Re: Digest Number 231 (Mark
Newbrook)
--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Dear Friends,
Greetings to all.
This is in response to Mark Newbrook's letter
below.
Mark Newbrook
writes:
>
I have had my say,
and nothing has been said that calls my criticisms
of Polat Kaya into
question; but it is good to see that others
continue to expose
the ill-foundedness of his ideas. And it is
notable that his
critics include people from a wide range of
backgrounds and
opinions: both those who accept Nostratic (in some
form) and those who
do not, both Hubey and those who disagree
with him, even
Nyland (who is himself regarded as a fringe figure).
>
POLAT KAYA: I have
pointed out earlier and would like to point out
again that those
who do not know cannot make judgements. Mark
Newbrook points out
that, in addition to him, others also objected
to what I am
saying. Again, disagreeing with me is their right, but
that really does
not change the situation because my analysis of some
of the Greek, Latin
and other I-E words speak for themselves.
Substituting the
concept of NOSTRATIC in place of Turkish is a
concoction to
divert the attention from the real "proto" language
Turkish to another
imaginary language. Of course, the linguistic
community is not
used to dealing with Turkish in such a manner,
that is, it being
in the forefront. If an Indo-European language
was proposed as the
"proto" language, that would constitute no
problem. No
imaginary made up name (i.e., Nostratic) would be
required. Turkish
has been intentionally pushed out of the way
for so long that it
cannot be allowed back to visibility. During the
last few days, we
have all seen unwarranted censorship by the
Nostratic grooup.
Mark Newbrook
writes:
>
> Polat Kaya is
most unlikely ever to accept that he might be wrong;
such writers have
committed themselves to their pet theories. But
anyone can see that
his 'theory', while implausible and unsupported,
is effectively
immune from formal disproof and hence empirically
unsound.
POLAT KAYA: Polat
Kaya knows that he is right in what he is saying.
Under the
circumstances, no one would give up the idea. Why should
Polat Kaya? To
accentuate my point, I will explain the morphology of
a term that Mark
Newbrook uses often, i.e., "implausible".
This English word
"IMPLAUSIBLE", meaning "not believable, not
possible",
when rearranged as "PUILABILMES", is seen to be an anagram
of Turkish
expression "BU OLABILMEZ" meaning "this cannot be" or
"this is not
possible." This correspondence itself proves that the
term
"IMPLAUSIBLE" was anagrammatized from Turkish phrase "BU
OLABILMEZ". It
is impossible for Mark Newbrook and others like
him, as linguists,
to ignore this correspondence?
Additionally, in
front everyone, some NOSTRATICS in responding
to my response to
JOHN anagrammatized my name "POLAT KAYA"
into "TOPAL
AYAK" which shows how skilfull some of these people
are in transforming
or anagrammatizing Turkish names into another
form. These people
have unquestionably proven that not only do some
of them know
Turkish while pretending not to, but also that they are
very capable of
anagrammatizing Turkish into any language they wish.
This verifies what
I have been saying all along, that is, that the
same game has been
played in the past to come up with the so-called
Indo-European and
Semitic languages, and most likely is still going
on. As everyone can
see, a deception of unparalled magnitude in
human history
involving languages and other fields has been
perpetrated during
the last few millennia. The ancient Turanian
religion along with
the Turkish language and the ancient Tur/Turk
civilization have
been usurped by others.
Mark Newbrook
writes:
> Note that
Nyland proposes a similar scenario but with a different
source language!
Why should one prefer either?
>
POLAT KAYA: Edo
Nyland named an earlier form of Basque languages
as the source for
all Indo-European languages. In my response to
Edo Nyland, I
conclusively showed that the earlier form of Basque
language was in
fact an Oguz language, that is, Turkish, and hence was
no different than
Turkish itself. However, presently, Basque
(EUSKARA) is in an
anagrammatized form - like the Indo-European
languages. Thus
using the vague term "a different source language!"
for the original
Basque language does not change the fact that it was
a dialect of
Turkish. The 52 Basque words that I gave definitely
proved that Basque
people were Turkish speaking Turanian people.
Although Edo Nyland
did not know that Basque was a dialect of
Turkish, by
attacking me, he forced me to look at the Basque language
closely which I had
been delaying for some time. Under the pressing
situation, I was
able to show that Basque indeed had a kinship with
Turkish. Thus any
way one cuts it, the Indo-European languages were
manufactured from
different dialects of Turkish whether Mark Newbrook
likes it or not.
Mark Newbrook
writes:
> And where
Polat Kaya talks about non-Turkish languages he is often
badly wrong. Look
again at what he says about Greek!
>
POLAT KAYA: Mark
Newbrook likes to make a lot of declarations saying
this is wrong and
that is wrong but he never seems to back them up.
Yet I backed up my
statements with all sorts of powerful evidence
which are being
ignored. Whether Mark Newbrook knows it or just
disagrees with it,
Greek is a manufactured language just like the
others. It is most
likely that Mark Newbrook and many other linguists
were not aware of
this situation. Evidence indicates that what I
have said about
Greek and also Latin is the truth despite denials.
In this regard I
shone a light on the path of those who are studying
or will be studying
Greek, Latin, or any other Indo-European and
Semitic languages.
It is their right to know what language is at the
root of these
languages. Using an imaginary language
named
"Nostratic" instead of Turkish is pure deception. It seems that
the innocent
students of these languages have been conned and led in
a wrong direction
while the actual root language (Turkish) has always
been around.
