Re: From Polat Kaya... (Frank Verhoft)

--- In bcn2003-II@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear Frank,

you said:
> I don't consider making a joke -- which i thought your text was --
as ....

Surely, you as one who writes in the linguistic groups can distinguish
a "joke" and "non-joke" writing from each other. If you cannot, then,
you should not be writing at all. Trying to deny your first position
in which you made unwarranted sarcastic references to me, which
brought shame to yourself only by your own doing, indicates that you
are here to play games and play putdown remarks on others. This
loser's position that you have taken in your letters is not really a
commendable behaviour on your part. This shows that you are not
sincere in your communications.

you said:

> The laughter disappeared when realising that this "joke" turned out
> to be a cynical, nationalism infested exposé based upon fake
> linguistics (and linguistics is too big a word for this kind of
> hocus
> pocus, imho), upon an astonishing manipulation of historical data (a
> margin of 1000 years is a bit too big, imho), and anachronistic
> interprations (to equate Lydian/Phrygian with Turkish is slightly
> over the edge, no?).

You keep writing "imho" but you show no humbility in your arrogant
attitude. First of all, instead of "laughing" you should have
been "thinking" about the things that I said, although I grant you
that "thinking" is much harder than "laughing". It is unfortunate on
your part to have made such unscholarly remarks. What I have said has
nothing to do with nationalism or synicism, etc. I am only uncovering
historical deceptions, that is to say, a real "hocus pocus"
linguistics that has been perpetrated against the ancient Turkish
world and Turkish language by those who have concocted words from
Turkish and then claimed them as belonging to another language.
If what I have said is too imcomprehensible to you by
your "linguistic" knowledge, it is only due to your own limitations.
That problem is yours alone. You see my friend, what I have said is
very straight forward and transparent, unlike the "linguistics" that
you subscribe to and defend.

A series of concoctions have been done in the past and now further
concoctions are being generated in order to cover up the previous
ones. Surely this is against what you think you know as your
big "linguistics". I opened a knew horizon for you and others as well
to benefit from. How you benefit from it is your choice. You may
keep denying, but that does not deter the truth from coming forward.
If you are truly a "truth searching" linguist, you should have
dwelled on each item I presented and inspected the fact that when we
rearrange the letters of these words their exact meaning comes up in
Turkish. Why is that? You should ask the question: "Is it possible
that this should happen?" rather than going into "putdown" gyrations
as you have done.

When you make remarks as you have, it can only be due to the fact
that either you cannot understand what you are reading or you
cannot tolerate seing the facts come out so glaringly. Could it be
that the light of truth shining so brilliantly was too bright for your
eyes? If this the kind of attitude you take, so be it. Truth is
always truth and does not change in time or by time. It has its own
way of coming to the surface. It has waited some 2000 plus years and
it could have waited some more. If I did not say these things some
other person would eventually have said them and probably in a
different way whether you like it or not.

Additionally, you seem to have a short coming in the way you
understand the word "Turkish" or "Turk." Somehow, the wrong
information has been implanted in your mind that the term "Turk"
relates to "people who are newcomers into history". Such "falsehoods"
as a historical background have been falsely pegged into recent
history by those who have been manipulating history for a long time
by way of deceptions. This game is also part of a game of
manipulating the ancient history. This historical disinformation
intentionally ignores the ancientness of the Turkish world. When you
have that kind of incomplete knowledge about Turks and and their
ancient world, of course you cannot make the connection. It becomes
so hard for you to make up the missing 1000 years. I suggest you open
up your horizon a bit more, then you may see things that surpasses
what you have been satisfied with so far.

I appreciate the fact that it is hard for you to get rid of your well
built preconditioned false views about past history. But belive me
no matter how much "put down" language you may use, what I have
said will not go away. Truth has a way of coming to the forefront
no matter how much coverup has been done in the past or is done
in the present and for how long. Contrary to all the disinformation
that has been fed to the public regarding the past history, the
Lydians and the Phrygians were Turkic speaking Tur peoples as
the "Arachne" story and the "Gordium" story indicate them to be. Just
because what I say is contrary to what you know does not make me
wrong. I am giving you an n-dimentional view of things in the past
where you have been satisfied only with one-dimension. I gave you so
many clear cut explanations which do not seem to interest you. Why
don't you dwell on them? In my study, I was comparing what is said to
be a Greek name with its "Turkish" counterparts. And I bring the
result to daylight. What is wrong with that? If I were comparing the
so-called Greek words with another language other than Turkish, I
would have used the name of that language. Most likely you would not
be bothered. However, when the name is "Turkish" you somehow jump up
and down and cry "foul". Why is that and why are you bothered about
it? Why don't you dwell on the subject matter?

By the way in another letter of yours, you made the comment to me
saying that: "you know how to entertain people..."

Dear Frank. You are confused. Let us get things straight. I am sure
that I am educating you and your kind; I am trying to take you out of
your one-dimensional thinking world. That is not "entertaining!"
Put that in your mind and never forget it.

Additionally, you are showing the same narrow mindedness to David who
is very humble and scholarly in his responses to many questions put to
him. By such behaviour you are unwarrantedly trying to intimidate him
and indirectly everyone else and hence trying to prevent the truth
from coming out. That should not be your function in life.

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya



Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> --- In historicallinguistics@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Verhoft"
> <fa478077@s...> wrote:

> Dear Polat Kaya, Dear Forwarder, Dear all
>
> <<<But belive me I am not pulling anyone's leg. I assure you I am
not the kind of person who would do that. In this forum I respect all
of you. I would do no such disrespectful behaviour to anyone.<<<
>
> I don't consider making a joke -- which i thought your text was --
as disrepectful: humour is a great medicine in these cynical times.
But i must say that my astonishment grew after having followed the
threads to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bcn2003-II (to which a lot
of mails seem to be forwarded) and to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historical_linguistics (where a
parallel discussion is going on). The laughter disappeared when
realising that this "joke" turned out to be a cynical, nationalism
infested exposé based upon fake linguistics (and linguistics is too
big a word for this kind of hocus pocus, imho), upon an astonishing
manipulation of historical data (a margin of 1000 years is a bit too
big, imho), and anachronistic interprations (to equate
Lydian/Phrygian with Turkish is slightly over the edge, no?).
>
I don't see a reason to repeat all the fundamental and much too
obvious counterarguments given by Mr Shandruk in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historical_linguistics/message/179 (and
in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bcn2003-II/message/154), and i won't
add my own objections until those raised by Mr Shandruk's are dealt
with...
>
> Nevertheless, best regards,
>
> Frank