Re: About claims of Mr.Polat
Kaya (Mark Hubey)
--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Dear Mark Hubey,
Thank you for your
writing. I understand and appreciate what you are
saying. The tools that
you are mentioning probably are very valid
tools under certain
circuimstances in linguistics. If there is no
intentional human
interference in the normal evolutionary process of
words among
dialects of a given language, and even the development of
loan words among
unrelated languages, your probability theory, what
you call RSC
(recurrent sound change) may work. But when there is
intentional
interference and intentional rearrangement of words from
one language into
another then out goes your RSC. Because this time
we are not dealing
with natural changes of sounds but rather total
rearrangements of
letters, syllables, i.e., everything that makes up a
word or phrase.
This is a totally different ball game. This time one
is
"anagrammatizing" a word or phrase from a known language into
another. The
resulting new word is an encryption of the source
material. However,
even though the initial text is shuffled, it is not
lost and remains
embedded in the encyrpted new word (just like
encrypting today).
In fact you will get nowhere by using your
probability of
changing sounds, because not only have sounds been
changed but also
the whole structure of the original text has been
changed. Now after
having said this in response to your suggestions, I
will give you an
example to clarify my point.
Many Turks know
that in Turkish culture, OGUZ KAGAN had six sons
named: Gün-Han,
Ay-Han, Yildiz-Han, Dag-Han, Deniz-Han and Gök-Han.
Some people may
look at this as mythology. No matter by what name one
calls it, I say
this concept was believed in and lived by the ancient
Turanian Tur/Turk
peoples very strongly. For that reason alone many
epic stories
(destans) have been written. I further say that, as I
have said so many
times in my previous writings, this understanding
was part of the
ancient world's religion. I have said and will say
again that what we
call OGUZ-KAGAN was the name of the trinity sky-god
of Turanians. The
trinity consisted of Gök-Ata-Tengri, Gün-Tengri and
Ay-Tengri. Oguz
Kagan's most notable animal logo was OKUZ (Boga)
meaning
"Bull" and therefore he was portrayed as a "BULL" in many
ancient depictions
found in Asia, Middle East, Anatolia, ancient Masar
(Egypt) and all
over Europe because the ancient (so-called Pagan)
world was believing
in a universal Turanian trinity sky-God concept.
Additionally,
Turkish (Gün-dili, Günes-Dili, Oguz-Dili, Tur-Dili,
Türkçe) was the
universal language of that religion.
Now I want to come
back to the Turkish name of DENIZ-HAN - the God of
waters. If this name
took forms among people as DENIZ-HAN TENIZ-HAN,
TENUZ-HON, TUNUS
HUN, DENIZ-AGA, TENIS-APA, DENIS-ATA, ,etc. I could
understand the
variations because they are all similar.
In the so-called
Greek mythology, the name POSEIDON is the god of
seas, waters, etc.
I say this so-called Greek god was nothing but the
anagrammatized name
of Deniz-Han of the Turanians. How so? I will show
you how. When one
rearranges the name POSEIDON as DENIS-OPO, it is
readily seen that
it is the anagram of Turkish "DENIZ-APA" meaning
"father of
sea". Now I claim that this is not a normal change of the
name. As you can
see, probablity played no part in this
transformation. On
the contrary someone intentionally interfered with
it and shuffled
(rearranged) it in order to alienate it from Turanian
Tur/Turk culture
and to claim ownership for it. The so-called Greek
mythology is full
of mythologic names that are rearrangements of
Turkish words and
phrases personifying concepts. By this revelation,
I put the so-called
Greek mythology and its claimed authenticity
under question.
Now some may say
that Polat Kaya was lucky this time. I say no.
Polat Kaya was not
lucky, but rather knew what to do with the name
POSEIDON. Polat
Kaya knows that when a text is encrypted into another
form, the original
text is not lost. It is still embedded in the new
format, but it is
shuffled so that it cannot be recognized easily.
The ancient
anagrammatizers new this fact. Present day communication
uses this fact as
well for encrypting purposes.
To continue, the
Latin name for POSEIDON was NEPTÜNUS, that is, the
god of the sea. If
one replaces P with H and rearranges the name as
"TÜNUS-HEN",
you will recognize the name "DENIZ-HAN". Again we notice
that an intentional
interference has been done to alienate it from
Turanian culture.
Again, probability played no part in this
correspondence.
