Re: [bcn2004] Fwd: Re: About the word "NOSTRATIC".

To David L.,

Thank you for your interest in my work. You said:

> I wish you would help me to understand your work.

Polat Kaya: I also wish that you could understand my work. Believe me
I am not holding back anything from you or from any other reader. I
am very clear and thorough in my writings so that they are not vague.
My concept is new and contrary to modern linguistics. The difficulty
is that modern linguistics has been teaching people incorrect things.
The source of the "knowledge" of linguistics has witheld from the
public some very essential "facts" regarding the makeup of the
Indo-European and Semitic languages. Hence the students of
linguistics have been misdirected.

You said:

> I would think that you can show correspondences between Turkish and
> Greek. And I would think that you can show correspondences between
> Turkish and Arabic."

Polat Kaya: To your suggestion, I say, yes, I have shown
correspondences between Turkish and Greek and also Turkish and Arabic.
From my point of view, this can be shown because there has been
anagrammatizing from Turkish into Greek and Arabic. I would like to
ask you what is your justification for thinking that it can be shown?
Why do you think that correspondences between Turkish and Greek and
also Turkish and Arabic, as I have shown before, should happen? I hope
you explain your point of view on this.

In your second letter, you said:

>
> Some correspondences are between Turkish and Greek and some
> correspondences are between Turkish and Arabic. This would suggest
> language mixing, rather that genetic relatedness to Turkish.
>
> I want to learn more because I find you correspondences facinating.
> I would like to have a book of these correspondences.
>

Polat Kaya: You suggest "language mixing". What do you exactly mean by
"language mixing"? Finding correspondences between Turkish and Greek,
and Turkish and Arabic words where the Greek and Arabic words have
been anagrammatized from Turkish cannot be regarded as "language
mixing". "Language mixing" to me means that words from varying
languages are imported into each other and the imported words are
mostly retained in their original format. For example, take the words
"radyo" and "televiziyon" in Turkish. These are imported or loan
words from another language but they have mostly retained their
original identity. This is "mixing". But this is a totally different
concept from the case where Turkish words and/or phrases are taken and
then anagrammatized (i.e., vowels and consonants are altered where
necessary, letters and/or syllables are juggled, and the whole thing
is restructured and packaged up in a new form so that it is not
recognizable anymore). Examples of these I will give below. In such a
case any correspondences being shown is only through decipherment of
the anagrammatized words in Greek and Arabic and in other
Indo-European languages back to its original form in Turkish. Thus,
you see that the "mixing" that you seem to be suggesting and the
"mixing" that takes place in anagrammatizing are two different
concepts.

Additionally, I did not suggest in any way that a "genetic"
relationship between Turkish and Greek or between Turkish and Arabic
would exist if they were all independently developed languages.
However, that is not the case. When Turkish is the source for the
anagrammatized words of both Greek and Arabic, then surely there is a
"ONE FATHER" language relationship to consider. Some call this "PROTO"
language but I call "BIRATA" language.

For example, a genetic relationship appears to exist among the
so-called Indo-European languages. This is so because the source text
used for the makeup of the resembling Indo-European words is from the
same or similar expressions in Turkish. Take the English word 'SPREAD'
and the Italian words 'SEPERE', 'SPANDERE', 'SPARGERE'. They look
genetically related. I say this apperance is due to the reason that
the source for these words are Turkish "SERPER" from Turkish verb
"serpmek" and "SEPEN" from Turkish verb "sepmek" (saçmak) meaning "it
spreads, scatters, disseminates, distributes, disburses, casts out".
The resulting Indo-European words appear related and also different
among each other. But one can always inflict a dissimilarity among
manufactured words making them appear as if they were related
genetically, at the same time giving the impression that they were
developed differently in different geographies. In manufacturing,
things can be made to look similar but also dissimilar at the same
time.

You said:

>
> I also do not fully understand the anagramatizing process, did all
> forms go though this process? Do some forms compare in a regular
> fashion?


Polat Kaya: The English term ANAGRAMMATIZE is given in Greek as
"ANAGRAMMATIZW". With letter W=UU, this Greek word becomes
"ANAGRAMMATIZUU". When this word is decrypted letter-by-letter as
"ANA GIRMA U TUZMA", it becomes clear that it is an anagram of Turkish
expression "ANU GIRMA U TUZMA" (that is, "ONU KIRMA VE DÜZME", dikkat:
"U" eskiden beri Türkçede kullanilan "VE" anlaminda olan Türkçe
sözdür, U=V, "Layla-U-Mecnun" adinda oldugu gibi; o Sümer dilinde de ayni
anlamda "VE" olarak kullaniliyordu) meaning "breaking and
restructuring it" or "breaking and rearranging it in a string"

That is exactly what the process of "anagrammating" is all about and
this what I have said in most of my writings.

