Re: Phrygian
"GORDIUM" was Turkish " KÖRDÜyÜM" (Mark Hubey)
--- In bcn2003-II@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Dear friends,
Mark Hubey wrote:
>
> Polat,
>
> kOr does not
mean blind in other Turkic languages. It means gOr (to
> see). The word
for
> blind is soqur
(sok-kur=sight-stricken).. This meaning is mixed up
> with Trk saGIr
(deaf)
Mark Hubey I am
amazed by what you are saying. Do you mean to say
that if
"kör" is not exactly the same in every dialect of Turkish,
then, it does not
count? What kind of logic is that? How can you
deny the fact that
"kör" is Turkish? What kind of linguistics is this?
At this rate, the
existence of Turkish will totally be denied some day
as some circles
have already started saying so. What kind of
blindness is this?
Furthermore,
contrary to your statement "other Turkic languages",
there is only one
"Turkish language" with many "dialects". So do not
divide the one
Turkish language with many dialects into separate
languages so that
they can be intentionally alienated from each other.
A quick search into
Kültur Bakanligi "Karsilastirmali Türk Lehçeleri
Sözlügü"
produced by nine Turkish scholars under the chairmanship of
Prof. Dr. Ahmet
Bican Ercilasun, 1991 gives the following for Turkish
word
"kör":
Türkiye Türkçesi:
kör;
Azerbaycan
Türkçesi: kör;
Bashkurt Türkçesi
hukir [o kör], küzhiz [gözsiz];
Kazak Türkçesi kör,
sokIr (which has "kur/kör" in
it];
Kirgiz Türkçesi
kör, sokur
Özbek Türkçesi kör;
Tatar Türkçesi
sukIr, küzsiz;
Türkmen Türkçesi
kör;
Uygur Türkçesi kör,
kargu
As can be seen from
this list, the word for BLIND in almost all of the
above Turkish
dialects is Turkish "KÖR". So it is a very widely used
word. This shows
that Mark Hubey's first sentence "kOr does not mean
blind in other
Turkic languages." is rubble. It appears that Mark
Hubey does not
really understand the depth of the matter and put
artificial
conditions on words. Additionally, even if KÖR had existed
only in one dialect
of Turkish, it would still be a Turkish word and
would not
invalidate my revelation that Phrygian GORDIUM and Turkish
KÖR-DÜYÜM were the
same.
Furthermore, in
everyday speech, Turkish K/G or G/K changes can easily
take place.
Examples are: KARDASH vs GARDASH, KÖR vs GÖR and many more
- but people do
understand what is being said or meant. Yes,
GÖR/KÖR/GÜR/KÜR/GUR/KUR
all mean BLIND in one sense, but in another
sense, can mean SEE
depending on the context; and people do understand
it. Additionally,
Turkish "KÖR" for "blind" and Turkish "GÖR" for
"see"
were used in PUN writings in the ancient Turkish speaking world.
This duality aspect
of the Turkish language, which is a reflection of
the duality nature
of the sky god concept of ancient Turanians, shows
the distinctness of
the Turkish language. Mark Hubey, while skating
on the surface of
linguistics, seems can not see these things below
the surface.
Another interesting
entry in the same source given above is the
Turkish
"kördügüm" which exists in Russian as "GORDIYEV". Here the
final "v"
which must come from the Greek symbol "v" for "n" which
makes it
"GORDIYEN" from Turkish "KÖR DÜYÜN". Thus it is seen that
even this Russian
word is an anagram of Turkish. Evidently, the
letter
"v" has been used for anagrammatizing purposes and to
camouflage its
Turkishness. In the Greek alphabet, lower case "n" is
written with a
"v" like symbol thus providing a very skilfull
camouflage
instrument. It is no wonder that European scholars are
claiming Phrygian
GORDIUM and GORDIAN knot as Indo-European because
the groundwork has
already prepared for this usurpation by
manufacturing words
in Greek and Russian. Yet the whole thing comes
from Turkish
"KÖR-DÜYÜM" or "KÖR DÜYÜN" (Azerbaycan aguzu). Another
supposedly Greek
name for GORDIAN appears as GORDIOS. This is the
same as the name of
the Phrygian king GORDIUS who is said to have made
the GORDIAN knot.
