Re: [historical_linguistics] Polat Kaya's approach... (Mark Newbrook)

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

Dear Friends,

Greetings to all. This is in response to Mark Newbrook's response to
my paper regarding the longevity of Turkish. MN seems to be very
bothered with what I said about Turkish being the proto-language. As
such, he has taken the easy road of vilify and put-down where he seems
to be an expert. This is not a sign of respectful scientific
curiosity and enquiry but rather insecurity and shallowness. His
unscientific critique and prejudiced manipulations need to be
addressed.

MN in his insincere and cunning preference, chose to ignore all
together the specifics of my paper and instead went into verbose
pronouncements which essentially added nothing to the subject matter.
MN's three letters are full of verbosity and are mostly hissing and
whistling in the dark with no scientific value. A bagful of evasive
verbology intended to bring sophistication to his style
[sophistication = to mislead or confuse with false argument,
quibbling, misrepresentation in reasoning or argument, falsification
with a false appearance of honesty]. Instead of dwelling on my
proposed items, he deceptively changes the subject and introduces
confusion. This is nothing but frequently played trickery in debate.
Problem solution is not an easy matter. It requires not only knowhow
to enlighten but also willingness to enlighten. To some
ill-intentioned people, it is better that things stay as they are,
i.e., dark, confused, mysterious, and in the hands of a few. MN seems
to prefer that the road stays dark rather than be illuminated.

First of all, MN is not communicating with me. He wants to lecture me
which I am not interested in. I can find much better orations
presented by much more capable minds. It seems that MN's aim is to
push, pull and shift the subject into generalities thereby reducing
the whole thing to dull chit-chat where he can be verbose at his
heart's content. That game I am not interested in either.

One might ask why MN did not dwell on my claim of BILGAMESH to
GILGAMESH conversion? For his additional information, reintroducing
the dropped "A" in front of "GILGAMESH", makes the name "AGILGAMESH"
which is again not only Turkish but also means the same as the Turkish
expression "BILGAMESH". As a linguist, (i.e., if MN is one), this
should have been new and enlightening for him. Yet, he chose
conveniently to be lull about it, ["lull" is annagramatized from
Turkish "lal" meaning "toungueless" or "speechless"). Additionally,
why did MN ignore the DINGIR vs TENGIR linguistic kinship? Why did he
not comment on the "TORAH" which unquestionably and undeniably comes
from Turkish "TORA"? Why did he not talk about the ancient MISIR
(MASAR) word of "DIKHEN" for the so-called "Obelisk" that I pointed
out - and all the others? As a truth searching linguist, (i.e., if MN
is one), these things should have interested him very much. Instead,
MN goes on a tangent and orates with irrelevant talk. MN's response
indicates that he wants to suffocate the subject with verbosity hoping
that it will go away. But it does not. I still maintain that the
ancient world was a Turkish speaking world despite the denials or
avoidances as MN does.

MN writes that: "All these proposals involve unwarranted and
unsystematic claims and assumptions about ancestral linguistic
structures and meanings, which together render them more or less
immune to empirical disconfirmation and give their advocates a
virtually free hand."

Firstly, MN labels my proposal as a "non-standard proposal". In this
diagnoses he is right. If what I was going to say was "standard, I
wouldn't say it. While many people like to repeat the so-called
established "standard" ideas, only the "non-standard" ones deserve to
be proposed, in my view. The letter whose content is already known by
the addressed person does not carry any more information to its
receiver. In this regard, I am pleased and proud to be able to
present a non-standard view that no one has thought of before.

Secondly, he reverberates with a baseless accusation implying that I
have made "unwarranted assumptions about ancestral linguistic
structures and meanings," Evidently, MN does not know that there is a
language called Turkish with far superior capabilities than he could
ever imagine. When I talk about my ancestral linguistic structures and
meanings. I talk about facts not fiction. If MN could not follow what
I have said, it may be due to his own shortcomings. It is very likely
that MN does not know a word of Turkish.

Thirdly, since MN does not truly know all that affected the formation
of languages, he is in no position to use the word "unwarranted" about
what I or others said regarding languages. With such talk, MN assumes
an unjustified and false role as if he is the authority and knows
everything needed to explain the formation of languages. Yet it is
doubtfull that he is in such a state of knowledge. He is only
defending the established position - which he is a part of. Hence, he
is not a neutral bystander. For MN, admitting what I said as correct
would be tantamount to denying himself, and the establishment that he
is part of, and all of the things that we have been falsely taught so
far about the origin of languages.

