Re: Digest Number 189 (Re: Mark Newbrook)

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

Dear friends,

Re: Mark Newbrook

Greetings. This is in response to Mark Newbrook's last letter, dated
Tue, July 1, 2003. I had to delay my response because of the amount of
work involved in preparing my document. In this response I will cut
the dialog short but I reserve the right to respond at a later time.

First I want to point out a few important things for the record.

I am a 1950 graduate of the University of California in Berkeley,
receiving a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Enginering
(E.E.).

Additionally, I am a 1951 graduate of the Moore Schoool of Electrical
Engineering, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, receiving the
Degree of Master of Science in E. E..

I was always interested in the Turkish language and the ancient
Turkish world but after retiring, even more so. To my amazement, I
found that it was the ancient Turanian world that gave the cultural
foundation of what present day civilization uses - contrary to
denials. The Turkish language was the universal language and the
ancient Turanian trinity sky-god religion was the universal religion
for a long time before it was obliterated by some groups. I also
discovered that this ancient Turkish Trinity Sky God religion, along
with its accompanying Turkish language were the target of obliteration
and usurpation.

Mark Newbrook accuses me of misunderstanding him. My response is, I
am quite capable of understanding his obvious and hidden messages. I
did not misunderstand him. I got his message loud and clear and I
knew what he meant in every sentence of his writing. That is why I
responded the way I did in my last email.

In his letters Mark Newbrook anagrammatized my name "Polat Kaya" down
to a meaningless PK. I ask him not to do this again. I am very
sensitive about the correct and full spelling of my name. By
anagrammatizing my name to PK he has reduced my identity to an
unrecognizable symbol. He or anyone else is not at liberty to do that.
In my first response to him, I shortened his name to MN hoping that
he would see the ugliness of this game and stop it. He did not. I
give him the benefit of the doubt that he was sincere and probably did
not do it with ill-will. Since Mark Newbrook is capable of spelling
out in full length thousands of words without difficulty, I am sure he
could spell out my name in full, that is, if he wanted to. In Turkish
culture, it is customary to use the persons given name without
mutilating it. From now on, he must refer to me as Polat Kaya or
Polat or P. Kaya but not PK. Of course I will refer to him as Mark
Newbrook, Mark, or M. Newbrook as customary but not MN.

Another point. All members of this forum are respectful people. When
Mark comes in amongst them, he should at least greet them in some way
indicating that he is a friendly person and means no harm to anyone.
Similarly, when signing off, he should say a proper good-bye. Mark
Newbrook comes in with a bombastic attitude and leaves with an equally
bombastic attitude, leaving a harsh appearance behind. Human
relations may not have been taught in linguistics classes, but human
relations and language are closely related to each other. Mutual
respect, tolerance and open-mindedness are very important in human
relations.

After setting the record straight, I will now start again.


Dear Mark Newbrook and friends,

Greetings to all. As I mentioned above, I will not be very long in my
response to your last letter as my document is already lengthy. After
reading the foregoing mutual dialogs, we have a better understanding
of each other. I welcome your offer to examine 30-50 words that you
asked me to provide. Evidently 30-50 words will provide sufficient
basis for you to make a judgment about what I am claiming. I am going
to give you a small sampling, about 125 English words which are not
known to be from Turkish in any way or shape. In my analysis, I will
show that they are anagrammatized from Turkish words and/or
expressions. In my view, each word is like an inscription written on
stone. It carries its namesake, a concept and its meaning as provided
in a dictionary. You and your team can examine them and provide us
with scientific analysis and scholarly comments.

I also request that in this examination process, you will act as a
truly honest broker. No fancy footwork or verbosity please.
Superiority complex, prejudice, race or creed reference should not
enter into it. You will cast off any anti-Turkish or anti-Turk
feelings, that is, if you have them, and in this regard not be
influenced by others either. Your truth searching conscience will be
your referee. You, as a man equipped with the required knowledge in
linguistics, must act only with pure scientific curiosity, doing
science for the sake of science only. You are trying to find the
truth. You want to investigate whether Polat Kaya's findings have
merit and why the linguistic relations are coming up as they do in the
sample English words that I give you. From the probability point of
view, it cannot happen. Coincidences cannot explain them.

I reserve my right to reply to any of your comments, questions or
conclusions. The questions, if any, should be asked in a friendly
manner and in an easy-to-understand format, for the benefit of all.
Dont forget the aim is to find the truth. The onus is on you to be an
unbiased judge. After having said this, I wish you best of luck.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

July 10, 2003


ENGLISH WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN ANAGRAMMATIZED FROM TURKISH

By POLAT KAYA

(Copyright © Polat Kaya 2003)

Before presenting my list of words, it may be in order to present the
concept of "anagrammatizing" for the benefit of those who did not see
my earlier writings. Encyclopaedia Britannica provides the following
information regarding the concept of "ANAGRAM". [1]

"ANAGRAM, the transposing of the letters of a word or group of words
so as to produce other words that possess meaning. The construction
of anagrams is of great antiquity, its invention being ascribed
without authority to the Jews, probably because the later Hebrew
writers, particularly the Cabalists, were fond of it, asserting that
"secret mysteries are woven in the numbers of letters." Anagrams were
known to the Greeks and also to the Romans, althought the known Latin
examples of words of more than one syllable are nearly all imperfect.
They were popular throughout Europe during the middle ages and later,
particularly in France, where a certain Thomas Billon was appointed
"anagrammatist to the king."

Evidently, annagramatizing is a simple way of generating new words
from a source text. Although the general impression portrayed is that
anagrammatizing was used for fun and entertainment purposes, my view
is that it was used to generate new languages from Turkish.
Essentially, annagramatizing is a cut, add, shuffle, rearrange, and
paste alltogether operation. Generally, consonants of the original
text are retained and shuffled in the newly structured format,
however, some may be replaced with double-identity letters (e.g., X
replacing K and S). The vowels of the original text tend to be
replaced with other vowels and even bogus vowels (e.g., W). My
research showed that many English words were anagrammatized from
Turkish words or phrases. Using anagrammatization, many languages,
different from each other but yet related, could be readily generated.
Particularly, if the original language was an agglutinative and
phonetic language (such as Sumerian and/or Turkish), anything
generated from it would be the inflected languages such as the
so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages. We will see this in the
examples below.

Like the Greek alphabet, the English alphabet along with non-phonetic
pronounciation plays a big part in anagrammatization. A few examples
here will help to clarify the point. First of all, the pronounciation
guide beside a word in a dictionary conditions the reader to read the
word in an inflected manner. Instead of reading the word in an
inflected manner, if it was read phonetically, some of the words would
readily be recognized as Turkish (e.g., HERO vs ERO or HONOUR vs
ONUR).

For example, I note the following anomalies in the English alphabet.
The letter A has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., FATHER,
ANVIL, ABLE). In all three words, the A is pronounced differently.

The letter C has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., CIRCLE,
CAPRICIOUS). The first C in CIRCLE is pronounced as an S while the
second C is pronounced as a K. The second C in CAPRICIOUS is
pronounced as a SH.

The letter E has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., ENTER,
PERFECT).

The letter G has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., GENESIS,
GABLE, RIGHT).

The letter H has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., HELP,
RIGHT).

The letter I has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., BIRD,
LIKE, PIN).

The letter J is a newly invented letter replacing I or Y.

The letter O has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., OPEN, ON).

The letter U has multiple pronounciation identities (e.g., CUP, DUPE,
CHURCH).

All of these multiple pronounciation identities can be viewed as
instruments of disguise used to cut off the visual connection between
the original text and the anagrammatized new word. The implication is
that one letter can be used to replace a number of letters in the
original text. For example, the English word CUP comes from Turkish
KAB meaning "a vessel" but the visual connection is disrupted because
the original K is replaced by C but still pronounced as K, the
original A is replaced by U but still pronounced as A, and the
original B is replaced by P (B and P are very similar in nature and
therefore can be easily shifted into each other). Another example in
Turkish is the word KÜP meaning "a vase" or "a jar" but then a trophy
Cup is also a vase or a jar. On a similar note, CUP in French is
TASSE pronounced as TAS but TAS is a Turkish word meaning the same
thing as CUP. The Frence "TASSE" is an anagram of Turkish "TAS".
Here again, the visual connection is disrupted. Writing the original
Turkish TAS as TASSE gives the impression that they are two different
words when they are not.

Doubling up letters is another confusion instrument. (e.g., SS in
FUSS is pronounced as S while SS in PROFESSION is pronounced as SH,
and OO in POOR is pronounced as U while OO in DOOR is pronounced as
O).

The PH combination which is pronounced as F is an additional
instrument of confusion. It can be used to replace an F, a P, or a P
and an H in the original text. Take the word PHILOSOPHY vs Turkish
FELSEFE. Replacing both F's in the Turkish word with PH results in
PHELSEPHE. Further anagrammatization will readily give you
PHILOSOPHY.

Similarly, the CH combination is an anagram of Turkish letter "Ç"
pronounced in Turkish as "CH". It is peculiar that CH is sometimes
pronounced as a K like in "ACHE".

