Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" (Peter P. - 2)
--- In email@example.com, Polat Kaya
Thank you for responding to my paper. I will respond line
by line. You took a small segment of my paper where I had stated:
"From the comparisons of these conjugations of the Latin "cedere"
(to go) and the Turkish "gider" (giter/geter/geder) (he goes), there
can be no denying that the Latin version has been taken from the
ancient Turkish language" and you gave some comments.
You started in denial mode by stating: "Yes there is" meaning that
my quoted statement can be denied. In response I say: "Not any more".
This is much too serious a matter to be dismissed by your three short
(a.1) In your paragraph (a) you said: "Firstly some of the "Latin"
forms you quote do not exist,".
That is simply not so. They do exist in at least "Cassell's Latin
and English Dictionary". Under the heading of "Grammatical Notes",
pages xiii to xxv, you will find that they are staring at anyone who
cares to examine them. Not only that, other dictionaries also give
those forms. Either the dictionary is not telling the truth or your
statement is false. I would rather think that the reference is
correct because they are corroborated by other sources as well.
(a.2) You said: "and in any case the endings are not derived from
This is rather evasive talk. By saying "in any case", you are saying
"don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind".
Is this how you approach questions that beg well thought out
Not only is it an unconvincing response but this statement contradicts
the previous one (a.1). In the preceeding line you said that "they
do not exist" and now in this line you firmly deny that they are not
derived from Turkish. This remark by you implicitly admits that
those forms do exist, but according to your supportless view, they
are not derived from Turkish. Should we believe you? What evidence
do you have indicating that they are not from Turkish? Do you know
Turkish? Have you ever studied this problem before? Is that why you
are so quick to say "in any case the endings are not derived from
Turkish"? I am very interested in knowing why you think that they
are not derived from Turkish. Otherwise, blank statements like the
one you just made will not do.
The reason why I say that the Latin version has been taken from the
ancient Turkish language is because, contrary to common beliefs of the
establishment, the ancient world was a Turkic speaking world. The
Turanian peoples who lived in Asia, North Africa and Europe - far
before the so-called "Indo-Europeans" arrived in Europe, included the
Sumerians, the so-called Egyptians (whose real name was Masar/Misir),
Phoenicians, Pelasgians, the so-called Minoans, Trojans, Medeans,
Ionians (Ay-Hans), Thracheans, Carthaginians, Saka people, Etruscans
and the rest of the native peoples of Europe. Additionally, the so-
called Indo-European Latins, Greeks and Semitics were also speaking
that ancient Turkish language. Therefore it is very natural that we
find Turkic words/phrases and suffixes etc. in the Latin language.
(a.3) You said: "- it is just the root or stem that you should be
interested in, if you wish to prove that cedo is a borrowing from
Please spare me the guidance. Why should I be interested only in the
root or the stem rather than the whole word? What justification is
there for such a rigid rule? As an examiner of words, I am interested
in all aspects of any given word rather than just the stem or the
root. Each part has its own information carried with it to be
evaluated. In other words, the suffixes (mid and final) and even the
prefixes are just as important in etymological analysis as the root
is. So your guidance for me to look at only the root is an
Besides, I already analyzed the Latin root "cedo' and the Turkic root
of "ged/gid/git/ked/kid/kit" of the Turkish verb "gitmek" in my paper.
You say: ".... if you wish to prove that cedo is a borrowing from
I am sure I have already proven that Latin "cedo (keto)" (to go) and
Turkish "kit o/git o/ged o"" (it is to go) are one and the same with
only one difference, that is, the Latin word is the "anagrammatized"
form of the Turkish phrase "git o" in which the parts of the original
Turkish phrase are altered.
Also I stated in my paper that they were "anagrammatized" from
Turkish but yet you conveniently ignored that and
You see, "borrowing" and "anagrammatizing" are two different
concepts. Let me illustrate what I mean: For example, the Turkish
word "yogurt" appears in many other languages and etymological
dictionaries indicate that its source is from Turkish. In other
words,they admit that the word was imported from Turkish. That is a
borrowing of one word from one language into another. However,
"anagrammatizing" is a totally different concept from borrowing.
