convinced us that there were no Turks around at the time and that ancient Jews and Greeks were present in the world. They also convinced us that the Greek and Jewish groups were the ones that gave civilization to the world. Of course, this was another lie and nothing could be further from the truth. These two groups were actually the destroyers and usurpers of the ancient Turanian civilization. For example, let us examine what historian H. G. Wells has said about the ancient Greeks, in his book entitled "The outline of History". He writes the following, [H. G. Wells, "The outline of History", Volume 1, 1920, 1956, p. 232]: "But the barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose civilization was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities and writing were already there. The Greeks did not grow a civilization of their own; they wrecked one and put another together upon and out of the ruins." Not only the Greeks, but also the Romans and the Semitic Babylonian groups also did exactly that. They did not grow a civilization of their own. Rather, they took the ancient Turanian civilization with its Turkish language, destroyed the physical material creations, built new structures on top of the ones that they destroyed. And additionally, they confused (i.e., scrambled, altered, rearranged, encrypted) the existing Turkish language to engineer new languages for themselves. And then they claimed the whole lot as their own creation.

When H. G. WELLS states: "But the barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose civilization was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities and writing were already there", the civilization he refers to was the civilization of the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. The Greeks, Romans and Babylonian groups had no essential culture of their own except stealing the existing Turanian culture. It is this fact that I have brought to daylight. Now, it is clear that the ancient world history - as presented by these groups, is filled with endless lies, distortion and misinformation about the ancient world. In all cases, the religious groups were the agents controlling people. They were the ones who dealt with educating the public - not only about God, but also everything else. They wrapped themselves under the cloak of "godliness" while they did all kinds of deception and usurpation behind that "godliness" image. Hence, in their activities, they have been very cabalistic. Please note that even the word "KABBALA" is from the Turkish word "KAPALI" meaning "covered up, secret, behind closed doors". And similarly, the term CABALISTIC, rearranged as "CISLI-CABAT", is from Turkish "GIZLI CABADI" meaning "it is secret work". So as you can see, we have all been conned and deceived by a group of people who controlled the world population by claiming that they were the middle men between "man and God". What a clever concoction - elevating themselves above everyone else, acting as the interpreter of God's "messages", and at the same time, exploiting the people. A truly "untouchable

" case!

You said:

"The issue here is the fact that ideas like yours, mines, and of many others like ourselves are not considered let alone discussed by any orthodox academic establishment including Turkish ones, today we have Professors like Bardakçi who strongly disagree with Proto-Türk theories, I mean the mojority of the turks do not beleive these theory too."

Yes I know what you are saying and I understand your concern. But that does not bother me and you should not be bothered with it either. We must note that, not-knowing, is a state of darkness of mind. As you may remember, your world-famed countryman, Galileo Galilei, was not believed by the professors of Rome and elsewhere in Europe. The poor man almost lost his life. But, in time, everybody did a U-turn and accepted his views.

The truth has its own way of coming into focus. Things that are not believed today can be believed in the future. What I have said and written about for so long is that "Turkish is 'One Father' language from which many of the world languages have been generated by way of anagrammatizing Turkish words and phrases." This is a fact that I discovered and this fact will come to be recognized eventually by all - as Galileo's ideas were recognized in time by the establishment. The establishment is the entity that always tries to maintain its controlling position on the population because of self interest. Rarely does someone come forward and tell them that they are actually "naked", at least, regarding their views about the make up of languages. With best wishes to you,

Polat Kaya

15/11/2009

Michele Sorice wrote:

Dear Polat Kaya,

Thank you very much for your prompt answer.

I as well as you think that Turkish Language is the primordial language, in principle we have the same idea.

Please be kind enough to explain me where the Anagram Theory of the Turkish Language started and by whom so that I may advance myself.

The issue here is the fact that ideas like yours, mines, and of many others like ourselves are not considered let alone discussed by any orthodox academic establishment including Turkish ones, today we have Professors like Bardakçi who strongly disagree with Proto-Türk theories, I mean the mojority of the turks do not beleive these theory too.

Best Regards

Michele Sorice

Dear Michele Sorice,

Thank you for writing to me. I am glad that you are also searching for the truth as I am. You asked about the word HO-MIN-IS which I had discussed in my paper that you included in your letter below. In that paper I discussed the Latin word HOMINIS and some others as well. I had noted that the Latin word HOMO was from Turkish "HAMI" meaning "everyone or everybody", that is "people". Italian Uomo is also from Turkish "HAMI". Similarly the word HOMINIS was from Turkish "HAMINIZ" meaning "all of you", that is, "people" again. Now, you have taken the word HO-MIN-IS as an oriental word meaning "people" and wish to know its source. You say HO-MIN is the root of the word. In my view, HO-MIN is not the root of the word. As it is seen, HO-MIN is made up of two words which are HO and MIN. I would say that HO is the Turkish word "O" meaning "he/she/it" which is the expression of people in the third person singular. As you may know, letter "H" is a voiceless consonant. That is to say, HO and O are very much the same. The second word MIN is also the Turkish word "MEN" meaning "I; human, man" as in "I am human", "you are human", "he/she is human" or "I am a man", etc.. Thus, Turkish "O + MEN" describes the concept that includes "people and me" which is "people". Please note the so-called English word "HUMAN" which is another form of HO-MIN, that is, Turkish "O MEN". Thus, I am confident that the source of these words is Turkish. In my Chinese dictionary, [Oxford Beginner's Dictionary, Oxford press], I find the word "REN-MIN" or "RENMEN" meaning "people, men". Similarly, REN by itself means "person, people, humanity; others, other people". With this definition in mind:

Chinese "REN" is made up with "R" + "EN" where R is the Turkish word "ER" in consonant form only, meaning "man, soldier; hero; husband" and "EN" is the ancient Turkish plurality suffix. Thus, this makes the word EREN (ERLER) meaning "man in plural", that is, English "men" which is the word expressing "people in general". Conceptually, "people" are "men". It is just like saying "adamlar" in Turkish which is again "people". Therefore, Chinese "REN" is from ancient Turkish "EREN".

It must be noted that the so-called English word "man" and "men" have the form of the Turkish word "men" (ben) meaning "I". The Chinese word "MEN" is described as a "particle" used to make plural forms of personal pronouns". Turkish word "MEN" is also the personal pronoun for first person singular. Hence, again we have commonality with the Turkish "MEN". Similarly, The Chinese word "MIN" that follows REN also has the same form as the Turkish "MEN". MIN and MEN are dialects of of each other. These are not due to coincidence.

Chinese RENREN means "everyone, everybody". I would say that this is again another formation of the Turkish word "EREN" repeated twice, hence, referring to "everyone". Chinese RENJIA means "household, family". RENJIA > "REN-J-IA" is from Turkish "eRENCi-ÖY" (ERLERIN ÖYÜ) meaning "men's home" which is the "family; household". EREN is as I described above, J is the altered form of Turkish suffix "CI" and IA is the altered form of Turkish word "ÖY" meaning "house, home; family". Chinese RENKÖU means "population". RENKÖU > "REN-KÖU" (where U is Y) is from Turkish "EREN" + "KÖY" meaning "men + village", that is, "people of the village" - which is the "population of the village". Thus again, I would say that this Chinese word is also a Turkish based word. Turkish KÖY means "village".

Chinese MINJIAN means "of the common people, folk". MINJIAN > "MIN-JANI" is from Turkish "MEN" + "CANI" meaning "men + life", that is, "life like me", that is, "others like me" which is "people". Chinese MINZU means "race, tribe, nation". MINZU > "MIN-ZU" is from Turkish "MENCE" meaning "men like me" which is "tribe" or "race" or "nation". It is no wonder that you are finding "HO-MIN" in many of the languages of the Asiatic peoples. This is because the Turkish language was a world language at one time in the past - for a long time. So all of these Chinese words mentioned here are not only related to each other but are also based on Turkish words that have been altered. As you can see the real meanings are hidden inside each word identifiable in Turkish. Your examples of the native peoples of "HO-CHUNGRA" (People of Parent Speech) and the "HO-CHUNK" (People of the Big Voice) among Native American tribes are interesting also. First of all, let me tell you that these names attributed to the Native American languages seem very deceptive and not authentic to me. I believe they have already been altered by the church missionaries so that their original Asiatic and Turkish forms are not visible anymore. The word "HO-CHUNGRA" rearranged as "HO-R-GANUCH" is very much the Turkish expression "O eR GONUSH" meaning "it is man's speech" which is very much what you have given in your letter as People of Parent Speech. Similarly, the "HO-CHUNK", rearranged as "HO-KNUCH", is very much the Turkish expression "O KoNUSH" meaning "it is speech". Again, this agrees with the meaning you gave for this word as People of the Big Voice.

Dear Michele, as you can see, "anagram" has been the key instrument in generating many of these languages from that one language that the world spoke. That language was TURKISH!

I hope this helps you in your search for the truth.

Sincerely yours, Polat Kaya

11/11/2009

Michele Sorice wrote:

Dear Polat Kaya,

I always enjoy reading your "ANA-KIRAM" works, sometimes I wish to comment them.

Due to the fact that I am new on the scene I kindly ask you to take me as a free researcher who goes where the mind brings him, I have no pre-set of mind and no other objective than knowing the Truth.

In respects to HO-MIN-IS I have spent lots of time on this word, the root being HO-MIN, I have found that:

"HO" is a rather common old way to say PEOPLE in asian countries, for example we have the HO people living in Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand and this term refers to people of chinese origin, furthermore, interestingly enough we have the "HO-CHUNGRA" ( People of Parent Speech) and the "HO-CHUNK" ( People of the Big Voice) in North America these are Native American tribes, in both cases "HO" means people.