There is one more
thing need to be brought to the attention of the
reader. Phrygians
and Lydians were famous for their weaving as
appears in
so-called Greek mythologies. Turkish carpet making uses
the famed
"Turkish knot" or "GÖRDES knot" (Ghiordes knot in English).
This Turkish knot
(Gordes knot) in name seems very much related to
the GORDIUS knot of
the Phrygians. This is not a coincidence. Some of
the most famous Turkish
carpets come from the same Anatolian area
where the ancient
Phrygians and Lydians lived. As you can see, the
Gordius knot of
Phrygians and the Turkish Gördes knot used in Turkish
rug making are
aligned perfectly both in meaning and in context.
Embedded in all
this is the implied meaning that names "Phrygian" and
"Turkish"
are somehow equivalent. Once a Gördes knot becomes part of
a rug, it becomes
like a Turkish KÖR-DÜYÜM which can not be readliy
undone. Carpet
makers say that the Turkish Gördes knot makes a carpet
stronger, firmer
and more durable.
> KBal sangraw
(deaf). The word could not have meant what you claim
> 3,000 years
ago.
Mark Hubey is wrong
here too. When Turkish word Bilgemish appears
some seven thousand
years ago in the Sumerian epic BILGAMESH
(intentionally
changed into GILGAMESH), then Phrygian GORDIUM, meaning
an undoable knot,
can certainly be Turkish KÖR-DÜYÜM as well since
both have the same
meaning and morphology. Apparently Mark Hubey is
so involved with
the present *XYZ linguistics that he cannot see this.
> Furthermore,
the interplay of r,z in one language is rare in Turkic
> because the
big split
> is Bolgaric
l-r vs Common Turkic sh-z. What is -r in Bolgaric should
> be -z in CT.
That means
> that kOr (to
see) and kOz (eye) should not belong to the same
> language.
There are only a handful
> of such words
in Turkic e.g. semir (to get fat) and semiz (fat),
> yUrU (walk)
and yUz (to swim).
I do not see what
all this gobbledegook has to do with the gordium
story. Can you not
understand what you are reading? Are you trying to
confuse the matter
by injecting noise into it? Is the light that I
shine on your path
too bright for you? Why can't you stay on the
subject? I talked
about the GORDIUM and GORDIAN KNOT and its
corresponding
Turkish counterpart. Is that so difficult to
understand? Why all
this irrelevant talk?
I get the feeling
that my critics are making all this noise because I
am tying Turkish to
a very ancient past. That must be the reason why
some people are so
terribly bothered. Turkish has been mutilated and
kicked around for
so long that when someone tries to bring it to the
forefront, people
suddenly scream baseless arguments and accuse me of
nationalism etc.
Well I am not buying these baseless arguments or your
linguistic theories
either.
> You should get
your hands on Clauson's book on Pre-Thirteenth
> Century
Turkic. You have spent
> so much time
working on these things, it surprises me that you have
> made no effort
to learn what
> other Turkic
languages are like. Instead you continuously think that
> 20th century
Turkish is what
> it was like
2,000-4,000 years ago.
Mark Hubey is very
mistaken to think that modern Turkish is all that
different from the
Turkish that was being spoken by the ancient
Tur/Turk peoples.
The basic root words do not change that much in
time. If Turkish
word BILGAMESH can come to present from the times of
Sumerians without
changing, so can the other Turkish words. If it was
KÖR back then, it
is still KÖR now. Turkish as spoken in Eastern
Anatolia and in
Azerbaycan are good examples of the ancient Turkish.
What Mark Hubey is
portraying as a knowledge of Turkish is a limited
one confined to
modern Turkey only. Modern Turkish in Turkey has gone
through
considerable changes lately. Hence, it has broken many of its
ties with the
ancient Tur/Turk world.
I will say it
again. The world has been conned in a very big way. The
ancient world was a
Turkish speaking Turanian world with a Turanian
trinity Sky-God
universal religion that believed in a creator sky
father god with the
sun as his working eye and the moon as his blind
eye - all expressed
in Turkish. The original one language (Turkish)
that everyone was
speaking in ancient times has been intentionally
confused by
meddlers. Modern linguists are not helping to remove the
smoke screen either.