Even the English word "ANAGRAMMATIZE", when decrypted letter-by-letter
as "ANA GARMA TIZME", is an anagram of Turkish expression "ONU KIRMA
DIZME" meaning "breaking and restructuring it" or "breaking and
rearranging it in a string or in series." Thus it is crystal clear
that both the Greek and English linguists have used Turkish
expressions to artificially make words for their manufactured
languages.

Thus, anagrammatizing, in the case of language making from an existing
language, is a process of breaking words or phrases in that language
into subunits and then rearranging them into a new format that can be
used as a word for another language. In the process, the newly
structured word would retain a close meaning of the word or the phrase
taken from the model father language.

With respect to your question, it can be said that most of the words
went through an anagrammatizing process, while a very small percentage
was adopted without being changed. Anagrammatizing makes the original
language unrecognizable. As can be seen, it is stealing words from
another language.

In deciphering the Indo-European and Semitic words back to Turkish,
each word can be likened to broken pottery found in an excavation of
an ancient site. One can put the broken pieces together and come up
with a shape that show what the original pottery looked like. However
restructured pottery is not exactly the same as the original one. The
recovery from the broken pieces may not be 100%. Similarly the
recovered Turkish words and/or phrases from anagrammatized words
cannot be 100% accurate. Only the anagrammatizer knew what he/she
used as the source for the words that he/she manufactured.

Here I will give you another example so that you can draw your own
conclusion. Let us take the Italian word MONDO meaning "world, the
universe, mankind" from Latin word MUNDA an/or MUNDUS meaning "world".
Supposedly, its derivatives are: "MONDIALE" meaning "worldly,
pertaining to the world"; "MONDANAMENTE" meaning "worldly" and
"MONDANO" meaning "worldly". And even the French word MOND meaning "world".

We also have the Turkish word and also Arabic "DÜNYA" meaning: "1.
World, earth. 2. This life. 3. Everyone, people. [1]

Words MUNDA, MONDO, and MOND all meaning "world", when decyphered as
"DUNAM", "DONOM" and "DONM" respectively and read phonetically as in
Turkish, are anagrams of Turkish expression "DUNYAM" (Dünyam) meaning
"my world". Thus the correspondence is there, although they are not
in the same format.

Similarly the Italian "MONDIALE", when deciphered letter-by-letter as
"DONIALEM", is an anagram of Turkish expression "DUNYALIM" meaning
"that who is from my world (earth)", that is, "of my world, from my
world".

Italian MONDANAMENTE, when deciphered letter-by-letter as "MENEM
DONATAN", is an anagram of two very similar Turkish expressions: a)
"MENEM DUNYATAN" meaning "I am from world (earth)"; b) "MENIM
DUNYATAN" (Benim dünyadan) meaning "that which is from my world". As
can be seen, these Turkish expressions have total correspondences with
the meaning of MONDANAMENTE.

Italian MONDANO meaning "worldly", when deciphered letter-by-letter
as "DONAMON", is an anagram of Turkish expression DUNYAMUN" (dünyamun)
meaning "of my world" which again corresponds to the meaning of
"worldly". It must be understood that all these anagrammatized words
have been taken from the native Turkish as spoken by the native
Anatolian farmers/peasants antedating all other so-called
Indo-Europeans that arrived there much later.

It should be noted that, although Latin based words such as MUNDA,
MUNDUS, MONDO, MOND are anagrams of Turkish word "DÜNYA", which is
also the same in Arabic, the much larger Italian words are totally
made up from Turkish expressions that use the root word "DÜNYA" plus
the other needed Turkish suffixes to make the expression. Thus in
larger Italian and also Latin words, it is the Turkish root words and
suffixes that are involved, not the Arabic language. Additionally,
while the word "dünya" is same in both Turkish and Arabic, it is
restructured totally differently in Italian and Latin. The same
process happens in the Greek language. They break, restructure and
camouflage the Turkish words / phrases in a different format and then
claim the new word as their own.

There is an English word in the form of PLAGIARISM meaning piracy,
lifting, usurpation, literary theft, etc. The word PLAGIARISM, when
decrypted as "PIL AGRA ISM", is an anagram of Turkish expression "BIL
OGRU ISMI" meaning "knowledge theft is its name" or "its name is thief
of knowledge" which describes and defines the word PLAGIARISM
completely.

Thus it is obvious that all of these correspondences cannot be due to
coincidence, but rather intentional manipulation of Turkish words and
phrases (i.e., usurpation).

