Re: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's... (Richard Wordingham)

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

This is in response to Richard Wordingham's response dated July 24,
2003. My comments are interlaced with his and are in capitals.


----- Özgün Ileti -----
Kimden: Richard Wordingham
Kime: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2003 Persembe 04:28
Konu: Re: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's...


My observations follow the paragraphs they are made upon.

Richard.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b_c_n_2003/


----- Özgün Ileti -----
Kimden: Polat Kaya
Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 23 Temmuz 2003 Çarsamba 18:38
Konu: [bcn_2003] Re: Fw: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [Turkoloji - Turkology]
[historical_linguistics] Response to Polat Kaya's...


> Dear friends,

> Mr. Tisinli and Mr. M. Hubey have both directed me with the
following:

> "I would like to see Mr. Polat Kaya show me why Turkish "acele
eder" -- for the sake > of argument, I will assume that acele is not
a loan word -- is not from "accelerate"? (If "acele eder" can be
anagramatized from "accelerate" so as the latter can be from the
former). I am requiring this, because, if it turns out that Mr. Kaya
turns is right about the possibility of obtaining a language from
another by anagramatizing, some people will definitely come forward
and claim it is that Turkish that is anagramatized from Latin and not
the other way around."

> First of all, if I may say so, this is a distraction from the main
topic. Anyone claiming that Turkish is an anagram of Latin has to do
his own defending of the idea as I have been defending my claim that
Latin and Greek and their derivatives were anagrammatized from
Turkish. Additionally, I never said that "acele eder" was
anagrammatized from "accelerate", I said it was the other way around.

> I shared with everyone in this forum that "accelerate" is an
anagram of Turkish "ecele eder" (acele eder). Now the idea is being
put forward saying that Turkish "ecele eder" may be the anagram of
English "accelerate" and hence Turkish may be claimed to be
anagrammatized from Latin. I say this was not the case for Turkish.
First of all, one cannot apply mathematics to linguistics so
readily. I realize that in mathematics, if A = B and B = C, then we
can say that A = C; however this type of thinking cannot be applied
to linguistics. The words of a language cannot be likened to the
terms of a mathematical equation. Words are the product of
deliberate assignment of names to concepts. They are influenced by
culture, beliefs, language-lifespan, history, environment and many
other factors.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Was not the suggestion that A = B implied B = A? The non-
transitivity of similitude is well known."

Polat Kaya: HOW IS MINE DIFFERENT FROM YOURS? WHY ARE YOU TALKING IN
RIDDLES? I WAS TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS NOT SIMILITUDE.


> However, if B and C were designed to be totally different from A,
which is very likely, then they would have far less loan words from A
but far more words and phrases from A anagrammatized into them. Take
the modern example of computer languages. It cannot be denied that
computer languages like COBOL and C, which were developed after
Fortran, took much from FORTRAN (and even BASIC).

Richard Wordingham said:

"Is this historically correct?"

Polat Kaya: YES, FORTRAN WAS A MODEL FOR LATER COMPUTER LANGUAGES.
GO AHEAD AND CHECK IT YOURSELF IF YOU ARE SO INTERESTED?

> In other words, FORTRAN served as the model language for the
development of other computer languages. This is exactly what I am
saying about the Turkish language in relation to other languages.

Richard Wordingham said:

"I don't see anything in the way of anagrams in borrowings between
computer languages."

Polat Kaya: YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD MY POINT OR, YOU
ARE INTENTIONALLY DISTORTING IT. I DID NOT SAY THAT NEWER COMPUTER
LANGUAGES ANAGRAMMATIZED FROM FORTRAN. I SAID THAT FORTRAN SERVED
AS THE MODEL LANGUAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LATER COMPUTER
LANGUAGES.

> Turkish was the most ancient language. Why? Because Turkish was
present at least with the Sumerian and the so-called
ancient "Egyptian" languages some 7000 years ago. The
name "BILGAMESH" (so-called GILGAMESH) is one giant testament to that.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Calling the ancestor of Turkish of 7000 years ago 'Turkish' is rather
extreme, and potentially highly misleading."