Additionally, U, V, W, and Y are interchangeable implying that a U in
the original text can be replaced with V or Y or W or even with an O.
The same applies for an original V or an original Y. Frequently, the
Y is pronounced as an I like in POLY meaning "plenty" or "many".
"POLY" is an anagram of Turkish "BOL O" menaing "plenty" or "many".
For instance, POLYHEDRON is known as a Greek word meaning "many
sided". Yet in actuality, it is anagrammatized from the Turkish
expression "BOL KENARDI O" meaning "it has many sides". In this
example, the original Turkish "BOL" or "BOL O" is replaced by POLY
while the original Turkish KENARDI is anagrammatized into HEDRON where
the K is replaced by H. Take another example TETRAHEDRON meaning
"four sided". This is anagrammatized from Turkish "TORT KENARDI"
(DÖRT KENARDI) meaning "it is four sided". Similarly TETRAGON meaning
"figure with four angles" is anagrammatized from Turkish "DÖRT GÖNYE"
meaning "four angled". Another Turkish version of it is "DÖRTGEN"
meaning "four sided".

We need to also dwell on the many identities of the so called letter
"W". It is a spy letter that can get into many identities without
being suspected. In English, it is called "double U" meaning it is two
"Us" in one, i.e., W = U + U yet the French call it "double V".
Since, U = Y = V, then W can be any combination of those letters: W
can be equal to U+U; U+V; U+Y; V+V; Y+Y; U; V; Y; and O. In
some cases, W can even represent an original M because if W is flipped
upside down, it is an M. Additionally the lower case "u" can
represent an original lower case "n" because flipping "n" upside down
results in "u". All of these tricks including pronounciation and
resyllabilization have been used in manufacturing words for the
English language from Turkish. Surely, similar activities must have
been done in the other inflected languages, and the process must still
be going on.

Finally, the letter X is a multiple identity letter that could
represent K or KH or KS or K + vowel + S. For instance, the original
Turkish source word that OX comes from is OKUS (OKUZ). As is seen,
the letter X is a powerful disguiser which readily disrupts the visual
connection with the source text.

After bringing these points to the attention of the readers, we can
now turn to the actual examples which follow.


ACCELERATE (letters rearranged as "ACCELE-ETAR") is an anagram of the
Turkish phrase "ACELE-EDER" (hizlandirir) meaning "increases the
speed", i.e., "it accelerates". That is what acceleration does to
speed. In the anagrammtizing process, a new C has been added beside
the original C resulting in 2 C's side by side that are now pronounced
as a K and an S, and the original 2nd Turkish word EDER has been
changed to RATE. Thus the original Turkish text "ACELE-EDER" has been
alienated from Turkish and the world has been conned starting with
the Turks.


ACCIDENT (pronounced "AKSIDENT") is an anagram of Turkish expression
"AKSI-EDEN" or "AKSI-EDENDI" (meaning "unfortunate event" or "bad
event") where the original K has been changed to C but yet retains the
original K sound and the original S has been changed to C but yet
retains the original S sound.


ACHE (with synonyms of: pain, agony, pang, hurt, grief) is an anagram
of Turkish word "ACI" meaning "pain" or "ache". It has been
anagrammatized by adding an "H", altering the I to an E, pronouncing
the CH in the middle as a K, resyllabalized from 2 down to 1, and the
E at the end is not pronounced any more. The fact that ACHE is written
the way it is but pronounced with a K sound is evidence of the
camouflage, confusion and anagrammatization that is being applied
because of the fact that CH should be pronounced as CH - as in CHURCH.
If we were to pronounce ACHE with the CH sound, it would become
Turkish ACI but then that would be too obvious with the meaning that
it has. So when the word is too close to the original, the
anagrammatizers simply change the rule without any rationale.


ACID (with synonyms of: bitter, acrid, sour, biting, tart; sarcastic,
cutting, caustic, scathing) is an anagram of Turkish phrase "ACIDI"
(aci-idi, aci-adi) meaning "it is bitter", "it is sour", "it is
biting", "it is hurting mentally and physically". In the
anagrammatizing process the final vowel "I" in the original Turkish
has been dropped and the original C is now pronounced as an S. Here
we are told that this C is pronounced as an S whereas in many other
English words, the C is pronounced as a K.


ACE (with synonyms of : one, outstanding, prominent, leading,
eminent) is an anagram of Turkish "AS" (bir, az, essiz) meaning "one",
"few", "peerless". It is one of the most prominent attributes of the
ancient Turanian sky-god AS-ER (OGUZ). OSIR (so-called OSIRIS), the
sky-god of the ancient MISIR (so-called Egypt) uses this Turkish word
AS in it. AS-ER and OS-ER (OGUZ-ER, O-US-ER) are all the same. The
name OZ (OS) as in The Wizard of OZ is simply a variation of Turkish
AS.


ANCIENT (with synonyms of: very old, archaic, age-old, aged),
(rearranged as"ANCITEN") is an anagram of Turkish word "ÖNCEDEN"
meaning "from long time ago", "from the beginning", "first of all",
"previously". In anagrammatizing, the original Turkish DEN or TEN
suffix has been rearranged as ENT, and the original C in ÖNCE is now
being pronounced as SH. On top of it, the original Turkish Ö has been
replaced with an A with different pronounciation.


ANAESTHETISE is a variation of ANAESTHESIA (defined as being from
Greek "anaisthesia" meaning "insensibility" with etymology "an-" not
+ "aisthesis" feeling [2]). The so-called Greek etymology is
actually bogus because "AN + AISTHESIS" (rearranged as "ANA HISSIS
ET") is an anagram of Turkish "ANI-HISSIZ-ET" (onu hissiz et) meaning
"make him/her/it senseless or numb or without feeling". That is what
the so-called "ANAESTHESIA" does to the patient. So, the original
Greek etymology is not truthful. It has taken the Turkish expression
"ANI HISSIZ ET" meaning "make him/her/it numb, senseless, not feeling"
and divides it into two parts as "ANI + HISSIZ ET" identifying the
second part (which originally expressed lack of feeling) by its
opposite meaning, i.e., "feeling". Additionally they take Turkish
"ANI/ONU" meaning "him/her/it" and anagrammatize it with a totally
different meaning expressing negativity. It is seen that all kinds of
hoaxes are being played on the original Turkish words/phrases.

The Turkish word "HISSIZ" is made up of Turkish "HIS" meaning
"feeling" or "sense" + "SIS" (SIZ) meaning "less"or "without", thus,
"HISSIS" (HISSIZ) means "without feeling".

Thus the whole world is deceived including linguists and philologists
with a stolen and anagrammatized Turkish expression. The Greeks have
given the wrong etymology referring to their own untrue source when in
fact, their real source was Turkish. There is additional
anagrammatization in the English version of the word as well.
ANAESTHESIA (rearranged as "ANA HISES ETA") again becomes an anagram
of Turkish expression "ONU HISSIZ ETE" meaning "Let someone make
him/her/it without feeling". In this anagram, one original S has been
dropped altogether and the meaning of the model Turkish expression has
been altered.

Similarly, the version ANAESTHETISE (rearranged as "ANA HISES ETTE")
is an anagram of Turkish phrase "ANI HISSIZ ETTI" meaning "someone
made him/her/it without feeling", i.e., "somone put him into sleep".
Thus again the original Turkish expression used in the anagram has
been changed in meaning but essentially means the same thing.

Thus, it is clear that the source for all of these words is neither
Greek nor English but rather an ancient fully developed Turkish
expression totally chewed up and misrepresented but being used as a
so-called Indo-European word in the medical world. This kind of
dishonesty is at the bottom of the so-called Indo-European languages.
No linguist or philologist can come up with such a complex word like
ANAESTHETISE or ANAESTHESIA with the given meaning unless they have
used a reference expression from another source.

Now I ask: Has any linguist ever suspected the given etymologies of
this word before? Has any linguist ever done such an in-depth study
like this before?


APPALLED (with synonyms of: confounded, stunned, bewildered, confused,
puzzled) is an anagram of Turkish phrase "AFALLADI" meaning "he is
puzzled", "he is confused", "he is bewildered", "he is confounded",
i.e., "he is appalled". In this anagrammatizing, the original Turkish
"F" has been changed into "P" and doubled up for confusion, the third
A has been dropped, and finally, the so-called English suffix "-ED" is
actually an anagram of the Turkish suffix "-DI" indicating "past
tense". In all cases, the so-called English suffix -ED representing
the past tense, is the anagram of Turkish suffix forms of "-DI",
"-Di", "-DU", "-DÜ" all representing the verbal suffix for Turkish
"past tense" in accordance with the Turkish vowel harmony rule.


ARCHITECT (with synonyms of: builder, designer, planner of
structures), (rearranged as "TICACH-ERT") is an anagram of Turkish
phrase "DIKICI ERTI" meaning "he is a designer" or "builder man" i.e.,
an architect. Additionally, "TICACH-ERT" can be viewed as an anagram
of Turkish phrase "DIKISH ERTI" meaning "a designer of clothes" or "a
tailor" i.e., also an architect. Turkish "ER" means "man" here. In
both cases, the man is an architect. While one deals with a
combination of hard materials, the other deals with fabric. So both
Turkish source phrases DIKICI-ERDI (DIKISH-ERDI) can be found inside
ARCHITECT when it is rearranged as TICACH-ERT.


