Re: Probability continued from last post (Dave.)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
Polat Kaya <tntr@C...>
I agree with your probability analysis. This probability aspect of
word formation does not seem to be well understood by many linguists.
Particularly, when I point out words that I claim to have been
anagrammatized from Turkish, most become skeptical. I can understand
their opposition to my views, because of the fact that most of them
have been innocent viktims of a system that has been less than candid
to them. They have not been told the whole truth about word formations
in Indo-European and Semitic languages. Of course the method I present
in analysing the roots of words is unusual and alien to present
linguistics. Linguists seem to be looking for "visual" similarity in
structure of the words and similar meaning. When they see no visual
connection, then they skip to the next comparison. Yet, what one may
see as Indo-European and Semitic words may not necessarily represent
their true origin.
In comparing words, the concept that they represent in different
languages, the word structure in terms of consonants and the
interconnecting vowels, and the definition of their meanings are
extremely important. This I have been saying and demonstrating all
along in my analysis of many words.
The probability that two words, having the same meaning and being from
two independently developed languages, that they will be formulated
with the same consonants although in different order is almost nill.
Take the example of the English word "history" versus Turkish word
"tarih" meaning the same. The word "tarih" is said to be Arabic.
Assuming that this word was indeed "Arabic" in origin, which I do not
believe, its presence in Turkish language would be regarded as
"borrowing" a word from one language into other. But when I find
"tarih" in the English term "history" in a distorted format, then the
matter is different.
If English and Turkish were two independently developed languages,
these two words should not have any physical connection with each
other. Yet, when the word "history" is rearranged as "torihsy", and y
= u, one finds Turkish "tarih" being present in "history" although in
slightly different appearnce of "torih". This should not happen
unless there has been some intentional interference. In fact the
rearranged form "torihsy" of "history' is an anagram of Turkish word
"tarihcu" meaning "historian". Similarly, the word "historical", when
decrypted word-by-word as "torihsilac", we get the Turkish word
"tarihcilik" meaning "the field of hystory". The suffix "-cal"
appearing at the end of the word is nothing but the anagrammatized
form of Turkish suffix -lik", "-lIk", "-luk" or "-lük".
If such correspondences were found between say up to ten English and
Turkish words or expressions, one might say that these are due to
"coincidences", although even ten words are quite alot. However, when
we find the same situation between more than thousand words in English
and Turkish words or expressions, then things are not due to
coincidence, but rather intentional communication. Only then such a
correspondences can happen. It must be noted that encrypted Turkish
source text is not lost in the process of encryption, but rather gets
to be disguised.
>From the probability point of view, it is totally unlikely that
between independent languages this kind of correspondences should
happen at all. As you put it, this is like having "Joe" and "John"
who are likely to visit "Adam" once a year visiting him on the same
day of the year at the same time. This event has very low probability
of occuring. If it does it is muat be due to 'coincidence". Actually,
if Joe and John were represented with the letters appearing in a word,
then it is as if Adam's friends A, B, C, D, E and more to visit him
at the same time of the same day of the same year. This would have
much less probability of occuring. Thus such events would be the
result of "secretly arranged communication". Of course under such
situations, probabilities and chances are out of the picture.
In my study, I have found many words belonging to English, Greek,
Latin and Semitic languages that are broken up rearrangements of
Turkish words or expressions. This is "anagrammatizing" Turkish into
other languages. In the process, not only the source Turkish text but
also the concepts that they represent in Turkish become part of the
manufactured Indo-European and Semitic languages. With additional
propaganda and misinformation, the new languages gain prominence while
the source language Turkish either stays the same or loses ground to
the newly manufactured languages.
I presented this view of mine in one of my recent response
communication in the email@example.com identified as
> Subject: Re: [bcn_2003] Digest Number 210
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:22:27 +0100
> From: Polat Kaya <tntr@c...>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> References: 1
Above I used the word "skeptics'. The Greek term for "skeptic" is
given as "skeptikistis". Evidently English got "skeptic" from Greek.
Now let us examine the Greek word "skeptikistis" which is itself a
suspect word. When the word is decrypted letter-by-letter, we get the
form "kiski etipsis" which is a form of the Turkish phrase "KUShKU
ETIPSIS" meaning "you have made doubt" or "you have doubted".
Similarly, the English word "skeptic", decrypted as "ksc etip", with C
= K, would be from Turkish "KuSKu-ETIP" meaning "he doubted". The
meaning of the term "skeptic" is exactly this Turkish definition.
Again, we can see that this "correspondence" cannot be due to
Of course the skeptics do not even think that such an activity could
have taken place. Yet to my own surprise I find that that is exactly
what has been done. They have manufactured the "Greek", Latin and
other IE languages from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing whether one
likes it or not.
Best wishes to all,
October 21, 2003
Kamil KARTAL wrote:
> From: "David L" <djleonar@s...>
> Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:47 pm
> Subject: Probability continued from last post
> Different kinds of probability:
> Suppose John will come to my home one day in the year of 365 days.
> And Joe will come to my home one day in the same year. Suppose they
> have no obligations or constraints, so they may come at any day.
> there is less that one percent chance they will come the same day.
> So it is not at all probable. Suppose they come the same day. That
> would be by chance. But suppose we learn that Joe and John had
> communicated about comming to my home. Then I must suspect that
> their concurrent arival may not have been by chance. The key factor
> in this kind of probability is communication.
> Suppose I find a representation of the 'Mona Lisa' famous painting.
> Then suppose I find a portrait that seems to also be a
> of Mona Lisa with the same pose and the same background. One would
> conclude that those two must be representations of the same
> portrait. There are so many corresponding details that these could
> not be by chance.
> In historical linguistics we have two kinds of correspondences, one
> component in forms and the other component in meanings which
> communication. Communication is involved in language contact,
> language mixing, and borrowing at various levels of the linguistic
> structures depending on the intensity of contact. Also if
> correspondences are exact in meaning, there is a suggestion of
> communication there as well. Also forms correspond, and the
> individual identifying method is used to tell if they could not be
> chance. But, and this is very important, it is not the individual
> identifying method alone, but the fact of a kind of communication
> from form to form and language to language, that provides a concrete
> basis for determining provable results with the individual
> identifying method. That is the beauty of it, we do not simply have
> forms about which to apply the individual identifying method to see
> if two languages are related, we also have corresponding meaning in
> these forms, an aditional level of assurance which establishes the
> individual identifying method as a matter of deductive logic, not as
> an indeterminate possibility or probability.