Re: "ARACHNE STORY", Part-1. (bad linguistics) (Walt. M. Shandruk)

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

>
> --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, "W. M. Shandruk"
> <gualterus@e...> wrote:
>
> Your line of reasoning is more akin to numerology than anything
> remotely resembling linguistics.

POLAT KAYA: Actually my line of reasoning involved researching
the story of ARACHNE, understanding the character and traits of
ARACHNE, reading what has been said or written about it, and then
relating key words to Turkish. The net result was that ARACHNE
(spider) is an alteration of Turkish ÖRÜNCHEK meaning "spider". I
showed this with ample logic, explanation and evidence in my
writing. On top of that, related to the story, I brought to the
surface many other meanings that were or are associated with the
story that you never knew before. Similarly, I did the same for the
names ATHENA and MINERVA which again you did not know.


> I'm not going to spend much time
> addressing all of the erroneous lines of reasoning, but will instead
> take one example followed by a final comment.

POLAT KAYA: If you are not going to spend much time on the whole
paper as you should, then don't make noise please.

>
> Let's take your analysis of APAXNH:

POLAT KAYA: No "APAXNH" is not my analysis. That is your insertion.
Everyone should note that "APAXNH" is not the same as "ARACHNE"
at least in appearance. That makes my point valid that there is a huge
intentional confusion going on. No it's written this way but it must
be read that way and if it is lower case then we read it this way, if
it is ancient Greek, then we must read it this way ...

First of all, the Greek dictionary gives the spelling as ARAXNH" for
"spider" which has been trancribed into English as "ARACHNE". When
you present ARACHNE as APAXNH, things get to be very confused because
one has "P" vs. "R", and the "X" is transcribed as "KH" sometimes or
heavily voiced "H" other times or "CH" at other times. Take the Greek
"ETA" itself that is represented with symbols H, and an "n" like
symbol which gets to be transcribed as H, I, E, etc. Now you make up
your mind. You cannot wear this many hats at the same time. When
symbols have so many faces and differing identities, they can be very
effectively used in anagrammatizing another language such as
Turkish. Why do you think that there are so many Greek letters with
differing identities and symbols? Why would the Greeks, who are
logical people, be satisfied with alphabetic symbols that have so
many identities? Unless they have a hidden agenda behind it. In my
research, I know that there are many Greek words which are anagrams
of Turkish words and expressions. This you did not know! Or, maybe
you did, but would not want to admit it.

>
> > The name ARACHNE, when syllabalized as "ARACH-NE", is an anagram
> > of the Turkish phrase "ÖRÜCI eNE" (örücü ana) meaning "weaver
> > mother". Here, it must be noted that the Greek capital letter H
> > is also the disguised letter "I" [2]. Hence, again we are facing
> > a duality case. The letter looks like a symbol for Latin H, yet
> > when read, it is supposed to sound as "I', but when written in
> > small lettering, it is written in an "n" like symbol. Very
> > confusing to say the least.
>
> First of all, "ARACH-NE" isn't how the word is spelled in classical
> Greek (or modern for that matter), it's APAXNH. In common rendering
> in the Latin alphabet, the xi is usually transcribed
> as 'ch' - but that does not correspond to the spelling in Greek. On
> that point alone your entire analysis falls apart.

POLAT KAYA: No my analysis does not fall apart. For your information
both Greek and Latin have used ancient Turkish heavily by way of
anagrammatizing words from it. Thus the credibility of not only the
ancient Greek but also the Latin is in question. In this kind of
situation, you cannot come out and give credibility to Latin just
like that. Evidently they were both holding hands in ancient times
regarding how to utilize Turkish as the source material.

> But secondly,
> you're confusing modern with classical Greek vocalization.

POLAT KAYA: Please forget the "vocalization". This is simply another
camouflage aspect of the anagrammatization used to cover up the fact
that these languages have been made up from Turkish. This fact you
did not know before and had no idea until I raised it. As part of the
establishment, you are not only trained to think on a one-dimentional
level but you are also training others to do the same. This means you
cannot or will not tolerate another view. In that context, you are
expecting me to go on the same path with you. That is not my
intention.


> The eta
> (H) in classical Greek did not have the modern vocalization of "i"
> (as 'ee' in "street"), but a long 'e' more akin to "bet" but drawn
> out for a longer duration. Check out Allen's, "Vox Graeca:

POLAT KAYA: The term "VOX GRAECA" meaning "voice of Greek" or
"language of Greek", is actually an anagram of Turkish "AGUS GARACI"
meaning "Garaci language", that is, "the language of Greek". So "VOX"
is the anagram of Turkish "AGUZ" meaning "mouth", "speech", "voice",
"language" and "word". This is so because when we replace the bogus
letter X in VOX with KS, and we place the V in between K and S, we get
OKVS - but the V is really a U therefore we are left with OKUS which
is nothing but Turkish OGUZ or AGUZ. As you can see, even this VOX
word has been anagrammatized from Turkish. This is so well
camouflaged that only a keen eye could detect it.