You said:

>
> My general impression is that the phonology of Turkic languages is
> probably older than the phonology of Modern Semitic languages.
>

Polat Kaya: Yes, there is no question in my mind that the Turkish
language is older than not only the Modern Semitic languages but also
the Ancient Semitic languages, and Greek, and Latin and all the other
so-called Indo-European languages - and even more. For example you
used the term PHONOLOGY above. Let us look at this word. PHONOLOGY is
regarded as being made of two words: "PHONO- + -LOGY" both of which
are supposed to be Greek in origin and this misrepresentation is
carried on at all levels. Let me explain:

PHONO (or PHON) "[Greek "phone"]. A combining form meaning sound,
voice, speach, tone as in "phonegraph"." [2]

The words "PHON" or "PHONO" or "PHONE", when deciphered as "OPHN",
"OPHON" and "OPHEN" respectively, are s of Turkish word "UFUN" (ÜFÜN)
or "ÜFÜN O" (nefes o, üfleme o, "üflemek" fiilinden) meaning "it is
your breath" referring to a person's "inhalation and exhalation". It
must be noted that to generate human voice, word, speach, utterance,
singing, etc. the air stored in the lungs are blown through the "vocal
chords" in the throat. Hence, the "breath" (air) is the driving force
and the generating agent of any human voice in any form. Thus Turkish
"UFUN" or "UFUN O", i.e., if we use the Greek way of writing it with
"PH" used in place of Turkish letter "F", then we have "UPHUN O"
becoming "OPHON O" or simply "PHONO". Thus it is seen that the term
"PHONO" or "PHON" is neither Greek nor Indo-European in origin, but
rather Turkish in origin.

Now let us examine the suffix "LOGY" which is also claimed to be Greek
in origin.

-LOGY {French or Latin or Greek; from French "-logie", from Greek or
Latin "-logia", from Greek "-logia", from Greek "logos" meaning "word,
discourse, "legein" to speak.] A combining form denoting: a) speaking
or saying, as in eulogy. b) a doctrine, theory, or science, as in
biology." [3]

Yet the term LOGY, with Y= U or I, and when rearranged as:

a) "OLGY", is an anagram of Turkish word "OLGU" meaning "being, formation";

b) "OGYL", is an anagram of Turkish word "OGUL" OKUL) meaning "school,
learning"; and,

c) "OGYL", is an anagram of Turkish word "AGIL" (AKIL) meaning
"wisdom, knowledge" which refers to studies of science and learning.

d) "OGLY", is an anagram of Turkish word "AGLU" (AKLI) meaning
"his/her/its wisdom".

Thus it is seen that what is being defined by the word LOGY for the
so-called Indo-European languages are already embedded in these
Turkish words. Only difference is that, by way of anagrammatizing,
the English combined all of these meaanings expressed by these Turkish
words into one single suffix-like word called -LOGY and conveniently
attributed its source to Greek. When one combines all of these
similar Turkish words into a word like LOGY, that is "anagrammatizing".

Hence, as you can see from this discourse, the "PHONO-" + "-LOGY"
giving "PHONOLOGY" is not Greek in origin but rather Turkish. This is
usurpation from Turkish and then a continuous misrepresentation. This
is another example that the Indo-European languages have been
manufactured from Turkish. This, of course, makes Turkish the ancient
model language and hence "BIRATA" (so-called "PROTO) language for
others.

With respect to your question: "I would like to have a book of these
correspondences", I say, there will be one for distribution in the
future. I am afraid we will vait a bit longer.

Before I end my response to you, I want to bring the following to your
attention. As you can see, I have spent a lot of time and effort to
respond to your short queries. This is because of the fact that I
respect my readers. In spite of this:

1) I notice that when you are responding to my papers, you do not
refer to my name, as I do refer to your name at the top of my letter.
You seem to be talking to a wall or into mid air. Somehow you have
difficulty in mentioning my name. Why is that Dave? I believe that a
certain amount of courtesy must be shown in your writings before you
expect responses to your queries. Courtesy makes any communication a
pleasant experience.

2) I noticed that, in your reply to my paper entitled "AN INSIGHT
ABOUT THE WORD "NOSTRATIC"", which contains my original paper as an
attachment, there has been an alteration to my expression "ADIN
TÜRKÇE" which was the decipherment of the name "NOSTRATIC". To my
amazement, I now find that the expression "ADIN TÜRKÇE" has been
altered to an unrecognizable "ADIN TܧKDž" where the original "R" has
been replaced with "§" and the final "E" is missing. Thus my original
expression has been garbled at four locations so that it is not
intelligible anymore. Yet in my original paper as placed into
historical_linguistics, it appears as it should. Is this an
intentional alteration? How could this have happened? I would
appreciate it if you could explain this anomaly.