Polat Kaya: NO! WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE ORIGINAL BILGAMESH
AS GILGAMESH. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE PROTO-LANGUAGE
NOSTRATIC. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING ANCIENT MASAR/MISIR AS
EGYPT. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE MASARIAN NAME "PERU" (BIR-O)
FOR THEIR KINGS AS "PHARAOH". ETC.

Richard Wordingham said:

"To say one modern language is more ancient than another is
ridiculous. With a few exceptions (creoles, pidgins, artificial and
revived languages), one cannot say one lnguage is more ancient than
another. You can compare the antiquity of the recorded history of a
language, but by that measure, Turkish is hardly ancient."


Polat Kaya: TURKISH IS NOT A MODERN LANGUAGE. IT IS AT LEAST AS OLD
AS SUMERIAN AND MASARIAN. IT IS THAT ONE LANGUAGE THAT THE WORLD WAS
SPEAKING LONG AGO. YOUR RECORDED HISTORY THAT YOU TALK ABOUT HAS BEEN
MOSTLY WRITTEN BY THE CONFUSERS OF HISTORY. THEIR AIM, CLEARLY, WAS
TO OBLITERATE ALL EVIDENCE OF TURKISH IN ANCIENT TIMES. THE MODERN
MANUFACTURED LANGUAGES CANNOT BE REFERRED TO AS ANCIENT.

ACTUALLY WHAT IS RIDICULOUS IS THE FACT THAT EVEN THE TERM
"RIDICULOUS", REARRANGED AS "CULDURISI-O", IS AN ANAGRAM OF TURKISH
PHRASE "KULDURUCU-O" (GULDURUCU-O) MEANING "IT IS FUNNY" OR "IT MAKES
YOU LAUGH". AND THOSE SO CALLED LINGUISTS TEACHING THE WORLD ABOUT
LANGUAGES DO NOT EVEN KNOW THIS (INCLUDING RICHARD WORDINGHAM).
PROBABILITY WILL NOT REVEAL THIS FACT TO US EITHER. THIS IS NOT ONLY
RIDICULUOS BUT TRAGIC FOR ALL HONEST SCHOLARS WHO ARE SINCERELY
SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH!


> And today, to further bury that ancient one language (Turkish)
deeper into the ground, the so-called name "NOSTRATIC" has been
coined as the "proto-language" - as if it represents a language
different from Turkish.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Which of the many languages (by Ethnologue's criteria) that are
loosely described as Turkish are you proposing as the ancestor of
Nostratic? Azerbaijani?"

Polat Kaya: FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE NOT MANY TURKISH LANGUAGES.
THERE IS ONLY ONE TURKISH LANGUAGE WITH MANY DIALECTS. SECONDLY, I AM
NOT PROPOSING THAT TURKISH IS THE ANCESTOR OF NOSTRATIC. THERE IS
NOTHING KNOWN AS NOSTRATIC. IT IS JUST A CONCOCTION. I AM SAYING
THAT TURKISH WAS THE PROTO-LANGUAGE THAT LINGUISTS TODAY ARE SEARCHING
TO FIND. AND BY THE WAY, AZERBAIJANI DIALECT OF TURKISH IS AN
EXCELLENT CANDIDATE AS THE PROTO-LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT WAS THE
LANGUAGE OF THE MIDDLE EAST, SUMERIANS, MASARIANS, MEDE, ANATOLIANS,
HURRIANS, ETC., ETC..


>Turkish "acele" could not have been derived from Latin or English to
express the concept of "accelerate". It is a native Turkish word of
long standing. In Turkish, when one has an urgent message to deliver
to a destination, probably the first thing that comes to mind is to
say to the messenger: "acele et" meaning "hurry up", "be quick",
"run", "don't drag your feet", etc. Here, "acele" is not alone. It
is accompanied with Turkish "et" meaning "do" or "make". "Accelerate",
however, is a modern term claimed to be from Latin "accelero". Yet
Latin "accelero" is very much from Turkish phrase "acele er o" meaning
"he is a fast man".

Richard Wordingham said:

"What about Latin 'accelerat'? Actually, Latin _celer_ 'quick' is
more of a problem for your hypothesis."

Polat Kaya: I ALREADY TOLD YOU AND THE OTHER READERS ABOUT IT.
"ACCELERAT" IS UNQUESTIONABLY AN ANAGRAM OF TURKISH "ECELE EDER"
IRREGARDLESS OF WHERE THE TERM "ECELE" CAME FROM. GO AND READ WHAT I
WROTE EARLIER ABOUT IT!

> Turks are not in the habit of confusing, or anagrammatizing other
languages. Even in the most recent Turkish Ottoman empire, all
ethnic groups were allowed to keep and maintain their languages. The
Ottoman Turks did not confuse or obliterate their languages. The most
they did was to take some loan words and retain them in their
original format, i.e., not anagrammatized.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Rather a lot, I understand. My informant from Tarshish (a farmer's
son, studying atomic physics in Britain) told me that the Turkish of
Istanbul has so many foreign words that he felt more at home
linguistically talking to Azerbaijanis."

Polat Kaya: IT SEEMS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST
READ. PLEASE READ MY ABOVE PARAGRAPH AGAIN. WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF
LOAN WORDS, THE POINT IS THAT TURKS DID NOT ANAGRAMMATIZE THEM.
EXAMPLE, THE TURKISH EQUIVALENT OF "RADIO" IS "RADYO". NOTICE THAT
THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO CAMOUFLAGE OR DECEIVE PEOPLE ABOUT ITS FOREIGN
ORIGIN. NOW, LET US LOOK AT THE ENGLISH WORD "MAMMALIA" WHICH IS
DEFINED AS "THE HIGHEST CLASS OF VERTEBRATES, INCLUDING MAN AND OTHER
ANIMALS THAT NOURISH THEIR YOUNG WITH MILK" AND SUPPOSEDLY COMING FROM
LATE LATIN "MAMALIS" MEANING "OF THE BREAST" AND FRENCH "MAMMA"
MEANING "BREAST". IT IS OBVIOUS THAT "MAMMALIA" IS DERIVED FROM
TURKISH "MEMELI" MEANING "WITH BREASTS" AND THAT "MAMMA" IS DERIVED
FROM TURKISH "MEME" MEANING "BREAST". BUT, THE DICTIONARY MAKES NO
MENTION OF TURKISH "MEME" OR "MEMELI" INSTEAD FALSELY POINTING THE
READER OFF TO LATIN OR FRENCH AS THE SOURCE. BY DOING THIS, THEY HAVE
OBLITERATED THE ACTUAL TURKISH SOURCE OF THE TERM. THIS IS ONE WAY
OF DISTORTING HISTORY.

REGARDING THE MANY "FOREIGN WORDS" USED IN ISTANBUL TURKISH, IT IS
NATURAL TO FIND THEM IN A COSMOPOLITAN CITY OF ABOUT 13 MILLION
PEOPLE. YOU MUST NOTE THAT THOSE "FOREIGN WORDS" ARE STILL "FOREIGN
WORDS" AND HAVE NOT BEEN ANAGRAMMATIZED.

Richard Wordingham said:

"By the same token, though we may have mangled many Turkish words in
English, we have not made anagrams of them."

Polat Kaya: THIS STATEMENT BY YOU IS ACTUALLY AN ADMISSION OF WHAT I
HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "MANGLING"
A TURKISH WORD THAT IS BEING BROUGHT INTO ENGLISH AND
"ANAGRAMMATIZING" A TURKISH WORD INTO ENGLISH. "MANGLING" MEANS
"DISFIGURING" OR "MUTILATING" OR "DISTORTING". THE IMPLICATION IS
THAT THOSE TURKISH WORDS THAT WERE "MANGLED" ARE NOT RECOGNIZEABLE AS
TURKISH ANY MORE - WHICH IS THE SAME AS ANAGRAMMATIZING. YOU SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN "MANGLING" THOSE TURKISH WORDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
MANGLING OF THOSE TURKISH WORDS INTO ENGLISH IS A SIGN OF INTENTIONAL
ALTERATION. NOT ONLY WERE TURKISH WORDS "MANGLED" INTO ENGLISH,
THEIR GIVEN ETYMOLOGIES IN DICTIONARIES WERE ALSO "MANGLED".

> Therefore stating that Turkish could be claimed as being
anagrammatized from Latin or any other language is not realistic.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Nor vice versa."