As for the latter part of his statement, i.e., "which together render
them more or less immune to empirical disconfirmation and give their
advocates a virtually free hand." I say he is wrong again. On the
contrary, it does not render free hand at all for the decoder in
deciphering words that have been anagrammatized from Turkish words
and/or expressions. It rather hinders because of the fact that one is
confined to the given meaning of the word and its form, i.e., the
vowels and consonants that make up the structure of the word being
analysed. In this process, the decoder has to meet his own standards
first making sure that the correct analyses is done. For instance,
the English word "CARD" meaning "a wire-toothed brush for combing and
cleansing wool and other fibre" is nothing but an anagram of the
Turkish word "DARAK" (TARAK) meaning exactly the same thing. Here the
anagrammatization involves chnaging the Turkish K to English C but
still pronounced as K, dropping an A, and reading the whole thing
backwards. This is not coincidence. This is not normal migration of a
Turkish word into English either. It is a well camouflaged usurpation.
Even the English word "USURP" (meaning "to take possesion of
something without legal authority" or "to take arrogantly as if by
right") is an undeniable anagram of Turkish "AShURUP" meaning
"unlawfully taking over".

The decompiler has to know the Turkish language and Turkish culture
very well. Without this skill one can get nowhere in trying to get to
the source material used in the anagrammatizing process. Surely, the
anagrammatizers counted on this requirement hoping that that skill
will not be available to be used inquisitively. With endless
propaganda, a possible enquirer is readily put to sleep. In fact it
was the anagrammatizer who had the free hand in cutting, pasting and
restructuring the original linguistic material as he/she pleased.
They would not only break up the original expression anyway they
pleased, they would: read the parts or the whole of the original
material backwards or forwards or a combination of; substitute new
vowels or drop existing ones; alter consonants to related consonants;
add bogus letters from the new language whose multiple identity is
known only to the anagrammatizer; even shift the meaning in the new
language slightly; etc.. At the end of the process, the result is a
"Greek" or "Latin" looking word with a meaning related to the meaning
of the original words and expressions.

Generally, the breaking and rearranging of the source material is so
well done and so well camouflaged that every time I decipher one I
cannot help but admire the skill of those who did the anagrammatizing
in spite of the fact that what they were doing was usurping words and
expressions from another language. This is very much in line with
GENESIS 11:7 (i.e., the confusion of the one language that the world
spoke).

It can be said that in the game of manufacturing words for a new
language, the only rule is, "there is no rule". The possibilites are
wide and varied but they made sure that what was manufactured had
little or no resemblence to the source material.

In order for MN or anyone else to be in the "empirical
disconfirmation" position, surely he has to know first and foremost
the Turkish language and the way it is used in different parts of the
Turkish speaking world. The anagrammatizer knows well that this is not
possible for all students of linguistics, therefore, he goes on his
way with a smile on his face.

Since there has been a lot of deceitful human play in anagrammatizing
the source language, decoding words back to their source is not an
easy task. Hence, an untrained and unsuspecting eye has no chance of
seeing the real picture. Great effort has been spent to make sure that
each anagrammatized word is not readily recognizable.

MN writes by saying: "I have seen a good spoof paper tracing English
to Mayan which involves much tighter equations than those accepted as
genuine by PK"

MN is throwing mud here trying to put down my work. My response to
this low remark is that I hold myself to extremely high standards -
probably higher than MN is capable of. The word SPOOF means "hoax" or
"fake" or "joke" and my work does not bear the slightest resemblance
to such concepts. It is very open, serious and honest. I am not
interested in conning anybody. Since MN is talking about "spoof",
however, I must point out that the real spoof is must be the claim by
some linguists that Indo-European languages are independently
developed ancient languages. There is plenty of evidence showing that
IE languages were manufactured from Turkish. Even Greek and Latin are
manufactured from Turkish. MN should not be flustered with my
revelations. I have plenty of evidence to support them. Additionally,
I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am not submitting
anything for MN's approval or for anybody else's approval. I am only
sharing my findings with others. When MN decides to read my paper
carefully without bias, he will find it very enlightening for himself.