ARTHRITIS (rearranged as "TIS-AHRITR") is an anagram of Turkish phrase
"DIZ AGRIDIR" (where the G is a soft G in Turkish) meaning "it is knee
pain" which is generally where arthiritis affects people.
Alternatively, it is an anagram of Turkish phrase "DIZI AGRITIR"
meaning "it pains the knee". This shows how powerful Turkish is. A
tiny change in the structure changes the meaning quite a bit.


ATE (past tense of EAT), (pronounced "EYT") is an anagram of Turkish
"YEDI" meaning "he ate", "she ate" or "it ate". The original YE has
been changed into letter A which is pronounced as EY, the original D
is changed to T, the original I is changed to E but is not pronounced
and finally the original two syllable pronounciation is now changed to
one syllable pronounciation. Even the word EAT is just an anagram of
Turkish phrase "YE ET" meaning "do eat" (buyur, ye et).


BARBECUE (with synonyms of: grill, spit, broiler, etc.), (rearranged
as "CEBAB UER"), is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KEBAB YERI" meaning
"place where kebabs are cooked" such as a grill, a broiler, an open
fire, i.e., a barbecue. Note that the original Turkish letter K has
been replaced with C while still retaining the K sound, U has replaced
the original Y and the final I has simply been dropped. The result is
a new and unrecognizable so-called Indo-European word.


BELLY (with synonyms of: abdomen, gut, stomach, tummy) is an anagram
of Turkish word "BELI" meaning "waist" or "mid-area of the body"
referring to the whole waist area including the abdomen, gut, stomach
and tummy.

There is also the Turkish word "BELLI" meaning "a person with a big or
bulging tummy" which is another meaning of English word "belly" (e.g.,
"beer belly" as it is called). Additionally, when a flat surface such
as a ceiling or a column, pillar or post becomes curved out under
pressure, this is also expressed with Turkish "BELLI" (bel verdi)
which is a connotation of the English word BELLY.


BLENDER is the anagram of the Turkish phrase "BULANDIRI" meaning "it
mixes" or "it combines several things together" such as in "food
blender" or a stick used to mix paints together. Another example is an
"anagrammatizer" who is a BLENDER (BULANDIRI) of a given language. An
instigator is another "BLENDER" who mixes up human relations between
people.


BOSS is the anagram of Turkish "BASh" meaning "Head". That's what a
boss is, a head man or head woman of a group.


BOTANY (related to plants, flowers, trees, etc.), (rearranged as
"BYTANO") is an anagram of Turkish "BITEN-O" or "O-BITEN" meaning "it
is that which grows out of ground" which is what all plants do.
Similarly BOTANIC is an anagram of Turkish "BITENCI" meaning "that
which habitually grows out of the ground." The IC suffix of BOTANIC
(as in many other English words) is nothing but the anagram of Turkish
CI suffix, (denoting profession when combined with a noun e.g.,
ekmekci meaning bread maker, kitapci meaning book maker etc.).


BREAK (as in "break an object"), (with synonyms of: fracture, crack;
opening, split), (rearranged as "KERAB") is an anagram of Turkish
phrase "KIRIB" (KIRIP) meaning "He broke" or "she broke" or "it broke"
and also understood as "something is broken".

Another concocted form of it is the word "BREACH" having the same
meaning as BREAK but where the final CH is pronunced as CH rather than
K. It is peculiar that here, the CH is really pronounced as CH while
the CH in ACHE is pronounced as K. What could possibly be the
rationale for this crookedness?

Similarly the English word CRACK is an anagram of Turkish word "KIRIK"
meaning "it is broken". The final CK (with the K sound) is just a
concoction to make the word unrecognizable as being manufactured from
Turkish.


BREAK (as in "break off discussions" or "break off relations"), (with
synonyms of: to come apart; to stop, to end, to let go; disruption of
relations), (rearranged as "BERAK") is an anagram of Turkish "BIRAK"
meaning "let go", "abandon", "drop", "stop the relation". So here we
see that two different Turkish words expressing two related concepts
(KIRIP and BIRAK) are anagrammatized into one English word. There are
many other English words that have been generated in this fashion.


BRICK (with synonyms of: cement block, pressed brick used in
buildings, etc.), (rearranged as "KIRBC" or "KRBIC") is an anagram of
Turkish word KERPIÇ meaning "brick". The anagrammatization is
obvious.


BRILLIANT (with synonyms of: dazzling, bright, shiny, sparkling,
gleaming), (rearranged as "BRILLTIAN") is an anagram of Turkish word
"PaRILTIAN" (parildiyan, piriltiyan) or "PARLIYANDI" meaning "that
which shines" (e.g., star), "that which gleams" (e.g., diamond
[pirlanta]), "something fiery" (e.g., the sun), "something that gives
off light" (e.g., a spark or fireworks). The people who manufactured
this word replaced the original Turkish P with a B and made
rearrangements in order to camouflage the Turkish source.


BUCKLE (as in "buckle your shoe"; and pronounced as BAKIL) is an
anagram of Turkish "BAKLA" (bagla) meaning " to tie".

Similarly, BUCKLE (as in "buckle under an applied force") is an
anagram of Turkish "BÜKÜL" meaning "to bend or buckle under pressure".

Similarly BUCKLE (as in "belt buckle"; and rearranged as "BUKLEC") is
an anagram of Turkish "BAKLAICI" (baglayici") meaning a "connector or
device used to tie two ends together".

Thus the anagrammatizer combined three different Turkish words (BAGLA,
BÜKÜL and BAGLAICI) into one word BUCKLE that is now known as an
English word.


CAMBER (as in camber of a road), (with synonyms of: arching, bend,
curvature, arch,) is an anagram of Turkish word "KAMBUR" meaning
"hunchback" or "curved" or "bent". It is clear that a bend in a road
is nothing but a hunchback (KAMBUR). Even the word CAM as used in the
word CAMSHAFT or CAMEL comes from Turkish KAMBUR.


CAPACITOR is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KAP IÇITUR" (KAB ICIDIR)
meaning "it is the inside of any object" referring to its volume
(i.e., how much it can hold inside). In electronics, the physical
size of a capacitor is an indication of its capability of holding an
electric charge of certain amount (i.e., its capacity). Similarly a
water dam is a water capacitor because of its ability to hold a
certain amount of water. See "capacity" below.


CAPACITY (with synonyms of: size, volume, room, dimensions) is an
anagram of Turkish phrase "KAP IÇITU" (kab içidi, kab içidir) meaning
"it is the inside size of a any vessel, pot, pan, cup, box or object".
All boxes have a capacity which expresses how much the box can hold.
The capacity of any object, (whether it be electrical capacitor,
capacity of a cup, mental capacity, etc.) is intimately tied in to the
Turkish source of the word (KAB-ICIDI). It is interesting to note
here that the Arabic word for Volume is "HACIM" but this is nothing
but an anagram of Turkish word "ICIM" meaning "my inside". This is an
indication that Arabic words have also been anagrammatized from
Turkish.


CAPTURE (with synonyms of: arrest, taking prisoner, seizure, catching,
nabbing, catch) is an anagram of Turkish "KAPMATUR" based on the
Turkish verb "KAPMAK" meaning "to catch, arrest, take prisoner, seize,
nab, snatch". In anagrammatizing, the M was dropped thus leaving
"KAPATUR". Then the Turkish K was changed to C while still retaining
the K sound. Finally the A was changed to E and moved to the end of
the new word to form CAPTURE.


CARD (with meaning of: an instrument for combing cotton, wool, flax,
hair, etc.,), (rearranged as "DARC") is the anagram of Turkish word
"DARAK" (TARAK) meaning "comb". Wool that has been carded has
actually been combed. Turkish rug makers and cloth makers have been
using this instrument (i.e., TARAK or DARAK) for thousands of years in
their carpet making.


CARDIO (with meaning of: a combining form denoting of or pertaining to
the "heart"), (rearranged as "ORACDI") is an anagram of Turkish word
"ÜREKDI" meaning "it is heart". Türkish Ü/U has been changed to O, K
to C while still retaining the K sound and some rearrangement has been
applied to change the original Turkish word into "CARDIO".


CARDIOLOGY (meaning "study of heart") (rearranged as "ORAC OGYLDI") is
an anagram of Turkish expression "ÜREK OKULDI" meaning "it is the
school of heart" where the heart is studied. Additionally, it can be
viewed as an anagram of Turkish expression "ÜREK AKULDI" (yürek
akilidi, yürek bilgisidi) meaning "it is the knowledge of heart". It
can also be viewed as an anagram of Turkish expression "ÜREK OLGUDI"
meaning "formation of the heart" i.e., how the heart is made up. All
three Turkish sources have been rolled into the one CARDIOLOGY word.
In the medical world, this word is known as an Indo-European word but
in actuality, as I have shown, is a combination of three Turkish
expressions which nobody knows about. It appears that there is a huge
conspiracy against the Turkish language.

