Re: [hrl_2] Words under the lens: English word "KNUCKLEHEAD".
Dear Joan Griffith,
Hi! I received your response regarding my paper on "knucklehead" being from Turkish "çok dangalak" meaning "very stupid".
First of all, I would like to note that my name is not "Polya" as you have written in your letter. My name is "Polat Kaya". It is clearly written at the bottom of each one of my postings which cannot be mistaken for anything else unless done intentionally. Since you responded to my paper, I am assuming that your letter was meant for me.
>Sorry, Polya, but it refers to the act of making a fist and striking some
>dolt on the head with one's knuckles. hence, Knucklehead. Has NOTHING to do
>with anagrams of Turkish words. If you should ever happen to see films of
>"The Three Stooges," this happens frequently.
Polat Kaya: First of all, I don't know where you got your explanation "refers to the act of making a fist and striking some dolt on the head with one's knuckles" from because the online sources say that "knucklehead" means: "dunce", "a stupid person", "an idiot", "an inept person", "a fool" and "a blockhead" - without any mention of a fist or strike to the head.
Your explanation does not explain the makeup of this word. The way you have put it, it only describes an act of violence by someone towards someone else. If this is your understanding of what is meant by the "etymology" of words, then I must respectfully note that your concept of "etymology" is wrong.
As you may know, the terms "knuckle" and "knucklehead" or "stupidity" have no relation to the "thickness" or the "thinness" of the skullbone. Furthermore, the makeup of the word "knucklehead" has no relation with it being used by "The Three Stooges". The Three Stooges were comedians who tried all kinds of words in their acting for the purpose of creating a "funny" situation. Just because they used the word for their purposes does not mean that they were the inventors of this word or that their acting should be taken as the etymology of this term.
The important thing is that this word "knucklehead" was anagrammatized from a "model saying" that existed in Turkish, just like many other IE words have been made in the same fashion from Turkish. How else can you explain a situation in which two words ("knucklehead" and "çok dangalak"), each one being a word from two supposedly unrelated languages, that is, English and Turkish, mean the same thing but also have the same lettering - although in different order? What is the probability of this correspondence happening coincidentally? I would say very close to zero.
Turkish is an ancient monosyllabic and agglutinative language whose words and phrases have been used as source data for manufacturing words for many languages, particularly for the words of the "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages. This I have shown to be the case with many examples in my writings. Turkish is a progenitor language!
Generating words for a language from scratch is very difficult. Making a genuine language like Turkish takes thousands of years in order to come up with the almost mathematical orderly language of Turkish. Yet making words from the words and phrases of Turkish (which is a readily available linguistic source) is far too easy and much less time consuming.
The way you explained the word "knucklehead" is very shallow and does show a very shallow understanding of the makeup of the word. In fact your explanation has nothing to do with the truth, except that it is trying to further cover up an already covered up situation by sophistry.
Of course, regarding the makeup of the word "knucklehead", I confidently insist on my explanation that it was anagrammatized from the Turkish saying "ÇOK DANGALAK". This is a shining light I bring for those who want to see and hear the truth. Of course there will always be those who oppose and who wish to stay as they have been taught. For further information regarding "knucklehead", "knuckle" and some other related words, please see my response letter to reader "Gangchen Conpo" or "Ganggon" that I also sent to this forum.
"It is too bad you are spending so much time trying to hear the grass grow...".
Polat Kaya: Dear Joan, you are very wrong to repeat this kind of cliche saying. I am not spending my time "trying to hear the grass grow" as you sophisticatedly put it. Rather I am reshaping a haphazardly-and-artificially grown "linguistic grass" to the way that it was once before. I am showing those who are interested in knowing the truth about the make up of world languages - that a worldwide deception has been perpetrated about the makeup of languages. In other words, what the world public has been fed to believe as the truth - is actually blatantly false.
With all this, I bring to focus a stolen ancient language of Turanians - and together with it, a stolen ancient civilization and people to be recognized by so many honest people of the world that wish to know the ancient truth. This may not be to the liking of some people, but then what can I do, I am just a searcher of truth. When I bring these things to daylight, I feel that I have done a very worth while contribution deserving of the effort that I spent.
Finally you have quoted a saying from "Mother Theresa" as follows:
>The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for
>bread. ~~Mother Teresa
Polat Kaya: Although the quotation is from
a world renowned person, I think it is very much out of place and context since
we are talking about the makeup of words rather than the hunger for love or
hunger for bread. As far as I see it, it is just empty talk by you!
By the way, for your information, Mother Theresa, in her youth, was a Turkish girl and she had the Turkish name of GONCA - just like her parents had Turkish names as well. But her identity was changed by the Church in her later life thus alienating her from her own original ethnic background. This once again shows how things are alienated from their original self identity when their names are intentionally altered. This is a very clear cut and living example of what an alteration of a name or a word or an expression in one language does to its identity. Actually, it obliterates the original self and gives it to a usurper. If you are interested please see my paper on Mother Theresa at link: http://www.polatkaya.net/Mother_Teresa.html
Best wishes to all,
Joan Griffith wrote:
Sorry, Polya, but it refers to the act of making a fist and striking somedolt on the head with one's knuckles. hence, Knucklehead. Has NOTHING to dowith anagrams of Turkish words. If you should ever happen to see films of"The Three Stooges," this happens frequently.It is too bad you are spending so much time trying to hear the grass grow...Joan GriffithThe hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger forbread. ~~Mother TeresaOn Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:
Here is an interesting word in English that needs to be explored for itsmake up. It is the English word "*knucklhead*" that means *"a stupidperson"*, [Oxford American Dictionaries].When this English word *KNUCKLEHEAD* is rearranged letter-by-letter as *"CUH-DANKELEK"* or *"CUK-DANKELEH"*and the deciphered word is read as inTurkish, it becomes obvious that it is an anagrammatized and Anglicized formof the Turkish expression *"ÇOK DANGALAK"* meaning* **"very **stupid,**blockhead, knucklehead"*. Clearly, this Turkish expression *"ÇOK DANGALAK" *has been stolen and usedto manufacture this English word *KNUCKLEHEAD*. Thus, this is anotherexample that, regarding the authenticity of "Indo-Europan" languages, theTurks and the rest of the world public have been misled by the manufacturersand presenters of such languages.Of course, by such activities, not only are the Turkish language words andexpressions stolen, but also the linguistic creations of the Turkish people,hence, Turkish civilization is stolen. This kind of stealing from theancient Turanian language of Turkish and the ancient Turanian civilizationhas been going on since the time of the Babylonians, that is, for at leastthe last 4,000 years. The truth about world languages is not as it appears- or as it is presented to us. Linguistically, this cannot be ignored. Itis time that linguists who work on the "*etymology*" of words to take noteof this ongoing deception.Best wishes to all,Polat Kaya15/04/2010>