Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" (Benjamin Lukoff)

--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear Benjamin Lukoff,

Thank you for your questioning letter. I will try to answer your
questions.

1. You asked: "What is the evidence for this claim?"

1.a) The ancient Sumerian language of TUR Sumerians;

1.b) The ancient so-called "Egyptian" language of TUR Masarians
(MISIR);

1.c) The ancient Latin and Greek languages anagrammatized from
ancient Turkish;

1.d) The toponyms of many place names;

1.e) GENESIS 11.


2. You asked: "Why would this be done? Why not a straight borrowing?"

Anagrammatizing allowed for the creation of new languages for people
who originally did not have distinct languages of their own. Without
the language, group is not a distinct nation. To overcome this
difficulty, group has to have a distinct language. How do you get a
language? Either you have to create one from scratch using totally
new rules which would be a very difficult task and may take very long
time to develop and put into practice. Or one can generate a new
language by anagrammatizing an already existing language. This process
is far easier and cheaper. After one develops a new distinct
language, straight borrowings from the mother language would dilute it
and therefore would have to be avoided. With the anagammatizing
process, the owners of the new language would also usurp many cultural
aspects of the mother language.

3. You said: "This seems much more cumbersome than the traditional
interpretation of the etymology of 'desire'."

Maybe so, but traditional understandings are the ones that people are
used to hearing. Thus one does not question. Yet when I tell you
about the nature of "desire" being from Turkic "erzide" (arzudu), one
naturally reacts to it until one accepts it being so. Let us not
forget that my aim is to show you the root of "desire", not being
concerned about its relative cumbersomeness.

4. You asked: "How does one "steal" a word?"

Very easy. Generate a new word by anagrammatizing from a
mother language, make sure that the new word does not resemble
the original word or phrase in the mother/father source language,
and claim it as being sourced from another language by providing
misleading etymology. Who will know the difference? How many
people look at the etymology of a word and out of those, how many
actually question the validity of the given etymology?


Sincerely yours,

Polat Kaya

=========



----- Özgün Ileti -----
Kimden: Benjamin Lukoff
Kime: linguistics@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 09 Ocak 2003 Persembe 03:00
Konu: Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" ("to go") and
Turkish "GIT-O" ("it is go")


On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Kamil KARTAL <allingus@h...> wrote:

> 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

What is the evidence for this claim?
"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.

Why would this be done? Why not a straight borrowing?

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.

This seems much more cumbersome than the traditional interpretation
of the etymology of 'desire'.

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
ethnic identity.

How does one "steal" a word?