I should also point out here that the Latin word COR meaning "the
heart" is also an anagram of Turkish word "ÜREK" (yürek) meaning "the
heart". Similarly, the French word COEUR meaning "heart" is an
anagram of Turkish UREK where the Turkish K has been changed into C
while still retaining the K sound. Additionally, the English word
HEART (rearranged as ERAHT) is also an anagram of Turkish UREKDI
meaning "it is the heart" where the Turkish K is now H. This is how
the Azerbeycan Turks say "it is heart" in their Turkish (i.e.,
UREGHDI).

LOGY is known as a Greek word. I will now show how this so-called
Greek "LOGY" is really an anagram of three Turkish words:

1) "OLGU" meaning "formation" as in the so-called Greek word
"ETYMOLOGY" which is an anagram of Turkish phrase "ATUM OLGU O" (adum
olgu o) meaning "it is the formation of my name"

2) AGUL" (AKIL) meaning "wisdom, reason, intelligence, discernment"

3) "OGUL" (OKUL) meaning "school". Turkish OKUL is derived from the
Turkish verb "OKUMAK" meaning to "read, write, study and comprehend,
etc.,".

Even English word SCHOOL and French word ECOLE, contrary to
misinformation, are anagrams of Turkish word "OKUL" meaning "school".


CASE (with synonyms of: container, box, crate, carton, chest, holder,
coffer) is an anagram of Turkish word "KASA" meaning "case" with all
these meanings associated with it.


CASUALTY (with synonyms of: accident, mishap, misfortune, disaster,
catastrophe) (rearranged as "CASA ULTY") is an anagram of Turkish
expression "KAZA OLDU" meaning "accident happened" encompassing all of
the above synonyms of "casualty".


CAT is an anagram of Turkish "KETI" (KEDI) meaning "cat". Even the
English word "KITTY" (as in "kitty kitty") is an anagram of Turkish
"KETI" meaning "cat".


CHESTNUT (meaning: "[From "chesten nut", from Middle English
"chesten", "chasteine", OF "chastaigne", from latin and from Greek
"kastanea", "kastanon" meaning "chestnut"]. The edible nut of any
tree of genus (CASTANEA) of fagaceous trees; also, the tree bearing
this nut or its wood.") [3]. The Turkish word for this is "AT
KESTANESI" or simply "KESTANE". The word CHESTNUT (rearranged as "UT
HESTNC") is an anagram of Turkish "AT KESTaNeSi" meaning "horse
chestnut". In anagrammatizing (camouflage), the Turkish K has been
changed to H, the A in AT has been changed to U while still retaining
the A sound, the final three vowels dropped, and the Letter S is
converted to C and joined with H to make CH which is read as CH in
this case while as K in many other cases. It can also be seen from
the above definition that the ancient Greeks, Latins, Old French and
Medieval English all used an anagrammatised version of Turkish
expression AT-KESTANESI.


CHOCK (as in chock-full), (with synonyms of: very full, stuffed,
crammed, packed, filled to the brim) is an anagram of Turkish
adjective "ÇOK" as in "ÇOK-DOLU" meaning exactly all those synonyms
associated with "chock-full" above. Since there is such a close
resemblance between English CHOCK and Turkish adjective ÇOK (meaning
plenty), the English language instructors (dictionary) indicate its
usage be followed with the word FULL thereby camouflaging the very
obvious Turkish word ÇOK with the help of the following second word
FULL. The anagrammatization required to change Turkish ÇOK into
English CHOCK is obvious.


COMICAL (with synonyms of: funny, amusing, humorous, entertaining,
hilarious), (rearranged as "CILMAK O") is an anagram of Turkish
expression "GÜLMEK O" meaning "it is to laugh" and "it is laughter".
Evidently, the Turkish G has been changed to C and pronounced as K,
the Turkish K in GULMEK has been changed to C while retaining the K
sound, and the vowels and format have been changed and rearranged.


CORRUPT (with synonyms of: dishonest, immoral, impure, contaminated,
rotten, polluted), (rearranged as "CORUPTR") is an anagram of Turkish
expression "ÇÜRÜyüPTüR" meaning "it is rotten". This Turkish word has
all the connotations of the word "corrupt" as in English. This is not
due to coincidence.


CRACK (with synonyms of: cracked, broken, fractured, chipped,
splintered) is an anagram of Turkish word "KIRIK" meaning "broken" and
all those synonyms above. Additionally, CRACK is also an anagram of
the Turkish word JIRIK (yirtik) meaning "torn apart" as used in
describing tears in fabric. A tear in a fabric, or torn fabric can be
viewed as having a "crack" in it (Turkish jirik or yirtik)


CURE (with synonyms of: remedy, help, medicine, assistance, relief,
treat, drug) is an anagram of Turkish word "ÇARE" meaning all those
synonyms associated with the word "cure".


DECEASE (with synonyms of: die, perish, expire), (rearranged as
"CESEDEA") is an anagram of Turkish expression "CESED O" meaning "it
is the dead body".


DELINQUENT (with synonyms of: failing in duty, juvenile offender),
(rearranged as "DELIQUNNITE") is an anagram of Turkish expression
"DELIKANNIDI" (delikanlidi) meaning "crazy blooded young man" or "a
juvenile".


DELIRIOUS (with synonyms of: madness, insanity) is an anagram of
Turkish "DELIRMIS O" meaning "he/she/it has gone crazy". Here the
Turkish M is dropped and the SH sound in the original Turkish is
changed to an S sound. The important trace is the Turkish word DELI
or DELIRI (meaning "crazy" or "crazed") which is in plain sight for
all to see.


DELIRIUM (with synonyms of: madness, craziness, insanity, delusion,
frenzy), (rearranged as "DELIRMI-U") is an anagram of Turkish "DELIRME
O" meaning "state of becoming crazy". Again the Turkish word DELI or
DELIRI is in plain sight for all to see.


DERMATOLOGY (meaning "study of skin"), (rearranged as "DERYM OGOLTA")
is an anagram of Turkish phrase "DERIM OKULTU" meaning "it is the
school of my skin", or alternatively, "DERIM AKILTI" meaning "it is
the wisdom (learning) of my skin" or alternatively "DERIM OLGUTU"
meaning "it is the formation of my skin". Thus, it is clear that in
all of these Turkish expressions, we are talking about the man's skin,
its formation and learning about it which are all subjects of the
so-called Indo-European word "Dermatology". It is absolutely clear
that the Turkish word DERI (meaning "skin") is the root source for
this so-called "Indo-European" scientific term.


DESCEND (with synonyms of: move downward, sink, plunge, come down) is
an anagram of Turkish word "DÜShENDi" meaning "it is falling down". In
anagrammatizing the original Turkish text, the Türkish Sh has been
replaced by double letter SC, the Turkish Ü has been replaced with E,
and the final I has been dropped. It must be noted that the
anagrammatizers have used the past tense of the Turkish verb DUSHEN to
come up with the English word DESCEND which represents the present
tense.


DETECT (with synonyms of: find, disclose, catch, locate, expose,
search), (rearranged as "DETEC T") is an anagram of Turkish phrase
"DIDIK ET" (didik didik et) meaning "leave no stones unturned", "comb
with fine tooth comb", "look under every stone", etc. This is exact;y
what a detective does.


DETECTIVE (rearranged as "DETEC ETIV) is an anagram of Turkish phrase
"DIDIK ETIV" (didik didik edif) meaning "he who pulled into pieces"
i.e., he who examined everything - as a dedective is supposed to do.


DISCOVERY (with synonyms of: invention, breakthrough), (rearranged as
"CESIVDYRO") is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KESIVDIR O" meaning " it
is discovery". The S in "KESIVDIR O" is pronounced as SH in Turkish.


DOMAIN (with synonyms of: field, area), (rearranged as "MAIDON") is
an anagram of Turkish word "MEYDAN" meaning "area" or "field" i.e.,
"domain".


DOME (with synonyms of: spherical covering, semispherical roof, mosque
roof) is an anagram of Turkish "DAM" meaning "dome" or "mosque roof"
or "semispherical roof", and is a representation of the sky above us
(sky dome) which is also a DAM, a roof or a ceiling above us. The sky
was the source of religion for the ancient Turanians. Even the
Sumerians had a Dome (DAM) on the top of their ziggurats.


DRILL (with synonyms of: boring tool, wood bit, auger), (rearranged as
"DLLIR") is an anagram of Turkish "DELER" meaning "that which makes
hole". That is what a drill bit does irrespective of the way it is
driven.


DURABLE (with synonyms of: lasting, standing, permanent, stable) is an
anagram of Turkish word "DURABILI" meaning "it can stay for a long
time" or "it can last for a long time".


ELECT (with synonyms of: select, choice, choose, pick out) is an
anagram of Turkish phrase "ELEK ET" meaning "sieve it" or "sift it".
The root of the word is Turkish word "ELEK" meaning "sieve" used for
"sifting, selecting, choosing, picking different sizes of any item
from each other. Similarly, the same concept is used in electing
people for different purposes. Other Turkish words derived from the
same root are "ELEMEK" (to sift), "ELEKTEN GEÇIRMEK" (to sift),
"ELEME" (act of sifting).


ESCALATOR (with synonyms of: lift, passenger elevator), (rearranged
as "ECSALTARO") is an anagram of Turkish "UKSELTER O" (YÜKSELTIR O)
meaning "it lifts up" which is what an escalator or an elevator does.