Polat Kaya: THERE ARE SO MANY ANAGRAMMATIZED TURKISH WORDS AND
EXPRESSIONS IN ENGLISH THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF. I GAVE A SAMPLE
OF 125 OF THEM. THAT SAMPLE OF 125 ENGLISH WORDS THAT I HAVE SHOWN TO
BE ANAGRAMMATIZED FROM TURKISH STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH YOUR "Nor vice
versa" RETORT. AND THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. THIS
APPLIES TO LATIN AND GREEK AS WELL.

> The question may come to mind: "Why are there many so-called Arabic
and Persian loan words in Turkish?" The answer must be that the
Selcuks and Ottomans knew that their TUR ancestors were in what is
presently called Iran, the Middle East, so-called Egypt, Anatolia
etc., far earlier than themselves and that they were talking an
earlier form of Turkish (despite the fact that modern Turks do not
seem to know this). The Selcuks and Ottomans readily accepted loan
words from these Middle Eastern > peoples because they probably
regarded them as the mixed-up remnants of their ancient TUR ancestors
in that region.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Are you saying the Seljuks and Ottomans were intolerant of non-
Turks?"

Polat Kaya: WHAT YOU IMPLY IS RIDICULOUS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT AT
ALL AND THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, IN NO WAY, IMPLIES WHAT YOU SAID. YOU
ARE INTENTIONALLY MISREADING AND INJECTING UNWARRANTED IDEAS. IT IS
WELL KNOWN THAT TURKS WERE, IN THE PAST, AND STILL ARE, VERY TOLERANT
PEOPLE.

>Additionally, Genesis 11 admits that the world was speaking "ONE
LANGUAGE". It is understood that that one language was neither
Semitic, nor Greek nor Latin. If it was any one of them, they would
have named it and we would all know about it; and we would probably be
speaking it today.

Richard Wordingham said:

"Who's 'we'? It's certainly not us."

Polat Kaya: "WE" MEANING YOU AND ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE INCLUDING
"US".

> Furthermore, if it was their own language, they would not want to
confuse their language or themselves. It must be understood that the
confusers were secretly confusing somebody elses language. <Snip>
So the Turs/Turks were not doing the confusion. They would not want
to do such a thing to their own language and to themselves.

Richard Wordingham said:

"I don't understand your argument. If everyone spoke Turkish, then
the confusers would be confusing their own language."

Polat Kaya: YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I SAID. READ IT AGAIN. THE
CONFUSERS WERE NON-TURANIANS WHO WERE ENVIOUS OF THAT ANCIENT TURANIAN
CIVILIZATION, LANGUAGE AND RELIGION. THE NON-TURANIANS PLOTTED TO
USURP THAT GRAND CIVILIZATION. THEY PLOTTED TO CONQUER AND TAKE OVER
THAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATION. EVEN THOUGH THE NON-TURANIANS WERE SPEAKING
TURKIC IN THAT TURANIAN CIVILIZATION, THE CONFUSERS WANTED TO HAVE
THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND TRANSFER MOST EVERYTHING INTO IT. THE
"CONFUSION" REFERRED TO IN GENESIS 11 IS AN ADMISSION OF THIS.

> To conclude, I say that Turkish words are not anagrams of words or
phrases from other languages because Turkish was the proto language
itself where even the term "PROTO" is an anagram of Turkish "BIR-ATA".

Richard Wordingham said:

"Anagram? I see no re-arrangement!"

Polat Kaya: LOOK REAL CLOSELY AND YOU WILL SEE IT!

Richard Wordingham said:

"Presumably you would argue that _bir_ 'one' is a back-formation from
_birata_?"

Polat Kaya: "BIR" IS A VERY IMPORTANT TURKISH WORD MEANING "ONE". IT
EXISTS BY ITSELF. HENCE THERE IS NO NEED TO BACK-FORM IT FROM BIRATA.
SIMPLE AS THAT!

IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS FROM YOUR TERSE AND UNFRIENDLY COMMENTS THAT YOU
ARE SOMEHOW BOTHERED BY MY CLAIMS. WHERE IS ALL THIS UNFRIENDLINESS
COMING FROM?

BEST WISHES TO ALL,

POLAT KAYA

JULY 27, 2003