Anagrammatizing is where one takes a word or phrase or sentence
from a language such as Turkish, alters and shuffles them at will,
and then recombines them in a form that is suitable for their purpose.
In this process, the manufactured word is totally alienated from
its original format. The meaning of the original source linguistic
material is usually kept or slightly shifted as the meaning of the
new word, but generally described in a very indirect and fuzzy way
so that it is not readily recognizable.
For example, take the Turkish phrase "arzudu" ("erzidi" in the
earlier Eastern Anatolian dialect of Turkish) meaning "it is desire".
Rearrange it in a new format by reading the syllables backwards
in the form of "de-zi-re", and then further change Turkic "z' into "s"
which will bring you to the English word "desire". It is further
alienated by vocalizing it as "dezayir". And there you have a brand
new word that has no resemblance to its original Turkish form.
So you see Peter, in this process the Turkish word "erzidi" (arzudu)
was not borrowed from Turkish but rather usurped from Turkish.
For your information even the term "usurp" is also anagrammatized
from the Turkish phrase "ASURUP", (ashirip), s=sh, meaning "he stole"
or "It is stolen". Thus you see that while "anagrammatizing" is
stealing, "borrowing" is importing it without altering its original
It may be claimed that the English word "desire' comes from the Latin
word "desiderare" (source, Encyclopaedia Britannica World Language
Dictionary, 1963, p. 347). Let us see this Latin word "desiderare"
meaning "longing, craving, wishing to have". The Latin "desiderare"
is anagrammatized from Turkish "ERZI EDERDI" ("arzu ederdi") meaning
"he/she desired". Similarly, French "desirer" from Turkish "ERZI EDER"
(arzu eder") meaning "he/she desires". So you see neither Latin word
"desiderare" nor Frençh "desirer", nor English "desire" are original.
They are all conveniently anagrammatized from Turkish. Further to
this, even the English "desirable" is from Turkish "ERZI EDEBILI"
(arzu edebili) meaning "it is desirable". Please note that even the
English suffix "-able" is anagrammatized from the Turkish suffix
"-bili" (e.g., as in Turkish "olabili", "gelebili", etc.).
All of these similarities cannot be due to coincidence if Latin,
English and French were developed independently of Altaic Turkish -
unless Turkish was anagrammatized to form the Indo-European
For these reasons, if you read my paper carefully, you will see that I
did not use the term "borrowing", but rather "anagrammatizing". One
is "taking and confirming the source" while the other is "taking
without admitting so, altering and embellishing it to conceal its
true identity, and then claiming it as your own". So your use of the
term "borrowing" diverts the attention from the real case
of "anagrammatizing" to an innocent case of "borrowing". If we
consider the anagrammatizing case, we will be able to uncover very
many Turkish source phrases in the IE languages. But if we are to
only consider "borrowing", we may not find many - because most of
them are hidden/camouflaged.
(b) You said: "Secondly, and far more importantly, "look-alikes"
between unrelated languages are quite common, so we need extra
evidence to find out if there was borrowing."
Not so. Please do not change the direction. You know very well that
these are not "look alikes" between unrelated languages as you term
it. On the contrary, they are usurped and anagrammatized entities from
Turkish into Latin. You keep referring to them as "borrowing" in
order to divert the concept from "anagrammatizing ". You know well
that "look alikes" do not necessarily have the same meanings.