EX (as in ex-wife or ex-employer), (rearranged as EKS with the bogus
letter X broken into its actual K and S components) is an anagram of
Turkish word "ESKI" meaning "old" or"previous".


EXCEL (with synonyms of: surpass, exceed) is an anagram of Turkish
"ÜKSEL" (yüksel) meaning "rise up", "surpass", "excel", "exceed". The
letter X in EXCEL is the anagrammatized form of K while the C is
really an S. This clearly identifies X as a letter invented for the
purpose of camouflage. Sometimes it represents KS, sometimes it is a
K, sometimes it is a KH and other times, it represents a K and an S
with a vowel in between.


EXCELLENT (with synonyms of: high up, superior, better) is an
anagram of Turkish "ÜKSELENTI" (yükselendi) meaning "it is the one
rising above others", "it is the better one", "it is the superior
one".


FATHER is an anagram of Turkish "APATIR" (apadir) meaning "it is
Father". Hence contrary to common misbelief, the origin of this
English word is not Indo-European but rather Turkish. In fact, all
so-called Indo-European words meaning "father" but having versions
such as "padre", "peder", "peter" are anagrams of the Turkish word
"APATIR" (apadir).


GATHER is an anagram of Turkish "GETIR" meaning "bring". When things
or people are gathered in one place, they have been"brought together".
There is a slight shift in the English usage of it. However, all
acts of "gathering" involves "bringing", that is "Turkish "GETIR".


GENUS (as in "genus name"), (with synonyms of: classification, order,
description), ( rearranged as "GENSU") is an anagram of the Turkish
word "CINSU" (cinsi) meaning "the sort, type, kind, category, genus;
sex; gender; race, stock, family, breed, etc." which is what is meant
by the so-called "genus" name of species. The correspondence is mind
boggling.


GUARDIAN (pronounced as "GARDIYAN"), (rearranged as "GUARANDI") is an
anagram of the Turkish phrase "GORUyANDI" (koruyandi) meaning "he who
protects" which is the definition of the word GUARDIAN. As seen the
Turkish expression has been anagrammatized into an English word.


HERMETIC (with sysnonyms of: "hermetic sealing", "vacuum packed",
"airtight seal" where air is sucked out before the sealing is done),
(rearranged as "EMTERHCI") is an anagram of Turkish "EMTIRICI"
(emdirici) meaning "that which sucks". "Hermetically sealed" or
"vacuum sealed" means that the air is sucked out before sealing.

The letter H is a double agent character of the Greek alphabet named
"ita" or "eta" which is written as "H" in "upper" case, but an "n"
looking character in "lower" case and is supposed to sound like an "I"
as in "ill". Evidently, it has migrated into English with this duality
which is not known to the public at large and everyone thinks that it
is the letter "H". It is extremely confusing and a great agent of
anagrammatizing.

The root word for the "hermetic" is the Turkish verb "EMMEK> meaning
"to suck". Yet the etymology given in dictionaries relating it to the
name of "HERMES TRISMEGISTUS" (meaning "thrice-greatest HERMES") is a
bogus etymology.

The supposedly Greek god name HERMES is nothing but the Turkish word
"ERMESH" (Ermish) meaning "he has become godly". Thus, it is also a
stolen Turkish word by way of anagrammatizing.

Additionally, the name "HERMES TRISMEGISTUS" is again an
anagrammatized Turkish sentence. Rearranged as "ERMESH TR ISMI EGUST
S", it becomes the anagram of the Turkish expression: "ERMISH, TUR
ISMI OGUZ'TU" meaning "HERMES, his TUR (TURK) NAME WAS OGUZ". The
Turkish name OGUZ (OGUS) was the well forgotten name of the ancient
Turanian trinity sky-god, and represented the Sky-Father-God
(Gök-Ata-Tengri), Sun-God (Gün-Tengri) and Moon-God (Ay-Tengri) all
of which are the "thrice-greatest HERMES" (where "thrice" represents
the ancient Turanian trinity Sky-God i.e., the invisible and universal
Father in the Sky, the Sun in the Sky and the Moon in the Sky). Based
on this very ancient magnificent religious concept of the ancient
Tur/Turk peoples, the anagrammatizers came up with the likening:
"thrice-greatest Hermes" expression referring to so-called THOTH, the
ancient Tur (Turk) Masarian (falsely EGYPTIAN) god with whom so-called
Greek god HERMES (ERMISH) is identified. It is recorded as: "He was
the fabled author of works embodying magical, astrological, and
alchemical doctrines." Yet, the word HERMETIC as in "hermetically
sealed" has nothing to do with HERMES. It is not feasable to relate
"hermetic" to the Greek God Hermes but it is very feasable to relate
"hermetic" to the Turkish word "EMDIRICI".

Additionally, the name "HERMES TRISMEGISTUS" brings to light the
Turkish names ERMISH, TUR and OGUZ equating this name with THOTH
(UTU-ATA the Sun God) of the ancient Masarians (so-called Egyptians).
This makes the ancient Masarians (falsely called Egyptians) Turkish
speaking TUR people.


HERO is an anagram of Turkish "ER O" meaning "he is "man", "he is a
hero", "he is great". Turkish word "ER" has many meanings, one of
which is "hero". They had to put an H in front to camouflage the
Turkish ER-O embedded in it.


HISTORY (rearranged as "TORIHSY") is an anagram of Turkish expression
"TARIH IShU" (tarih ishi) meaning "business of history". History
which is defined as: "1) A narrative of events; a tale; story. 2) A
systematic written account of events, particularly of those affecting
a nation, institution, science, or art, usually connected with a
philosophical explanation of their causes." [4] is nothing but the
"business of history" (TARIH-ISHI). At the very least, there is the
Turkish word "TARIH" meaning "history" embedded in it.


HORDE is an anagram of Turkish word "ORDU" meaning "an army of men or
any other living beings". The H is tacked on to the front as
camouflage. Also the U in ORDU has been changed to E and is not
pronounced any more. If HORDE was read as in a phonetic language, it
would be HORDY which would be very much like the original Turkish
ORDU. In some dialects of Turkish, such as spoken in southern
Azerbeycan (Iran), ORDU is spoken as ORDI.


HOT is an anagram of Turkish word "OD" (OT) meaning "fire". Fire is
"hot". The H is tacked on to OT to disguise it.


HOWL (with synonyms of: long wailing cry, moan, lament, wail),
(rearranged as "OLWH") is an anagram of three possible Turkish words:

1) Turkish word "HAVLA" meaning "barking" as in a dog barking or a
person barking out orders where the new meaning has been altered or
shifted slightly into "wailing". This is another anagrammatization
trick - to change the meaning of the original Turkish word slightly.

2) Turkish word "ULU" (which is the root of ULUMAK meaning "to howl").
In this case, the H in front is a disguise character and the W is
actually two U's. Rearranged as HULU-O, it is the anagram of Turkish
ULU-O (ULUMA-O) meaning "howling".

3) Turkish word "AGLA" (which is the root of AGLAMAK meaning "to cry"
or "to lament"). Here, the H replaces the soft G of AGLA and the W
represents two U's (U in many cases is pronounced like an A as in UP
or UTMOST). So in this case, the two U's (that the W represents)
replaces two A's from the original Turkish word AGLA.

Thus it is seen that howl can be the anagram of three different but
related Turkish words (i.e., HAVLA, ULU, AGLA).


INCUBUS meaning "the nightmare" is the anagram of the Turkish word
"KABUS" meaning "nightmare". The IN prefix must have been included
for the purpose of disguising. The probability of having these two
words of unrelated languages (English and Turkish) having the same
verbal format and meaning is extremely low unless some people meddled.


INSIDE (rearranged as "ISINDE") is the anagram of the Turkish word
"IÇINDE" meaning "inside" where the Turkish "Ç" has been
anagrammatized by "S" together with some rearrangement.


INSIDIOUS (with synonyms of: guileful, evil, corrupting, entrapping,
hoaxful, cunning), (rearranged as "SINSIDI OU") is an anagram of
Turkish "SINSIDI O" having the meaning of all those synonyms shown
above.


JACKAL is the anagram of Turkish word "ÇAKAL" which is the same as
"Jackal" where the Turkish Ç has been replaced with "J" while K has
been replaced with CK. Even if we disregard the J in JACKAL, which is
added for disguising purposes, and rearrange what is left, we get
"CAKAL" which is Turkish CAKAL. Coincidences can not explain this kind
of relationship.


LOGIC (with synonyms of: sound reasoning, reasoning, syllogism),
(rearranged as "OGLCI") is an anagram of Turkish word "AGILCI"
(AKILCI) meaning "he who acts with logic".


LOGICAL (with synonyms of: rational, reasonable, analytic, sound),
(rearranged as "OGILLCA") is an anagram of Turkish "AGILLICA"
(AKILLICA) having the meaning of all the synonyms associated
with"logical" as listed above.


-LOGY. This suffix is claimed to be a Greek word but it's origin is
Turkish and exists in Greek by way of usurpation. "LOGY" is really an
anagram of three Turkish words:

1) "OLGU" meaning "formation" as in the so-called Greek word
"ETYMOLOGY" which is an anagram of Turkish phrase "ATUM OLGU O" (adum
olgu o) meaning "it is the formation of my name" (i.e., to know how
names are formed).