MN writes: "Proposals of this kind are not normally taken seriously by
historical linguists, for obvious reasons."

If some historical "linguists" refuse to take such proposals
seriously, I submit that it is because it is not in their best
interest. Such proposals step on their turf.

MN writes by saying: "If PK wants to be taken seriously, he must
demonstrate that his proposal is superior to these other proposals of
this kind (Nyland's is readily available for examination) AND
preferable to the established interpretations of the data."

I am not here in competetion with anyone. I respect other researcher's
work. Let them be free to speak their mind. All claims stand on their
own merit. As far as my own work is concerned, I am very confident
about its accuracy. Additionally, I did not ask MN to be the judge,
the jury and the critic of my work. MN unwarrantedly appointed
himself to that position as if I needed one. I do not see MN as a
knowledgable referee or a reliable referee for my work. He is far from
being open-minded and has amply demonstrated his prejudice. I am
confident that there will be others who will find my explanations
quite reasonable. It should not be forgotten that it always takes
some time for new NON-STANDARD PROPOSALs to be appreciated. Time will
show who is correct and who is not. MN should go away and carry on
with whatever he is doing and not put his shadow in my way.

And finally he writes: "It is difficult to see that he will achieve
this as long as he proceeds as he does; but 'the ball is in his
court'. I represent a group of linguists who are willing to examine
highly non-standard proposals - as long as a reasonable attempt is
made to present a rational case informed by an understanding of the
subject."

In the first place, my paper is rational and reasonable. It is based
on a very strong understanding of the subject matter. MN is in no
position to dispute this. In this regard, MN does not even represent
Grade 1. If MN and his linguists are willing to examine, they should
examine what I have already said in my paper. I have no intention of
bargaining with my paper or my ideas. By taking such an overbearing
and condescending stance, MN gives too much credit to himself in a
subject where he does not know as much as I do. Those who do not know
cannot be in a judging position. As far as I am concerned the ball is
still in his turf. He still owes me the reading and discussing of the
specifics of my original paper which he ignored. In this regard, he
has not done what he should have done in the first place when he
appointed himself as my critic. Critizing is easy but studying and
understanding is not. Admitting is even harder.

Best wishes to all.

Polat Kaya

June 30, 2003


==============

Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> FROM : Mnewbroo@a... | Save Address
> DATE : Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:24:23 EDT
> TO : <historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com>
> SUBJECT: Re: [historical_linguistics] Digest Number 3
>
>
Polat Kaya's approach to the origins of words and languages is
parallel in general terms with many other non-standard proposals,
including Nyland's (substitute Basque for Turkish), Hietbrinck's
(Dutch), White's (his 'Earth Mother Sacred Language'), Ior Bock
(his 'Rot'/'Van', based on his own Finnish), Cohane's Irish-based
proposal in 'The Key' , Palmer's 'Mantong', etc. All these proposals
involve unwarranted and unsystematic claims and assumptions about
ancestral linguistic structures and meanings, which together render
them more or less immune to empirical disconfirmation and give their
advocates a virtually free hand. Except, that is, where they
contradict known philological facts, as they often do. But PK allows
himself even more freedom with the data by permitting anagrams. It
is easy to show that once one does this one can claim that any word
has virtually any origin one wants to suggest. I have seen a good
spoof paper tracing English to Mayan which involves much tighter
equations than those accepted as genuine by PK.
>
Proposals of this kind are not normally taken seriously by historical
linguists, for obvious reasons. If PK wants to be taken seriously,
he must demonstrate that his proposal is superior to these other
proposals of this kind (Nyland's is readily available for
examination) AND preferable to the established interpretations of the
data. It is difficult to see that he will achieve this as long as he
proceeds as he does; but 'the ball is in his court'. I represent a
group of linguists who are willing to examine highly non-standard
proposals - as long as a reasonable attempt is made to present a
rational case informed by an understanding of the subject.
>
It is also noteworthy that (as per Olender, cited in Message 1) most
(not all) of those who offer such proposals regard their own first
language (or its ancestors) as having special status. This should at
once create suspicion.
>
Mark Newbrook
Linguistics, Monash University & University of Sheffield