> The
> Pronunciation of Classical Greek" for further explanation of this.
> So, not only are you confusing classical and modern Greek
> vocalization and trying to draw conclusions based on that, you
> aren't even aware of the Greek spelling of the terms.
>

POLAT KAYA: I have already answered your vocalization "problem"
above which is a total concoction in order to confuse that one
language the world spoke as indicated in GENESIS 11.1. Additionally,
reading a text written in Greek is a totally different matter than
anagrammatizing a Turkish text into Greek. Each concept can use
different aspects of the alphabet. Thus, one multible identity
alphabet is used for dual purposes. In that sense, of course it is a
very effective disguise tool.


> Finally, I would like to suggest for you the possibility that
> Turkish, being a newcomer to Anatolia, adopted Greek and possibly
> Anatolian (i.e. Lycian, Lydian, etc words surviving in medieval
> Greek spoken in the region) words and not the other way around.


POLAT KAYA: This is where you are wrong again. Turks are not
newcomers to Anatolia as has been fallaciously portrayed for political
reasons. The ancestors of Turks were in Anatolia far earlier than the
ancestors of the present day "Indo-Europeans" - contrary to the
falsifications of ancient history. Additionally, they have always
been there under one Turanian name or another.

As soon as the Greeks had the opportunity, that is, after the
conquests of Alexander the Great, they had a field day in changing
the ethnic color of ancient Anatolia by changing toponyms and the
language of the native Tur peoples of Anatolia. I have shown you
that anagrammatizing is so easy from Turkish into so-called Indo-
European languages that did not exist before. Thus they white washed
the whole area in one great assimilation, Hellenization, Romanization
and obliteration project.


> Instead of
> trying to drive home your nationalistically motivated arguments

POLAT KAYA: Nonsense. My analysis is not based on nationalism but
rather with seeing the truth and reporting it. A great falsification
in history and language building has taken place which I discovered
and am now reporting.


> despite the utter lack of linguistic evidence, perhaps, in the
> spirit of open-minded scholarship, you should try to investigate
> the reverse case.

POLAT KAYA: When the native peoples of Anatolia were Turkic speaking
Turanians, then there is no room for the reverse case, because the
reverse case and the front case are one and the same. The Lydians and
the Phrygians and the Troians and the Thracians and the Hurrians and
the Sumerians and the Masarians (Egyptians) and many others were all
Turkic speaking TUR peoples contrary to all the disinformation being
pumped from all directions. Those later coming Turks came to the lands
where their ancestors and many of their assimilated brethren lived.
So in no way can it be said that Turks are newcomers to the area. It
is the non-Turs that are the newcomers to the area.


> Moreover, I would recommend that you stay away from your
> Cabbalah-style "analyses" of words and employ actual linguistic
> lines of reasoning.

POLAT KAYA: For your information, "cabalism" is not my style. I have
used that term for others who have confused the languages. It is the
style of those who have colored the whole ancient history upside down
by way of "cabalism". Incidently, again for your information, even
the word "CABALA" (cabbalah) is anagrammatized form of Turkish word
"KAPALI" meaning "covered up", "secret", "behind closed doors". Think
about it very carefully before you speak. When "CABALA" (cabbalah)
was being formed in another language, Turkish was there as the model
language.

You and your kind seem to have a cliche "argument". Whenever someone
comes up with a view that is contrary to your so-called established
views, you right away go haywire and accuse them with the bogus
argument of "nationalism". This bogus accusation is designed to put
the unfairly accused person on the defensive by applying a "guilt
trip" on them. This is exactly what your game is. So
your "nationalism" accusation is out of place. Additionally, please
do not think for a moment that you are the only "HONEST" person left
on earth working for science for the sake of science and being an
open-minded scholar. Make sure that you understand that fact.


> Maybe try checking out "Historical Linguistics: An
> introduction," by Lyle Campbell
> (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262531593/). I'm sure there
> are also many good introductions to historical linguistics available
> in Turkish as well.

POLAT KAYA: I assure you that when I work, I check all the avenues
that need to be checked for my work. Therefore, save your advice for
yourself and for your students, if you have some.

>
> - Walt
>


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya