Re: language relatedness (Dave.)

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

Dear Dave and friends,

Greetings. I read your below given letter regarding language
relatedness. From my past writings, you probably know my view
regarding the relatedness between existing some of the languages,
particularly Turkish and the Indo-European and Semitic languages:
Once more, it is my view that Indo-European and Semitic languages are
manufactured languages from the much older language of Turkish. The
religiously motivated peoples who thought of confusing an existing
language that was spoken by a large ancient population of the world
also thought of ways of achieving that confusion. That was by way of
anagrammatizing the already working language. Anagrammatizing is the
easiest way of generating new languages from a source language. These
priest-planners were evidently very skilful linguists who also had
political motives driving their ambitions. They had no specific
language of their own initially, but rather spoke a dialect of
Turkish. They took Turkish words and expressions defining a given
concept and anagrammatized them to come up with words that had an
encrypted form of the original Turkish text. Although the source
Turkic text was confused by way of encryption in the new format, the
original text was not lost in the process and was still embedded in
the new word. However intensive effort was made to comouflage the
source text so that its Turkicness could not be easily recognized.

In the process, the newly created and religion driven languages would
give the impression that they are genetically related as in the case
of "Indo-European" languages or the "Semitic" languages.

It must be noted that a given concept can be expressed in various ways
in Turkish with very similar expressions. They can be anagrammatized
in slightly different ways thus giving birth to very similar looking
and meaning words. That would create "relatedness" in languages.
Although this would require a coordinated effort among the
anagrammatizers, that would not have been a real problem in a
religiously driven environment since the collaborators would have the
same ambitions of creating new religions and languages to present them
while destroying the existing ancient Turanian system.

In my view, the religion and its language are very closely related.
The ancient Turanian Sky-God religion and its supporting Turkish
language had much in common with each other. That is why Turkish OGUZ,
the name of the ancient Sky-God, and AGUZ, the "mouth" and "the
language", are almost the same word in Turkish. Similarly the Turkish
word TUR which is another name of Turanian creator Sky-God and the
Turkish word "TÜRKÇE" meaning "Turkish" are very closely related to
each other. In Turkish, "tur" meaning "it is" appears as a Turkish
language suffix in describing all words and concepts. For example:
expressions like "ATATUR" and "APATUR" both meaning "it is father",
"ANATUR" meaning "it is mother", "NANATUR (NENETUR) meaning "it is
grandmother", "DEDETUR" meaning "it is grandfather", etc. illustrate
its use clearly. The religion and the Turkish language together
seems to have constituted a circle in which one fed the other.
Religion has to do with man's thinking capability that generates
thoughts about his god and all other things in his environment, and
language is the means that gives life to those thoughts.

Worshipping the SUN which is the all-creating and the most dominant
object of the sky, the MOON with its mysterious and equally large
appearance in the sky, the stars and above them all their universal
creator ONE-Father-Sky-God (BIR-O, BIR-ATA) were the main theme of the
earliest religion of Turanian peoples. When the proponents of the new
religions using already established concepts of the old Turanian
religion formulated their new ways, they had to invent new languages
to go along with their new religions. So they invented not only one
but a whole set of them from the one language that was being spoken at
that time. Thus, the simple concept of "anagrammatizing" came very
handy. It was used earlier in generating so-called "Akkadian" language
from "Sumerian", by another name "Turkish". The ancient Greek was also
done in the same way. There are many linguistic evidences that the
so-called "Sumerian" and Turkish were one and the same.

Peter Green, in his book writes: [1] "Historians like Herodotus and
Thucydides vaguely knew that there had been a time when Greeks spoke a
different language." Although, this statement does not identify the
old language that the ancient Greeks spoke, it again gives an
indication that ancient Greeks did not speak what they are speaking
now or even some 2500 years ago. But the presence of so many Turkish
words in the structure of the Greek words indicate that the previous
language that ancient Greeks spoke was "Turkish".

To illustrate my point, I give you few examples to consider.

For example, the Greek word "eu" means, "good", "well". The
corresponding word in Turkish is "eyu" (eyü/iyi) meaning "good",
"well", "well done".

Now one does not have to be a linguistic talent to see that the Greek
"eu" is the same as Turkish "eyu" both having the same meaning. All
one needs to do is to drop the connecting soft consonant "y" or
soft G in the Turkish word to get the Greek "eu". Actually when the
word "eu" is vocalized one hears the Turkish word "eyu/iyu". It is
curious that the Latin word "eu" also meant "well" and "well done".

Let us take the Greek word "EUKOLAIA" meaning "facility, ease,
convenience". This Greek word is a composite word. When we look at
it as "EU-KOLAI-A" and read it as in Turkish, it is seen that this
Greek word is nothing but the Turkish phrase "EYU KOLAY O" meaning
"good, it is easy, it is convenient, it is with ease". Turkish word
"kolay" means "easy" and "easy way or means to do something".

Let us take the Greek word "EUKAIRIA" meaning "opportunity, chance,
occasion". The source of "eukairia" in Turkish would be "EU
KAYIRI O" (eyu kayirir o, iyi yapar o, isini iyi bilir) meaning "he is
doing well, he has used the chance well, he has used the occasion
well". The so-called Greek word "KAIRIA" is from Turkish verb
"kayirmak" meaning "to do" and "to look after its own interests".

Let us take the Greek word "EUKARPOS" meaning "fruitful, fertile".
This word is again a composite word made of two Turkish words: It is
Turkish expression "EYU KARPOS" (Iyi karpuz) meaning "good
watermelon". Indeed "good watermelon" is not only a "good fruit" but
also is very fertile one as well. Afterall, for one seed of
watermelon one gets hundreds of new ones from one "karpuz".

Take the Greek word "EUKRINWS" meaning "clear, distinct, lucid". The
Greek letter w is a multi identity letter. It stands not only for U +
U but also any combination of U, V and Y. Thus "EUKRINWS" is
actually, "EUKRINUUS". When we separate it into "EU + KRINUUS", it
can readily be seen that it is the anagram of Turkish expression "EYU
KURINUSh" (Iyi görünüsh) meaning "good visibility, good seeing,
distinct seeing". In this anagram, Turkish "sh" has been changed to
Greek "S" as part of the disguising.

From all this it can readily be seen that by just sticking two or more
Turkic words to each other, one works wonders in making new
words and in camouflaging the source text. The process generates a
new words that do not resemble the original source text. This is the
simplest way of anagrammatizing the Turkish language. That is to say,
just paste two or more Turkish words together, then one instantly has
words for a new language. Particularly if one does some additional
polishing, the new word will not be recognized as Turkish. In
confusing the one ancient language spoken by all peoples, the ancient
Greeks and Semitics removed all the spacing needed to indicate the
beginning and the end of words in a sentence, thus creating very
confused written texts.

Let us take the English word "neologism" meaning "to coin new words,
new word, coinage of words, synthetic word, new phrase". Supposedly,
it is from Greek word "NEOLOGISMOS" meaning the same. Again this Greek
word NEOLOGISMOS is a composite word and when rearranged as
"NEOOLGOISM + S" or "NEO + OLGO + ISM +S" it is an anagram of Turkish
expression "YENU OLGU ISiM" meaning "new formed name" or "YENU OLGU
ISIMIZ" (yeni olgu isimiz, yeni verilmis adiz) meaning "we are new
formed name".

The word NEO meaning "new" is from Turkish "YENU" meaning "new" where
the Turkish Y has been dropped and the remaning part is rearranged.
Similarly the English word NEW => "NEUU", and U = Y, it is the anagram
of Turkish "YENU".

The part "OLOG is the Turkish word "OLGO" (OLGU) meaning
"formation"; and

The part "ISM" is actually an anagram of Turkism word "ISiM" meaning
"name". From all this we see that the Turkish expression "YENU OLGU
ISIM" meaning "new formed name" or "new formed word" is the source for
the English word "NEOLOGISM" and also for the Greek word NEOLOGISMOS.
Giving a Greek or any other source as the etymology of these words
would be either not knowing the real make up of the word or an
intentional misleading.

These examples from Greek and English, as I have done in my past
writing, can be expanded into hundreds. Any other Indo-European
language using such Greek words will surely be appearing as "related"
to each other. But the linguist who is unaware of the fact that these
Greek words have been made from Turkish will never mention the name of
"Turkish". This is what the modern "linguistic" is doing.

Such word formations do not take place by natural evolution but rather
by man made interference, i.e., by way of anagrammatizing.

I would also like to bring to your and the readers' attention some
very interesting terminologies used by a linguist named Ghil'ad
Zuckermann. They are descriptive terms such as: "comouflaged
borrowing", "folk-etymological nativization", "neologism", "language
engineering", etc.. For example he writes: "Folk-Etymological
nativization is an ideal means of lexical enrichment because it
conceals foreign influence from future native speakers, . . . . ". As
it can be seen all these terminologies are very laundered and cleaned
up phrases for "anagrammatizing" and "usurpation" of words and phrases
from another source language.

I hope this brings some clarity to the "relatedness" problem that you
are hoping to find some solution to.


[1] Peter Green, "A Concise History of Ancient Greece to the
close of the Classical Era", Thames and Hudson, 1981, p. 45.

[2] George C. Divry (General editor), "English-Greek" and
"Greek-English Desk Dictionary", D. C. Divry, Inc., Publishers,
New York 1988.

Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya

October 07, 2003


Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> ----- Özgün Ýleti -----
> Kimden: David L
> Kime: historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com
> Gönderme tarihi: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:56 PM
> Konu: [htr_ling] language relatedness
>
> I just posted a few messages on the other hl group on my views in
> trying to resolve issues of language relatedness.
>
> I think Trask does not understand that Ruhlen is finding evidence of
> language relatedness, which is wider in scope than genetic language
> relatedness. Thomason discusses language contact induced change,
> effectively showing that relatedness is not necessarily due to
> genetic relations. And Dixon explains the difficulty of
> reconstructing protolanguages given the fact that languages
> generally
> are influenced by contact, which can result in mixing. Mixing is
> opposed to genetic relatedness. Nichols' individual identifying
> method can be used to show that Ruhlen's evidence is genuine, if
> here
> method would be used to establish relatedness, over the restrictive
> genetic relatedness. Then I have pointed out that language spread
> is
> caused by language contact and language spread should be grouped
> with
> language mixing, contact, and borrowing, but the evidence for
> language spread looks like genetic relatedness. I explain that
> further on the other hl group. So Ruhlen is finding evidence of
> relatedness, but weather the relatedness is due to remote genetic
> relatedness or language spread, will be left to those who pose
> theories in this historical area.
>
> Dave