We have the "HO" language spoken by Jharkand and West Bengal ( India) people and some speakers also in Bangladesh, in this language "HO" on its own means HUMAN.

"MIN" In Chinese means SPECIE, In Egypt MIN used to be the god of fertility, in Korean MIN means cleverness, in Biblical Hebrew MIN means SPECIE.

As often happen the meaning is hidden inside the word itself, HO-MIN means already Human Being from the root which is Asian, and once we say Asian we are tempted to think of the OKUK-TURUK people as the source of the word.

I could also fantasize and say that "HO" meaning people and "MU" being the fabled lost continent it would make HO-MU ( people of/from MU), very close to UOMO Italian.

Awaiting your comments in order to better understand it all.

Yours Faithfully

Michele Sorice --- In Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:

WORDS UNDER THE LENS

The Latin words HOMO and HOMINIS means "human being, man"; plural HOMINES meaning "man in general, people", [Cassall's 1962, p. 115]. The Latin word HOMO is just an altered form of the Turkish word HAMI meaning "everybody, everyman, people". So this so-called "Latin" word is not "Latin" at all, but a Turkish word in origin that has been altered in format. This HAMI saying is particularly prominent in usage in the Azerbaijan dialect of Turkish. The Latin word HOMINIS is the altered Turkish word "HAMINIS" (HAMINIZ) meaning "all of you, everybody, man in general, people". The Latin word HOMUNCIONIS means "a little man", [Cassall's 1962, p. 115].

When the Latin word HOMUNCIONIS is rearranged as "INSONCIH-O-UM", we see the altered form of the Turkish expression "INSANCIK O" meaning "he is little man". Turkish INSAN means "man", -CIK (-CIH) is the Turkish suffix making the name diminitive and O means "he, he is". Alternatively, when HOMUNCIONIS is rearranged as "INSONCIHUM-O", it is the Turkish expression "INSANCIKUM" (INSANCUGUM) meaning "I am little man". The suffix -UM is the verbal pronoun for first person singular. The Latin term HOMO SAPIENS means "wise human" or "knowing human", [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human].

And the Latin word SAPIENS, SAPIENTIS means "wise, sensible, prudent, judicious; a wise man", [Cassall's 1962, p. 224].

When the Latin word SAPIENTIS is rearranged as "S- TIIEN-PAS", we see an altered form of the Turkish expression "uS DIYEN BAÅz" (US KONUÅzAN BAÅz) meaning "wise speaking head", "head that speaks with wisdom". Humans are a species that speaks - irrespective of being wisely or unwisely, but they speak.

Turkish words US means "wise, wisdom, knowledgeable", DIYEN (TIYEN) means "he who speaks", and BAÅz (TEPE) means "head". The Latin term HOMINIDAE means "the family of humans (men)".

When the Latin word HOMINIDAE is rearranged as "OH-MEN-AIDI" or "AH-MEN-OIDI", we see an altered form of the Turkish expression "O MEN Ã-YDI" meaning "it is my family", "it is human family", "it is the house of man", "it is family of man". Turkish MEN means "I, I am", that is, the personal pronoun for first person singular of a human being, Ã-Y means "house, home, family", O means "he/she/it; that". The English MAN is an altered form of Turkish MEN which is the personal pronoun of "MAN", that is, "ER, INSAN" in Turkish.

The English word HUMAN means "relating to, involving, or typical of human beings".

When the English word HUMAN is rearranged as "OH-MAN", we see an altered form of the Turkish expression "O MEN" (O ER) meaning "it is me, he is like me", "he is man". Humans are MEN.

Thus we see that these so-called "Latin" words have been made up from Turkish words and expressions by the Roman linguists. But, according to western history, supposedly, there were no Turks around at that time in Europe or near Europe. Yet it is quite clear that Turkish was being spoken everywhere as the world language during the times of the Romans and Greeks. The above so-called "Latin" words and countless numbers of other words from other Indo-European languages are testimony to this fact since I find them as restructured Turkish words and phrases. Now, I see why the western world keeps painting a picture of the ancient world with no Turks in it. They are simply inventing their alibi to cover up what they did - which is, stealing from the ancient Turkish language and civilization in order to create new languages and a rich civilization base for themselves. This way, they appear to have been ever-present in the ancient world and hence, to have contributed the most to the world civilization while the Turks do not even appear in the ancient world picture. Yet, world does not know that the Turks and their ancient Turanian civilization, which were present all over the world for thousands of years, have been intentionally obliterated from this picture by the same wanderers who stole the Turkish language and the Tur/Turk/Oguz civilization. They must have taught that the confusion and restructuring of the one language that world spoke would not be detected by anyone. After all, there was nothing missing to be noted, nobody detected the rearranged Turkish words and phrases - and everybody believed the history books, dictionaries and bogus etymologies provided by the same secretive workers. Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

25/09/2008