Obviously these manufactured languages have now become
distinct languages
which I do not deny. Many well-intentioned people
speak them without
knowing what has has gone on at the root. I showed
the root language
in a very clear cut and scientific way saying that
it was Turkish.
This has somehow displeased Mark Newbrook and some
others.
At this point, I
would like to cite a statement from Prof. G. S. Kirk
who writes the
following. [G. S. Kirk, "The Nature of Greek Myths",
Penguin Books,
1974, p. 267]:
"The very term
"Greek" is full of ambiguity. "Greek" like
"Akkadian",
denotes a language
rather than a people. The Greek speaking people
began to enter the
Greek peninsula shortly before 2000 B.C., but they
found there an indigeneous
population that already had cultural and
perhaps linguistic
connections with Asia Minor".
POLAT KAYA: The
indigeneous population that Greeks found in ancient
Greece (Yunanistan)
were the Turkic speaking Turanians whose culture
and language indeed
had connections with those people in Asia Minor,
because people in
Asia Minor were also Turkic speaking Turanian
peoples. In the
Trojan wars, the Phyrigians, Thracians, Pelasgians
and many other Asia
Minor peoples were on the side of Trojans which is
an indication that
they were all from the same Turanian Tur/Turk
peoples. Even the
term "Asia Minor" implies that it was like the Asia
Major, that is, the
Continent of Asia, but only on a smaller scale.
It is commonly said
that if one knew Turkish, one could travel from
one end of Asia to
the other without having any difficulty. This
indicates that
Turkish was a dominant language in Asia. Of course it
was also the same
in Asia Minor where the native population was the
Turkish speaking
Turanians.
In the above
statement by Prof. G. S. Kirk, he states that the names
'Akkadian' and
'Greek' did not denote people, but rather each denotes
a language. There
is a peculiarity in this situation. A serious
thinking will make
it clear that there cannot be a language without
people. It has been
said by many writers that ancient Greeks and the
Akkadians were
wanderers. So initially there was no Greek or Akkadian
languages. Since
there were no Greek or Akkadian languages before,
then how did they
get a language of their own later? The answer must
be that they took
it from the already existing Turkish language
spoken by the
earlier native Turanians and changed it by way of
anagrammatizing its
words and expressions into new words for
themselves. My
recent LYCURGUS (ULU-KÖR-GÖZ) paper shows this
clearly.
Prof. G. S. Kirk
shows that there are others who also have their
doubts about the
Greek and the Greek language. Perhaps Mark Newbrook
would like to have
a think about that.
These facts either
have not been recognized by scholars, or if they
have, they have
been very lull about it. Thus in this regard the
world public has
been put into a long and deep sleep since ancient
times. Incidently,
for the information of those who do not know, the
word
"LULL" is an anagram of the Turkish word "LAL" of the same
meaning.
Mark Newbrook wrote:
> I suggest that
groups like this, containing some very scholarly
people, have more
fruitful things to discuss than theories like Polat
Kaya's.
>
POLAT KAYA: So far
I have yet to see any scholarly response from Mark
Newbrook. He
insists that what I say is "implausible" without
explaining any of
the 125 words that I offered him. He evaded them.
But yet they were
powerful evidence for what I am saying.
Evidently Mark
Newbrook cannot see clearly what I am talking about.
Actually, the
concept I presented was not outrageously difficult to
grasp. His
disagreeing with me is one thing, but his going out of his
way and
recommending censorship for my writings is another. First
of all, Mark
Newbrook, being in an institution where free discussion
of ideas are
permitted, knows the value and importance of free
diuscussion. His
recommending censorship of my ideas now cannot be
regarded as a
feather of distinction in his cap. Secondly, as an
academician, he
should know that once an idea is born it cannot be
suppressed readily.
Ideas are like seeds in the ground, they have
ways of overcoming
barriers.
In concluding and
in response to Mark Newbrook's very first statement,
that is, "I have
had my say, and nothing has been said that calls my
criticisms of Polat
Kaya into question", I say, on the contrary, it
is the other way
around. Mark Newbrook is just trying to turn the
table around. While
he was always evasive, I did not shy away from
discussing anything.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
August 14, 2003
=============
Mnewbroo@a... wrote:
>
> Re: Polat Kaya
>
> I have had my
say, and nothing has been said that calls my
criticisms of Polat
Kaya into question; but it is good to see that
others continue to
expose the ill-foundedness of his ideas. And it
is notable that his
critics include people from a wide range of
backgrounds and
opinions: both those who accept Nostratic (in some
form) and those who
do not, both Hubey and those who disagree with
him, even Nyland
(who is himself regarded as a fringe figure).
>
> Polat Kaya is
most unlikely ever to accept that he might be wrong;
such writers have
committed themselves to their pet theories. But
anyone can see that
his 'theory', while implausible and unsupported,
is effectively
immune from formal disproof and hence empirically
unsound. Once one
allows for covert manipulation and conspiracy on a
massive scale, all
bets are off. Note that Nyland proposes a similar
scenario but with a
different source language! Why should one prefer
either? There are
other such people too (Ior Bock, Oak, etc). And
> where Polat
Kaya talks about non-Turkish languages he is often
badly wrong. Look
again at what he says about Greek!
>
> I suggest that
groups like this, containing some very scholarly
people, have more
fruitful things to discuss than theories like Polat
Kaya's.
>
> Mark Newbrook