2) AGUL" meaning "wisdom, reason, intelligence, discernment". In this
case, the so-called Greek word "ETYMOLOGY" is an anagram of Turkish
phrase "ATUM AGILI" (adum akili) meaning "it is the wisdom or
intelligence of the name of words". All words are the names of
concepts.

3) "OGUL" meaning "school". Turkish OKUL is derived from the Turkish
verb "OKUMAK" meaning to "read, write, study and comprehend, etc.,".
In this case, the so-called Greek word "ETYMOLOGY" is an anagram of
Turkish phrase "ATUM OGULU" (adum okulu) meaning "it is the school of
names".


LOOT (rearranged as "TOLO") is an anagram of Turkish word "TALA"
meaning "to loot".


LULL (pronounced "LAL"), is an anagram of Turkish word "LAL" (dilsiz,
konusamayan) meaning "one who cannot speak".


-LY, as a frequently used finishing suffix, is an anagram of Turkish
suffix "-LU", "-LÜ", "-LI" and "-Li" all of which mean "with" or
"from". When one says "parali" in Turkish, it means "one with
money". When one says "Ankarali" in Turkish, it means "one from
Ankara". Similarly in English, when one says "angrily", it means
"with anger" or when one says "frequently", it means "with
repetition".


LYING (rearranged as "YLING") is an anagram of Turkish "YALANCI"
meaning "liar". Hence the English meaning has been shifted from
"liar" to "lying" (i.e., from a noun into a verb). As usual, vowel
manipulation and format rearrangement have been applied.


MAMMAL (meaning: animal of class Mammalia, having mammae for
nourishment of young) is an anagram of Turkish word "MEMELI" meaning
"with breasts". Turkish "MEME" meaning "breast" is the root word.
The so-called Indo-European word "MAMA" meaning "mother" is an anagram
of Turkish words "MEME" ("breast") and "MAMA" ("food for the child",
e.g., breast milk) both of which personify "mother" to the baby.
Another connotation of "MAMA" is the child-bearing capability of a
mother which is expressed by another Turkish word.


MAMMARY (MAMMA by another name), (meaning: milk-secreting organ of
female in mammals i.e., the breast of female mammals) is the anagram
of Turkish phrase "MEME YERI" meaning "breast area". The alternative
name MAMMA (for MAMMARY) is an anagram of Turkish "MEME"
meaning "breast".


MAN is the anagram of Turkish word "MEN" meaning "I am" or "me" or
"myself" implicitly indicating that "he is man". Anyone who can say
"MEN" meaning "I am" is a "MAN". There is a shift in the meaning of
this original Turkish word "MEN" in usurping it into English "MAN".
Evidently countless number of people use this Turkish word as part of
their names without knowing where it came from.


ME is an anagram of Turkish "MEN" the personal pronoun for the first
person singular meaning "I am" or "me" or "myself".


MOTHER is an anagram of Turkish phrase "AMATIR" (amadir, anadir)
meaning "it is mother". Both "ANA" and "AMA" have been used in the
ancient Turkish world (and presently) to mean "mother". The "THER"
suffix in "MOTHER" is the anagrammatized version of Turkish suffix
"-TER, -TIR, TUR, -DIR, -DUR, -DIR" meaning "it is". "MO" is an
anagram of Turkish "AMA" (ANA) meaning "mother". Like the word
"FATHER", "MOTHER" is not an Indo-European word as claimed but rather
the anagram of Turkish expression "AMADIR" or "ANADIR" (where the N is
changed to M).


NAME is the anagram of Turkish word "NAMI" meaning "his/her/its name".
In old Turkish "NAM" meant "NAME", But Turkish "NAMI is as I have
indicated above. NAM was also the Sumerian word meaning "name". The
E in NAME is actually the I in NAMI.


NEGRO is the anagram of Turkish phrase "NE GARA" meaning "how
black".


NEGROID is the anagram of Turkish phrase "NE GARA IDI" meaning "how
black it is".


OILY (rearranged as "YOLI") is an anagram of the Turkish word "YAGLI"
(where the G is a soft G) meaning "with oil".


OMBUDSMAN (meaning an official middleman appointed to investigate
individuals' complaints against public authorities), (rearranged as
"MBUD OSMAN") is the anagram of Turkish phrase "MABUD OSMAN" meaning
"he who is like God OSMAN (OGUZ MAN)". The OMBUDSMAN has the
authority to undo injustices done by the state. In this respect, the
OMBUDSMAN acts like a MABUD OSMAN (OGUS MAN). The OTTOMANS (UTU MAN)
(gunese tapanlar) (OSMAN) who governed the people of their empire with
utmost justice and tolerance were acting like a MABUD OSMAN (OGUZ the
Sky God) - just like their ancestors did e.g., the Turkish HAZAR
empire or the ancient TUR MASAR empire.


OSCILLATOR (rearranged as "SALLOTORCI") is the anagram of the Turkish
word "SALLATURCU" (sallatirci) meaning "that which makes it swing"
(i.e., the mechanism of a clock that makes the pendulum swing) which
is what an "oscillator" is.


OX is an anagram of Turkish word "OKUS" (OKUZ) meaning "bull", i.e.,
"ox". From very ancient times, the bull (Turkish okuz) was the logo
of the Turkish Sky God OGUZ. That is why archaelogists keep finding
ox figurines, statues and paintings left from ancient times. When
so-called Greek ZEUS mythologically appears as a white bull in the
Mediterranean Sea and takes away mythological Europe, he is actually
the personification of the Sun God (OGUZ/OKUS the ancient Turanian Sky
God with a bull logo).


PATENT (rearranged as "TAPENT") is the anagram of Turkish word
"TAPUNDU" meaning "it is your deed for property rights of invention".


PAY is tha anagram of the Turkish word "PAY" meaning "share" in the
division of a common asset. The pay" that an employee" gets from his
"employer" is his share promised from the common venture.


PORTABLE is an anagram of Turkish word "APARTABILI" meaning "it can be
carried".


PORTER is the anagram of Turkish "APARTI ER" meaning "the man who
carries or carried" or "APARTIR" meaning "one who carries for you".
That is what a "porter" does.


PROSTITUTE (rearranged as "ORSPU TITTE") is an anagram of the Turkish
phrase "OROSPU TUTDU" meaning " hired permissive woman".


QUITE (as in "I feel quite good") is an anagram of Turkish word
"GAYET" meaning exactly "quite" (e.g., "gayet iyiyim").


REMEDY (with synonyms of: treatment, cure, solution, medication),
(rearranged as "YERDEM") is an angram of Turkish word "YARDIM" meaning
"help" or "cure" which is what REMEDY is.


SCHOOL (rearranged as "S OCHOL") is an anagram of Turkish "OKUL"
meaning "a place of learning". The S in front is most likely for
disguising purposes.


SCISSOR (rearranged as "S CISSOR" ) is an anagram of Turkish word
"KESER" meaning " it cuts". The S in front is most likely for
disguising purposes.


SEA is an anagram of Turkish word "SU" meaning "water".


SEX (with the forgiveness of my readers), if SEX is rewritten with the
X decomposed into KIS components, the result is SEKIS which is an
anagram of Turkish word "SIKISh" meaning "intercourse". This clearly
shows the bogus nature of the letter X.


SMEAR (as in "to smear creme on ones face" or "to smear butter on ones
toast"), (rearranged as "SERMA") is an anagram of Turkish "SÜRME"
meaning "spread" or "smear" (e.g., "yag surme", "bal surme", "boya
surme")


SNUFF (as in "snuff out the candle") is an anagram of the Turkish word
"SÖNÜF" meaning "it is extinguished", "it is put out".


SUICIDE (rearranged as "USI CIDE") is the anagram of Turkish word "USE
KIYDI (OZE KIYDI)" (özüne kiydi, canina kiydi) meaning "he/she/it
killed self".


SWIM (replacing the W with its decomposed components of Y + U, and
rearranged as "YUSMI") is the anagram of Turkish word "YÜZME" meaning
"swimming". This clearly shows the double identity nature of the
letter W.


TERSE (with synonyms of: rude, blunt, harsh, boorish, vulgar, crass)
is an anagram of Turkish word 'TERS" (aksi, geçimsiz) meaning "taking
the opposite stance", "taking the contrary view", "difficult to get
along with". The famed HOMER personified one of his characters in his
famed ILIAD Epic with the name "TERSITE". But "TERSITE" is derived
from Turkish: a) "TERSDI" (TERS IDI) meaning "he was always contrary
or opposing" b) "TERS IT" (geçimsiz köpek) meaning
"difficult-to-get-along-with dog". Thus when Homer wrote Iliad (about
800 B.C.), Turkish was there and Homer knew Turkish.


TROUBLE (rearranged as "BELOTUR") is an anagram of Turkish "BELATUR"
(beladur) meaning "it is trouble".


TRUE (with synonyms of: authentic, actual, fair, accurate, proper,
rightful, trusty), (rearranged as "TERU") is an anagram of Turkish
word "TOGRU" (dogru where g is a soft g) having all the meanings of
the synonyms associated with "true".


TRUST is an anagram of Turkish "TÜRÜST" (DÜRÜST) meaning "one who is
trustable" or "one who can be trusted". Hence the adjective form of
the Turkish word was taken and after vowel rearrangement, a shifted
usage was assigned to the English word (i.e., it is now used as a verb
or a noun while the original Turkish was an adjective).


TUNDRA (meaning "grasslands of northern arctic regions where the land
underneath is frozen permanently"), (rearranged as "TANDUR" or
"DANTUR") is an anagram of Turkish word "TONDUR" (DONDUR) meaning "it
is frozen". The root word is Turkish DONMAK meaning "to freeze".
Thus the word is not Russian as some claim it to be but rather
anagrammatized from pure Turkish.


TURF (as in "that's my turf") is an anagram of Turkish word "TARAF"
meaning "side".


UNIVERSAL (rearranged as "U + EVRINSAL") is an anagram of Turkish word
"EVRENSEL" meaning "universal". Here, the U is extraneous but when
coupled to the rest of the original Turkish word, along with the
anagram rearrangement, serves to alienate the Turkish word.


VIGILANTE (defined as "a member of a 'vigilance comittee' organized to
suppress and punish crime summarily, as when the process of law
appears inadequate"). This definition avoids using the term "revenge
taker" which is what a vigilante does. With this background
information, it becomes clear that VIGILANTE is the anagram of Turkish
phrase "ÖC-ALANDI" meaning "he is avenger" or "he is revenge taker".
Even without the V in front, the word is IGILANTE which again is an
anagram of "ÖC-ALANDI".


VIRGIN is an anagram of Turkish words "ERGEN" meaning "unmarried" and
"ERGIN" meaning "mature young person ready for marriage". The V in
front is most likely used for camouflage purposes.


VIS-A-VIS is an anagram of Turkish expression "YÜZ YÜZE" meaning "face
to face", "one against the other". Here, the V has replaced the
original Turkish Y.


VIZA (rearranged as "IZAV") is an anagram of Turkish word "IZIN"
meaning "permission". In its anagram operation, V = U which when
flipped upside down becomes an N, hence the disguised "IZIN" is
achieved.


WAKEN (where W = U + Y), (rearranged as "UYANEK") is the anagram of
Turkish word "UYANIK" meaning "he/she/it is awake". The main
anagrammatizing agent is the bogus letter W which can have many
identities. In this case, the W stands for a U + Y. The same can be
said for WAKE which is the anagram of Turkish word UYAK meaning
"awaken", "stir" or "rouse". Similarly, AWAKE is an anagram of
Turkish UYAK meaning "awake", AWAKEN is an anagram of Turkish UYANIK
meaning "awaken", and AWAKENED is an anagram of Turkish UYANIKDI
meaning "awakened". All English words in this category are derived
from Turkish UYAK or UYANIK by way of anagrammatization. The
etymologies given in the etymological dictionaries are not truthful.


WAR is an anagram of Turkish "VUR" meaning "hit" or "fight" .


WARRIOR is an anagram of Turkish "VURRUYOR" (vuruyor) meaning "he
fights" or "he hits". That is what a warrior does.


WARN (where W = U + Y), (rearranged as "UYARN") is an anagram of
Turkish word "UYARIN" meaning " warn" or "alert" or "awaken".


WIN (where W = Y), (rearranged as "YIN") is an anagram of Turkish
"YEN" meaning "win".


WINNER (where W = Y), (rearranged as "YINN ER") is an anagram of
Turkish "YENEN ER" meaning "man who wins" or "the winner".


CONCLUSIONS

1. All of the words analyzed above show conclusively that they have
been anagrammatized from Turkish words and/or expressions into English
contrary to misleading information about the English language (i.e.,
that it is from an ancient independently developed Indo-European
language source). The Turkish source words or phrases that I have
identified for the above 125 English words cannot be explained by
coincidences. Evidently, there has been human manipulations as
opposed to natural evolution.

2. Turkish has been used as the source data base for manufacturing
many English words. Other Indo-European languages, starting with Greek
and Latin, have done the same. From the analyzed words above (which
are a small sample of a much larger list), it can be said that Turkish
is a much older language than the so-called Indo-European languages.
In this regard, Turkish is the Proto (BIR-ATA) language.

3. The "inflection" in these languages is designed to confuse that
one language the whole world spoke at one time in the ancient past.

4. The analyzed words above do not indicate a horizontal migration of
Turkish words and expressions into another language where they could
have undergone a natural adaptation process; but rather that they went
through intentional shuffling and reconstructions. The fact that
Turkish words and phrases are present in a camouflaged manner in words
of the inflected languages indicates that they were taken from
Turkish. After all, camouflage is used to hide things which are not
meant to be seen.

5. It appears that there has been a conspiracy contrived and
perpetrated by cabalist groups against the very ancient and universal
religion, language and culture of the Turanian world. Religions have
been devised to obliterate the ancient Turkic world, its culture and
history. Artificially devised religious demands (i.e., to confuse that
one-language that the world spoke at one time) placed on the
missionaries of the new religions must have been the result of a
conspiracy rather than being divine in nature. Because of that
conspiracy, the ancient Tur/Turk peoples became the target of name
changing, separation from one another, genocidal persecution and
obliteration from history. This is why we never hear TUR or TURK in
accounts of ancient history. It's not because they were not present
but rather because of intentional ignoring.

6. Linguistic teachings regarding the origin of so-called
Indo-European and Semitic languages carry falsehoods. The people of
the world, including most linguists, have been misled and conned by
perpetrated deceptions. Those who have been misled, however, cannot
be faulted.

7. This study conclusively shows that Turkish words and phrases have
been used in manufacturing words for the Indo-European and Semitic
languages. Irrespective of how much shuffling and reconstruction took
place on the original Turkish text, the Turkic signature is still
present in so-called Indo-European words but only for those eyes that
know where to look. No matter how goodwilled or thruthful or skillful
the linguist may be, if he/she does not know Turkish and Turkish
culture, and if he/she is not aware that anagrammatization took place,
then they will never be able to detect the original text used for the
word.


REFERENCES:

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963, Vol. 1, p. 841.

2. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947

3. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947, p. 174.

4. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947, p. 473.