REFERENCES:

[1] Redhouse Turkish- English Dictionary, 1987, p. 318.
[2] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 747.
[3] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 590.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

05/06/2004

======================

Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, "David L"
> <djleonar@s...> wrote:
> What I meant to ask is can you show instances where a form in Turkish
> has corresponding forms in both Greek and Arabic?
>
> Some correspondences are between Turkish and Greek and some
> correspondences are between Turkish and Arabic. This would suggest
> language mixing, rather that genetic relatedness to Turkish.
>
> I want to learn more because I find you correspondences facinating.
> I would like to have a book of these correspondences.
>
> I would like to see a table headed up as follows:
> Turkish, Greek, Arabic.
> and followed by forms which resemble each other in all three
> categories.
>
> Dave
>
> --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, "David L"
> <djleonar@s...> wrote:
> > I wish you would help me to understand your work.
> > I would think that you can show correspondences between Turkish and
> > Greek. And I would think that you can show correspondences between
> > Turkish and Arabic. But can you show instances where the same form
> > in Turkish is found in both Greek and Arabic? That would be a good
> > starting point. If Turkish is the source then there should be some
> > such forms which have not been lost.
> >
> > I also do not fully understand the anagramatizing process, did all
> > forms go though this process? Do some forms compare in a regular
> > fashion?
> >
> > My general impression is that the phonology of Turkic languages is
> > probably older than the phonology of Modern Semitic languages.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
> <tntr@C...>
> > wrote:
> > > AN INSIGHT ABAOUT THE WORD "NOSTRATIC"
> > >
> > > By
> > >
> > > POLAT KAYA
> > >
> > >
> > > The name N0STRATIC has been proposed and circulated as the name
> of
> > an
> > > ancient language from which all languages are claimed to have been
> > > derived. The name N0STRATIC, however, turns out to be an
> > > anagrammatized Turkish expression which will be explained below.
> > > GENESIS 11 states that the world spoke one language which was
> > confused
> > > in BABYLON. In the GENESIS story, the identity of that one
> language
> > > that the world spoke is omitted. Our research into existing
> > > Indo-European and Semitic languages has revealed that this ancient
> > > language was Turkish as spoken then. I have shown in many writings
> > > with many examples that the so-called Indo-European and Semitic
> > > languages were manufactured from Turkish words and phrases by way
> of
> > > anagrams and encryption indicating that that "one language which
> the
> > > world spoke" was Turkish. Great effort has been expended on the
> > part
> > > of the European and Semitic language manufacturers to hide this
> > fact.
> > > This new term NOSTRATIC is another attempt to bury the Turkic
> > identity
> > > of that ancient one language the world spoke.
> > >
> > > I had discussed the name NOSTRATIC in one of my earlier writings
> but
> > > as further insight into this name, I offer the following:
> > >
> > > The name NOSTRATIC, when decrypted letter-by-letter as "ATIN
> TORCS",
> > > is an anagram of Turkish expression "ATIN TܧKSE" (ADIN TܧKDž)
> > > meaning "your name is Turkish". In this anagram, the Turkish
> letter
> > > "Ç|#34; has been converted into letter "S" which is a common
> > deception
> > > used in European languages starting from Greek, Latin and others.
> > This
> > > correspondence between "NOSTRATIC" as a name for an ancient
> language
> > > and the Turkish phrase "ADIN TܧKDž" pointing to Turkish as that
> > > ancient language is not due to coincidence. It is evident that
> this
> > > term NOSTRATIC was generated using this Turkish expression as
> source
> > > text. The decryption "ADIN TܧKDž" identifies the true identity
> of
> > > the language this secretive word represents and further proves
> that
> > > the identity of that one ancient language was TURKISH. Contrary
> to
> > all
> > > the linguistic confusion being discussed back and forth, it is
> clear
> > > that the "one language that world spoke" at the time of writing
> the
> > > GENESIS was Turkish and that the Indo-European and Semitic
> languages
> > > were derived from it. Instead of admitting that there was a
> Turkish
> > > Era in ancient world and the world language was TURKISH, linguists
> > > have started another wild-goose chase with this "NOSTRATIC" game
> > which
> > > adds to the deception that has already been inflicted by the
> > kabbals.
> > > It is a game that plays on Turkish words and phrases.
> > >
> > > For Europeans who have been so intimately involved in
> > anagrammatizing
> > > Turkish words and phrases to generate words for their artificially
> > > manufactured languages, it should constitute no problem to add
> > another
> > > one to the list (i.e., NOSTRATIC that is an anagram of Turkish
> > phrase
> > > "ADIN TܧKDž" meaning "YOUR NAME IS TURKISH").
> > >
> > > Best wishes to all,
> > >
> > > Polat Kaya
> > >
> > > 25/04/2004