Particularly, we are talking about the conjugational tenses of Latin
"cedo" and Turkish "git o". You cannot have this kind of "look
alikes" at every form of conjugation. You must note that when we
compare the conjugation of verbs, we are also talking about all the
different forms of suffixes that go along with different cases. They
cannot be considered as "look-alikes" which is an insincere
definition. If "cedo" and Turkish "git o" were "look-alikes" what
about the similarities that exist between all the suffixes that are
used to make different tenses of these verbs both in Latin and in
Turkish? So, please let us not play games with words. Your evasive
response is an effort to divert my pointing finger to a different
direction. If I may say so, please first digest all the evidences that
I have provided and then ask for more evidence. You have not done
(b.2) You said: "The source of Latin cedo is not as well known as
many other words (so borrowing becomes a possibility) although it is
suggested it comes from an entirely different root (*sed) with a
prefix ke- meaning "here". so cedo < *ke-sd-o and is not a
If I understand this correctly, you mean "borrowing from Turkish
becomes a possibility". But I am not referring to "borrowing". The
second part of your response has no value at all.
If the source of Latin cedo is not well known, then I am giving you
one and telling you that its source is Turkish. In one hand you say
that its source is not known, and in the other you say that it is
suggested it comes from an entirely different root. How do you
expect us to believe you and and to be satisfied with this kind of
There is no rationality in getting Latin "cedo" (to go) from a
nebulous root (*sed). If this is the way that modern linguistics have
been operating, then we all have real problems in linguistics.
It seems you have not only accepted an irrational argument without
questioning it but you are also passing it onto others, thus, helping
to perpetrate the same fallacy. "Cedo" is the root itself and it is
from Turkish "git/get/ket/kit/ced" meaning "to go". It is not clear
how "cedo", meaning "to go", can be diverted to a totally unrelated
and ficticious root which you term "*sed" with a prefix ke-
meaning "here". This kind of argument has no credibility and your
conclusion "so cedo is from *ke-sd-o and is not a borrowing" does
not hold water.
Additionally, perhaps you could explain why the letter "c" in Latin is
written as "c" but vocalized mostly as "k", and sometimes as "s" and
even sometimes as an English "g". Why so many different faces for
one letter? Could it be that it has a double or triple personality,
because it is used as a camouflage letter?
(c) You said: "Thirdly similarities between Turkish and some
Indo-European languages have led some people to suggest that there is
a genetic connection rather than borrowings. You might like to
explore that route."
I do not need to! I can already tell you how this so-called "genetic
connection" is possible. When Turkish is used as a source data base
from which some fast operating linguists have generated words for
so-called Indo-European languages, then it is bound to have some
"genetic" connection. As you can see, I have already explored that
route and found that the reason for the so-called "genetic connection"
between IE languages and Turkish is that the IE languages have been
manufactured from Turkish by way of "anagrammatizing".
In closing, I would like to say to you that my response in this letter
was not intended to be offensive in any way. I only tried to show
the other side of your arguments by friendly and truth-searching
debate. I wish you good luck and all the best in the New Year.
----- Özgün Ileti -----
Gönderme tarihi: 05 Ocak 2003 Pazar 10:56
Konu: Re: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" ("to go") and Turkish "GIT-O"
("it is go")
>From the comparisons of these conjugations of the Latin "cedere"
>(to go) and the Turkish "gider" (giter/geter/geder) (he goes), there
>can be no denying that the Latin version has been taken from the
>ancient Turkish language
Yes there is.
(a) Firstly some of the "Latin" forms you quote do not exist, and in
any case the endings are not derived from Turkish - it is just the
root or stem that you should be interested in, if you wish to prove
that cedo is a borrowing from Turkish.
(b) Secondly, and far more importantly, "look-alikes" between
unrelated languages are quite common, so we need extra evidence to
find out if there was borrowing. The source of Latin cedo is not as
well known as many other words (so borrowing becomes a possibility)
although it is suggested it comes from an entirely different root
(*sed) with a prefix ke- meaning "here". so cedo < *ke-sd-o and is
not a borrowing.
(c) Thirdly similarities between Turkish and some Indo-European
languages have led some people to suggest that there is a genetic
connection rather than borrowings. You might like to explore that
Good luck with your linguistic thinking!