Polat Kaya

July 10, 2003

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

Mnewbroo@a... wrote:
>
> Re Polat Kaya
>
To identify myself: I am a professional linguist (PhD Reading 1982)
with an earlier background in Indo-European philology and a main
specialisation in the theory of variation and change.
>
It will, I hope, be clear that I am not in the business
of 'vilifying'. But, as noted, I have seen many proposals of this
kind. Indeed, I have very recently been talking with John White and
supporters of his proposal. With specific reference to this present
case, I have also read PK's material here and his extended material
on the web; this is the basis of my negative assessment.
>
My comments in my ONE letter (three?) were admittedly general.
Indeed, it would take a long time to counter all the various specific
claims that PK makes. But I do not have to do this. Contrary to
what PK seems to think, the onus is not on established scholarship to
attack any new position that emerges from such a source (although I
am willing to do some such work by way of exemplification; see
below). It is very clearly on PK and all those who promote such
theories to defend them against the vast body of established
knowledge - and for each such writer to show why THEIR view is more
worthy of attention than all the others. In general, neither of
these is achieved. For the most part, they are not even attempted.
>
I stress that - unless & until much better evidence on either or both
of these fronts IS presented - I am not 'bothered' by PK's proposal,
at least not in the sense that I see it as representing any
unsettling challenge to mainstream views. I do not, nor, I am sure,
would any linguist - and (to counter a later point made by PK) this
includes specialists in the history and structure of Turkish and
Turkic (I could easily ask round if this were challenged). My
concern is rather that interested people with a limited knowledge of
linguistics might take it seriously without realising that the
objections to it are very major & damning.
>
The specific points that PK makes in his response to me are of the
same nature as before. No reason is given for accepting the analyses
offered rather than existing analyses, other non-standard analyses or
admission of current ignorance. My comments about giving oneself
vastly excessive licence to 'find' allegedly significant similarities
and in particular about permitting anagrammatisation in this
enterprise clearly stand. For instance, WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE
THAT HEBREW TORAH DERIVES FROM TURKISH TORA? Mere superficial
similarity of form and meaning, even if there appear to be many such
examples, is quite inadequate to show this, as we have known for very
many years and as has been re-emphasised by the work of Ringe and
others during the last fifteen years. In general, such cases are of
NO particular interest. The world is full of them, and if some of
them ARE right most of the others are wrong (because the theories
based on them are mutually contradictory). For them to be of
interest, there must first be some reason to suppose that in a given
case we have something more than accidental similarity. For
instance, if we have systematic phonological parallelism across whole
range of pairs of forms (X in A = Y in B, repeatedly, etc), we have
such a basis for further study.
>
I wonder, indeed, if PK knows the historical linguistic literature.
If he did, one would expect him to acknowledge the objections to his
position and to attempt to rebut them. But there seems to be very
little indeed of this in his material.
>
My use of the term 'non-standard' was not pejorative as PK seems to
think. Non-standard ideas can sometimes be correct, although this
normally arises in cases where the proponent is a professional in the
discipline (part of what is at least for the moment a minority) or
else a very well informed amateur (eg Ventris). But in any case my
point in using the term here was mainly to warn readers that serious
historical linguists would (rightly or wrongly) agree neither with
PK's conclusions nor (more importantly) with his method. It is
important to say this, because there is much controversy about
matters of detail WITHIN the mainstream/standard approach and non-
linguists may easily get the impression that radical claims such as
PK's are also 'in the frame'. (This issue arises in all
disciplines.) They need to know that PK has to do the work of
justifying his approach. Linguists will agree with me in thinking
that he will very probably not be able to do this, and this too
should be generally known; but he has the opportunity to try.
>
It is very strange of PK to say that only non-standard views deserve
to be proposed. Whether they eventually turn out to be right or
wrong, standard (mainstream) views are based on a long & careful
tradition of well-informed scholarship. Unless there is good clear
reason to doubt them, they should be accepted by those without
expertise in the relevant discipline (where there is agreement in the
mainstream, of course; sometimes there are rival views within the
mainstream, as noted). Naturally, they are subject to challenge from
non-standard proposals; these may or may not come to replace
them/form part of a revised standard position. If these non-standard
proposals are well enough formulated, they too should be heard. But,
at present, PK's proposal needs a lot of work if it is to reach that
stage.
>
I am not a Turcologist but like most linguists I have a wide
knowledge of the structures of many languages. Turkish is the best
well-known example of a language of a certain structural type and is
often used in explanations & examples in undergraduate courses. Very
many linguists, including me, therefore have a reasonable knowledge
of how Turkish works. We can also refer to linguistically-informed
sources for more information. There is no discredit in this:
we linguists all know various languages to various degrees, but no
one can know all 6,000! The suggestion that I know nothing about
Turkish is baseless.
>
Furthermore, there is no point in PK extolling the virtues of Turkish
as if it were an altogether unique or superior language. As I have
noted, many people (especially those promoting such theories) want to
believe that their on language is somehow the best or the most
important. One version of this is the belief that one's own language
is the 'oldest' language and thus was the Ursprache, the ancestor of
all languages (or slightly more moderate versions of this belief).
But many people believe this of their own languages (or occasionally,
like Nyland, of other languages dear to them, or, like White, of
languages they have invented). Oak in India thinks the Ursprache was
Sanskrit. The Latvian writer Kaulins thinks it was Latvian. The
Jewish writer Mozeson thinks it was Hebrew. Several groups of
Hungarians think it was Hungarian. PK thinks it was Turkish. Etc,
etc. As Knopfler said, all but one of them must be wrong, but the
evidence for each is in general no worse (but no better) than for
the others. In fact, of course, if there WAS ONE Ursprache (not
certain), it was used at least 60,000 years ago, and all details are
almost certainly lost (the few linguists who believe otherwise have
not been able to argue convincingly for their view). In 60,000
years, divergence at anything resembling known rates would eradicate
almost all evidence of specific forms.
>
Even if Turkish was not necessarily the Ursprache but was still very
unusual & better equipped than other languages, this would be known.
Turkish is in no way an obscure languages and there is a vast
literature on its structures, usage and history, and also on the
entire Turkic family. A good proportion of this is by native
speakers with training in linguistics. All languages have
certain specific features which work especially well, often in
connection with the cultures of their users. They are typically
weaker (as it were) in some other respects. But all known languages
are at roughly the same level of complexity and flexibility. As one
might predict, we know of no more general features of Turkish (or any
other language) which make it appear a 'superior' language in general
terms. One must not be led by understandable admiration for
one's own native language into exaggerated claims of this nature.
(If PK still objects to this, let him list some of the features which
he thinks might justify his description of Turkish as having 'far
superior capabilities'.)
>
Claims are unwarranted if there is no good evidence for them or
reason to believe them - especially if they appear implausible given
other knowledge. The fact that at present we do not know anywhere
near as much as we would like to know about how language or languages
originated (and of course we do not claim to know all about this)
does not mean that anyone can make any claims they like without us
commenting. (Furthermore, even on PK's position as expressed
here, others would be just as entitled to make THEIR claims - which
conflict with PK's.)
>
I stand by the view that PK's methods involve such a low level of
systematicity in comparison that his conclusions are rendered more or
less immune to empirical disconfirmation. Essentially, anyone using
his highly open-ended approach can claim any links they like, and
following their assumptions no one can disprove any of this. This is
not empirically sound at all. Furthermore, the use of anagrams (seen
as 'camouflage') makes this even more clearly the case. (Nyland has a
similar view; but even where there is indeed deliberate manipulation
this phenomenon is not reported on such a scale, and feasibility is
certainly an issue here. Even if it did happen, the details would
have to be individually argued for. The onus is altogether on those
making such claims to justify them strongly.)
>
If PK still disputes all this, let him take a sample of say 30-50
words or sets of apparent cognates (drawn from any set of non-Turkic
languages and not currently acknowledged as loans from Turkish) and
show that his interpretation of them as derived from Turkish is
collectively more plausible in terms of (a) systematic correspondence
(we will not relax our requirement for this, where it is feasible,
unless it is SHOWN that it is unjustified, but with deep-time
comparison it is not always feasible; this would have to be assessed
in each case) (b) statistical probability (see Ringe's work or
the 'Zompist' web site; we would argue in these terms that many of
PK's equations - and those of Nyland, White etc - ARE coincidences)
and/or (c) known hard evidence (if any) than (i) White's
interpretation in terms of 'EMSL' (ii) Nyland's interpretation in
terms of Basque treated as PK treats Turkish (iii) the accepted
etymologies of the relevant words . Both (i) and (ii) are readily
available on the web or in print; I am sure that both authors would
be happy to give specifics. (Of course, this restricts the survey to
words covered by all three writers, but all three range widely, so
this still leaves much scope.) The information covered here under
(iii) can be found in standard sources, to which a suitable
department could refer PK (they are in big university libraries).
(PK would also have to show that his proposals are historically
feasible [see above on camouflage; also on the known movements of the
relevant peoples, etc]; but we'll leave that for now.)
>
PK should indicate if he is willing to undertake this procedure. If
he will not, the onus is on him to explain why not. In the absence
of any such undertaking or explanation, others are entitled to ignore
his views.
>
In this context, it is of no use for PK to deny that he has an issue
with White, Nyland etc. If he is right, these people are just as
badly wrong as we are, and their methods (which are similar to PK's!)
must also be seen as dubious. (This is precisely one of the problems
with such work: the methods are similar but the results altogether at
variance.) If either White or Nyland is right, the other one of
these two, and PK, and all other such thinkers, are again wrong. PK
may sympathise with other opponents of the mainstream, but he must
believe that nevertheless they themselves are just as badly wrong as
the mainstream!
>
We for our part are NOT saying that Nyland, White etc (or PK himself)
should be suppressed or censored, though on their current form none
of them could be published in a refereed journal. The right to
publish is one thing; the right to have one's ideas accepted as
correct or even as plausible is quite another.
>
And, as a historical linguist, I am fully entitled to comment on all
this material, including PK's. I do not have to be invited to do
so. Those who put their ideas in the public domain must expect
criticism. Indeed, they should welcome criticism from qualified
commentators, even if they ultimately reject it. PK probably
receives rather little criticism of this kind, simply because
most historical linguists will not become aware of such material
(which is not their fault: PK and others could easily send it to
them) and, if they do, will not think it makes enough sense to
warrant serious attention (and they will agree with me that the onus
is on PK to argue, not on them). The reason I am giving PK some
attention (which he should welcome) is my own commitment to this
aspect of the skeptical enterprise: reviewing material which because
of its origin, target audience and/or content does not normally
receive such review. I am happy to assess and indeed to discuss such
material (see above), and also to advise whoever will listen of my
evaluation of it, as that develops.
>
Other points:
>
Anyone who accepts the Genesis story of Babel as literally true must
also argue for that, especially if the time-frame is said to be only
a few thousand years. There is plenty of contrary
evidence/argumentation.
>
The fact that the English-Mayan paper I mentioned was a spoof does
not imply that I think PK's work is a spoof. PK may have
misunderstood me. I fully accept that PK is sincere. My point is
that his claims are no better grounded than the claims in that spoof,
and indeed are still harder to defend than those (notably because of
the anagrams). PK, in my view (which on current evidence would be
shared by all linguists) is honestly badly mistaken and confused, on
a broad front, about standards of evidence in historical linguistics
and thus about what the evidence shows/suggests. If PK thinks he
really has good evidence for his views, let him present it (as I
outline above), since I have not seen any so far.
>
It is cheap to accuse historical linguists of bias. We are human &
thus liable to bias. As scientists, we also display a degree of
conservatism, which in sum probably does more good than harm (a valid
novel theory will normally be accepted after a while despite
conservatism). But we are very willing to countenance new theories
if they are well developed and defended. Anyone who doesn't know
this is not familiar with the literature. Unlike many on the fringe,
most mainstream scholars have not committed their entire lives &
reputations to individual theories. They are often quite happy to be
proved wrong. And as a community of scholars we know that this is
how learning progresses. PK (like many such people) is attacking
what is largely a 'straw man'.
>
Mark Newbrook