The Etruscan name
for this god is given as NETHUNS. When we rearrange
this name as
"TENS-HUN", to our amazement we find that name is Turkic
TENÜS-HEN"
(TENÜZ-HAN) which is again Turkish "DENIZ-HAN".
You will see that
the probability cannot work in these cases, because
the name has been
intentionally shuffled differently in each case.
After giving these
examples, I rest my case. It is now up to others
whether they pay
serious attention or not. I would like to state,
however, that when
you tell me "but the RSC heuristic is sound, and
you have to somehow
use something like it if you want serious
attention from
them", you are imposing your artificial rules on me
which is not fair nor
are they rules to follow. I have convincingly
demonstrated an
original idea with realistic examples to support it
and in plain
language so that everyone can understand it.
Thanks for
conversing with me.
Best wishes to all.
Polat Kaya
July 23, 2003
Mark Hubey wrote:
>
> Mr Kaya,
>
> Your ideas are
original, however, what the complains are about are
> different than
> originality.
>
> If we see a
pattern in life which we think did not arise due to
> chance then we
have to
> start
suspecting that it was due to something else. The heuristics
> of historical
linguistics (e.g. rules of
> thumb) are
substitutes for the use of probability theory. The common
> heuristic of
HistLing is
> the RSC
(recurrent sound change). If the probability of a sound
> change X (e.g.
some sound change)
> between
languages A and B is p, then the probability of this same
> sound change
occurring
> twice is p^2,
three times is p^3, etc. Since p < 1, every time we
> multiply we
get a number
> smaller and
smaller. Thus our confidence increases that these RSCs
> were not due
to chance
> and thus it
was due to something else (e.g. borrowing/copying or
> genetic
descent).
>
> If we use
metathesis, anagrams, etc too often it is not convincing
> that these did
not arise
> due to chance.
>
> I know that
most HistLingers are ignorant of probability theory, and
> many things
they claim
> are true are
plain false and others dubious, but the RSC heuristic
> is sound, and
you have to
> somehow use
something like it if you want serious attention from
> them. The
basic idea is
> always the
same, e.g. show that the state of events is likely not
> due to chance.
>
> allingus wrote:
>
> >
> > -----
Özgün Ileti -----
> > Kimden:
"Polat Kaya" <tntr@c...>
> > Kime:
<b_c_n_2003-owner@yahoogroups.com>
> > Gönderme
tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2003 Pazar 23:45
> > Konu: Re:
[b_c_n_2003] Fw: About claims of Mr. Polat Kaya
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr.
Oktay Ahmed,
> >
> >
Greetings. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not a
> >
politician,
> > I have
never been a politician, and I am not politically
> >
motivated. I
> > am just
trying show that some very strange things have taken place
> > in
> > the past
that most people do not even know about it and most
> > likely it
> > is still
going on at present regarding the ancient Turkish
> > language
> > and
culture with respect to others. I have given you and all
> > other
> > readers
examples of it. I have nothing against you or anyone
> > else.
> > In fact I
appreciate the fact that you are doing a valuable
> > research.
> > But
please let us not confuse the Turkish words that have gone
> > into
> > other
languages laterally and stayed more or less the same with
> > those
> > Turkish
words or phrases which have been anagrammatized as words
> > and
> > made
integral part of other languages. They are two different
> > things.
> >
> > I am not
attacking you or anyone else. Many readers in this forum
> >
> > know how
fair, understanding and tolerant I have been even to
> > those
> > who criticized
and ridiculed me rather severly. I am not saying
> > that
> > my work
should not be criticized. However in doing that, I am
> > expecting
that my censurer should also be fair and respectful of
> > me
> > and not
an absolute rejectionist of my work because it is a new
> > and
> > different
view of things that we have been taught as truth. At
> > least
> > some room
should be reserved in his/her perception of things in
> > case
> > that I am
right in what I am saying, which I believe and know
> > that I
> > am right.
Thus, of course, my response to those who try to put me
> >
> > down and
belittle my work is a bit different. I am just defending
> > my
> > ideas
that I shared with you all. Although we did have a debate,
> > but
> > please
think of me as a friend not a foe. You can be sure of that
> > as
> > I am sure
of it myself.
> >
> > I wish
you all the best and success in every aspect of your life.
> >
> > Selamlar,
> >
> > Polat Kaya