Evidently, some
ancient religious linguists were far ahead of their
present
counterparts. In one hand, they usurped the ancient Turkish
culture and
language while erasing the ancient Tur/Turk identity, a
transgression from
the Turkish point of view, but in the other hand
they did a a
fantastic job in creating new languages for themselves.
The resulting
languages are different and the camouflage of the
Turkish source is
magnificent. However, in doing so, they also
preserved the
ancient Turkish as it was spoken in the Middle East and
Anatolia.
Particularly, the Azerbayjan dialect of Turkish since that
is what keeps
coming to the surface as I analyze the Greek, Latin, and
English words. The
encryption preserves the source text.
What I have
presented in this forum is new insight to languages which
Mark Hubey has not
demonstrated to have any inkling of whatsoever. So
you should not try
to preach to me about reading this book or reading
that book. What I
read and how much I read is beyond your conception.
So in your limited
knowledge do not jump to conclusions about me. Come
back to the main
topic and stay on course. The kind of criticism I am
getting from you
and your like out there are nothing but noise. What
happened to calm
and rational scholarly comments on the subject
matter? Why can't
you read a story such as the Gordian knot that I
presented and
understand it as it is without going haywire? Is it so
difficult?
> You know very
well that many years ago on Turkistan-N you accused me
> of being
anti-Turk because
> I criticized
what you wrote. That was circa 1999. At that time I
> suggested that
there are things you
> should do. And
yet you still have done nothing about those
> suggestions.
What about reading
> Clauson?
Mark Hubey I still
believe that you do not understand what you read.
You should read our
communication again since you are so confused. I
do not care where
and how you got your education of linguistics, but
the important thing
is that you have a problem in communicating. You
attack the person
rather than the question in hand. By doing that the
problem in hand
gets shoved aside while personalities fight. That you
should always
avoid. Additionally you are negative. To get a
positive word out
of you is difficult to say the least. Even now with
your above
statement I sense vindictiveness on your part. When you
behave the way that
you do, you create a problem for which you are the
one to blame.
Additionally, you seem to want everyone to be a copy of
yourself, that is,
having no originality and no self thinking
capability. just a
slave Mark Hubey follower.
Well forget it
Mark. For your information you will not get that kind
of personality from
this Polat Kaya. He has his own way of seeing
things. If they are
not the same as yours, too bad so sad. That is
the end of it. What
I have said then still holds today.
> You are an
engineer and you should pay more attention to logic and
> rational
thought. Is this what you
> engineering
education taught you?:
Here we go again.
Mark Hubey you are confused and hence just making
white noise. I pay
a lot of attention to logic in the things that I
have written. You
are yet to come close to it!. For your information
my engineering background
is an asset that I am bringing to
linguistics. That
kind of analytical capability is lacking with you
and with your kind.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
25 August 2003
============
"H.M.
Hubey" wrote:
>
>
> Polat,
>
> kOr does not
mean blind in other Turkic languages. It means gOr (to
> see). The word
for
> blind is soqur
(sok-kur=sight-stricken).. This meaning is mixed up
> with Trk saGIr
(deaf)
> KBal sangraw
(deaf). The word could not have meant what you claim
> 3,000 years
ago.
>
> Furthermore,
the interplay of r,z in one language is rare in Turkic
> because the
big split
> is Bolgaric
l-r vs Common Turkic sh-z. What is -r in Bolgaric should
> be -z in CT.
That means
> that kOr (to
see) and kOz (eye) should not belong to the same
> language.
There are only a handful
> of such words
in Turkic e.g. semir (to get fat) and semiz (fat),
> yUrU (walk)
and yUz (to swim).
>
> You should get
your hands on Clauson's book on Pre-Thirteenth
> Century
Turkic. You have spent
> so much time
working on these things, it surprises me that you have
> made no effort
to learn what
> other Turkic
languages are like. Instead you continuously think that
> 20th century
Turkish is what
> it was like
2,000-4,000 years ago.
>
> You know very
well that many years ago on Turkistan-N you accused me
> of being
anti-Turk because
> I criticized
what you wrote. That was circa 1999. At that time I
> suggested that
there are things you
> should do. And
yet you still have done nothing about those
> suggestions.
What about reading
> Clauson?
>
> You are an
engineer and you should pay more attention to logic and
> rational
thought. Is this what you
> engineering
education taught you?:
>
>
> --
> Mark Hubey
> hubeyh@m...
> http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey