Re: [hrl_2] Dr. Kaya, I found paper you posted in a group called historical linguistics

Dear James M. Rogers and friends,


Thank you for your letter. It was written both with criticism and
diplomacy but with an attitude of denial. I welcome positive and
negative criticism from my readers, however, you asking me to accept
your negative criticism as positive is like saying "I am slapping you
for your own good" which is like a sophisticated or insincere
approach. Nevertheless, I will respond to some of your queries below.
I will respond to some of your other questions and posts separately
because this one is getting too lengthy.

You say I have left out too much detail. On the contrary, quite
frequently, I am told I give too much detail and that I am too
lengthy. Since the subject I present is new and my revelations are
not easy to grasp, I feel it is better to be lengthy and descriptive
rather than concise. To help you get over your doubts, please visit my
internet library and read some of my other papers located there. The
URL of my library is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/

1. You mentioned the name of a "Turkish Etymologist Professor Erol
Mutlu" whom I did not know at all until you mentioned him in your
letter. Therefore he and his work are totally unknown to me.

You also insinuated by saying:

> Surely someone before you has
> considered this "consonantal mix" approach? If so, you
> should give due to those who have explored this
> concept before you -- both those who succeeded & those
> who failed.

Polat Kaya: This is an unwarranted allegation and I hope you are not
trying to cast a shadow on my work. If you are aware of anyone who has
previously described the Indo-European languages as I do, then please
tell us about it. To my knowledge I do not know anyone who has
described the Indo-European and Semitic languages in the way that I
have. My work is totally original and unique and results from my own
research trying to understand the true nature of these languages. I
cannot attribute my own brainchild to others whom I had no input from.
I acknowledge those whose material I use very clearly by giving
references to them. Therefore your allegation is not welcome.

2. You wrote:

> Also in my study of beginning studies of Hebrew, or
> Akkadian for that matter, the root word rarely changes
> its consonantal order when translated from one
> language to another. Thus for Dr. Kaya to suggest that
> in almost every case the letter order is mixed, is a
> phenomena I have not seen and would like examples of
> this from other languages that are not Turkish to a
> transitioning language?
>

Polat Kaya: Of course the root word does not change in the same
language or the apparently related languages. It does not change in
Turkish either. But when one compares Turkish words with the
comparable ones of Indo-European languages we fined that they have
been changed. For example, compare Turkish "ÜREK" having consonant
order RK with, say, Latin COR (KOR) having consonant order KR. Their
order has changed. But in English "HEART" from Turkish "URAHTI" (ÜREH
+ TI) meaning "it is heart", the Turkish text has been changed into a
descriptive phrase from which "HEART" is then fabricated. Heart has
the consonant order of HRT while Turkish "URAHTI" has "RHT. So the
order has changed.

Incidently, the insertion of the Turkish suffix -TI into "HEART" and
-DI in Greek "KARDIA" (note -DI suffix) is not my doing. These
Turkish suffixes have already been inserted into these words by the
original "anagrammatizers" in order to lengthen and distort the
original Turkish word so that it cannot be readily recognized. This
is a trick that the anagrammatizers did repeatedly in most of their
combining and alterations. Thus please do not attempt to hang somebody
else's wrongdoings on me. I just deciphered them.

Returning back to consonants, the order of consonants come into play
when we are comparing two different languages. Variations in the
"vowels" interspersed between unchanging consonants make the dialect
of a language. But the "consonants" make up the skeleton of the
words. When the order of the bones are altered in the skeleton, one
gets a new skeleton. For example, take the Semitik KITAB (K T B) with
respect to Turkish BITIK (B T K) both meaning "book". The order of
consonants have changed and KITAB is the backward reading of Turkish
BITIK. Because the order of consonants in the word KITAB have changed,
it looks totally different from Turkish BITIK - as if belonging to a
different language. In other words, the Semitic anagrammatizer has
done a very simple and skillful job in concealing Turkish BITIK into
Semitic KITAB. That is what the language manufacturers depend on in
making new words from Turkish texts. Mostly, they alter the order of
the consonants and change the vowels while retaining a similar meaning.

When the Semitics remove all the vowels, leaving only the consonants
in the word, that opens up a huge horizon where they can read the word
any way they wish. They could insert (or not insert) any vowel
between the consonants to come up with a whole set of related words
where the order of consonants are not changed - but the words are
related to each other. This clever trick, not only gets rid of the
original language, which was Turkish, but also creates new languages -
that appear different from the original Turkish.

Turkish is essentially a monosyllablic language in which mostly single
syllable words are the root words. To those root words are added the
Turkish suffixes by means of which one can define and describe
concepts in many shades of meanings.

The anagrammatizer cannot disguise monosyllabic Turkish words readily.
Yet he can take a Turkish phrase and fuse its words together quite
readily to come up with lengthier unrecognizable new words. I have
shown them by the hundreds in my writings.

Additionally, just because you say that: "Hebrew, or Akkadian for that
matter, the root word rarely changes its consonantal order when
translated from one language to another" does not mean that it was not
done so when taking and converting Turkish language material into
"Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages. Furthermore, do linguists
know how the Semitic Akkadians came up with a Semitic language of
their own with respect to the Sumerian language? It is known that the
Semitic Akkadians "adopted" the culture and language of the Sumerians
after invading Sumer. The Semitic Akkadians also knew the technique of
"anagrammatizing". They surely employed this technique when they
"adopted" the Sumerian language to manufacture their Semitic
"Akkadian" language (getting GILGAMESH from original Sumerian and
Turkish BILGAMESH is an example). After all, anagrammatizing from a
model language is the easiest and cheapest way of coming up with a new
language from a known one. Doing it from scratch is next to
impossible and takes a very long time to do. This is a hugely
important point but linguists, somehow, prefer not do dwell on it.
They should.


3. You wrote:

> The reason for this request is obvious. Words are
> composed of letters which can form in many
> combinations. Sometimes patterns can be found in some
> words from language to language that fit an
> "artificial pattern". That is, if you were in a
> hardware store and you looked hard enough for
> scratched 5/8" right handed pvc elbows, and you
> managed to find some in the back store room inventory,
> that would not mean that all 5/8" pvc elbows were
> created with that scratch! It would not mean they were
> created with a scratch at all! So I would like to see
> an example of what Dr. Kaya is describing in other
> languages? Certainly Turkish to English/Greece etc..
> can not be the only case? If it is, then I would have
> to side that this research though endlessly
> fascinating is but a syncretism.

Additionally you said:

> "As it is, all you have is a fanciful theory based on
> handpicked examples."

Polat Kaya: Not so fast my friend. You are very badly mistaken on
this matter. According to you, my example of Turkish "ÜREK"¨(YÜREK)
was one of those "artificial pattern" cases that just happened to fit
the situation. In other words, you are saying I got lucky by finding a
good match. Evidently you did not carefully read my twenty + page
paper as I asked my readers to do. I suggest you reread my paper
slowly because I had discussed many other words in addition to "UREK".
They were all good matches. Additionally please visit my Polat_Kaya
Library filled with probably more than a thousand English words
explained by this time. Separately I have Greek, Latin and Italian
words each with at least 500 hundred words deciphered in my files.
Without knowing all of this, you should not jump to hasty conclusions.

First of all, I used the word "ÜREK"¨(YÜREK) because it was in the
list that David L. provided as part of his question to me. So I had
no hand in this choice. That was the very first entry in my essay.
How could you have missed it? So I responded to his selections which
consisted of about 14 words of his choosing. In fact they can be
called a "random" selection in spite of the fact that they were the
names of some body parts. Therefore neither "ÜREK"¨(YÜREK) nor other
samples in the list can be regarded as "artificial pattern" cases. To
satisfy your curiosity please read, for example, my "BABYLON" papers
in Polat_Kaya Library and also my list of 125 words that I offered to
my readers in this forum, presently at URL:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/116

Since you are skeptical about what I say, and since you used the term
"syncretism" to describe my work, I will take that word and analyze it
for you.

Before I start analyzing English SYNCRETISM, let me ask you this:
"What is the probability that, when I rearrange this Greek based word
letter-by-letter into another form, I will get a Turkish expression
meaning the same as this term itself? If Greek and English were
independently developed languages away from Turkish, as they are
portrayed to be, the probability would be almost "zero".

The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the English word
SYNCRETISM as follows: [1] SYNCRETISM, n. [French "syncretisme, fr.
Greek "synkretismos, fr. "synkretizein" to combine.] 1. The
reconciliation or union of conflicting beliefs, especially religious
beliefs, or a movement or effort intending such. 2. In the
development of a religion, the process of growth through coalescence
of different forms of faith and worship or through accretions of
tenets, rites, etc., from those religions which are being superseded.
3. Philology. The union or fusion into one of two or more originally
different inflectional forms, as of two cases."

Essentially this word means "to take and mix or combine" and "to
confuse". This is very much what the GENESIS 11 said to do. The
definition given above seems to be the basic principles of the
Indo-European and Semitic "religions", cultures and "languages". The
terminology used in the definition of SYNCRETISM consists of laundered
words trying to paint an innocent picture. In actuality, what
SYNCRETISM defines is: "to usurp religious beliefs, foundations,
tenets and principles, cultural traditions, words, etc., mix, alter,
fuse them together into one and then call the resultant as their own.
Basically it means misapropriating the ancient Turanian OGUZ religion
(so-called "Paganism") and the OGUZ AGUZ (Turkish language) elements
by combing, mixing, rearranging and fusing them to generate new
concepts, words, languages, etc. Of course it wasn't the ordinary
honest and hard working people that did these things. It was the
so-called "elite" religious cabalists who did it secretly behind
closed doors. The subject matter is so well camouflaged that it is
very difficult to suspect any misdemeanor let alone to decipher them
into Turkish. In this regard, for example, the following Internet
sites provide eye-opening information regarding "syncretism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/syncreti.htm

In the definition given by Webster's Dictionary, item 3 ("Philology.
The union or fusion into one of two or more originally different
inflectional forms, as of two cases.") appears to be the cornerstone
of the make-up of the Indo-European languages. It describes very
clearly how the words of English and other Indo-European languages are
made up by combining or unionizing or fusing two or more words from
other languages. Although it refers to other "inflectional froms" that
qualification is not truthful. Actually what is meant by it is that
it is the union or fusion into one word of two or more words from an
originally different language having different inflectional forms.
Turkish language versus the Indo-European and Semitic languages is
such a language. The definition is a clever one and yet left very
vague as usual.

Now let us see if we can find a Turkish expression used as a source
for the English word SYNCRETISM or the French SYNCRETISME.

The French word SYNCRETISME, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"CERISSM ETYN", with C=K, Y=U and SS = Sh, it is seen to be a
distorted rearrangement of Turkish expression "KARISIM ETUN"
(KARISTIRIN, BIRLESTIRIN) meaning "make a mixture", "combine things in
one form", and in the case of philology, "unite two or more words into
one" as this case illustrates itself to be a combination of two
Turkish words. The Turkish word KARISIM means "mixture", "combined
form of things", "combination of things" and "ETUN" is the command
form of Turkish verb "etmek" meaning "to make" for the 2nd person
singular. Thus, this Turkish expression is clearly the source for the
words "syncretism" or "syncretisme".

The consonants of this word are: S Y N K R T S M. The consonants of
the Turkish source phrase are: K R S S M T Y N. As can be seen their
orders are not the same. Even the Turkish letter "S with a cedilla",
that is, "Sh" is divided into two separate "S" and spread around in
the word "SYNCRETISME".

Additionally the word SYNCRETISME, when rearranged as "YECISSTRMEN",
with C=K, is seen to be a distorted rearrangement of the Turkish
expression "YAKISTIRMAN" (BENZETMEN) meaning "your likening", "your
mistakening it for something else" (i.e., "you are mixed-up in
comparing A and B thinking that they are the same"). My understanding
of the term "syncretism" that you used was in this sense. However,
the intentional mix-up in the first Turkish expression "KARISIM ETUN"
and the mistaken "mix-up" in the second expression "YAKISTIRMAN" are
two different notions not related to each other. Yet they are
combined in the meanings of one word, that is, SYNCRETISM.

>From this analysis, I am sure you will find that the relation between
SYNCRETISME and its Turkish source phrases is not like the "scratched
5/8" right handed pvc elbows" given in your analogy. Whether you
acknowledge it or not, you will see that the model Turkish expression
has been taken, altered, mixed and fused together to make an
"Indo-European" word. So my response to your claim of SYNCRETISM is
that I do not mix-up my words nor do I make SYNCRETISM.

The Greek term "SYNKRETISMOS", when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"KORISM-ETYNSS", with the bogus letter Y = U in this case, and read
phonetically as in Turkish, is a distorted rearrangement of Turkish
expression "KARISIM ETUNUZ" (KARISTIRINIZ) meaning "make a mixture",
"make a combination" (i.e., "combine things such as ideas, concepts,
words to make one idea, one concept, one religion or one word"). This
is exactly the meaning attributed to the term "SYNCRETISM" given above
by the reference dictionary. This meaning is given to this Greek and
English words because the original Turkish text, used as the source
for it, had this meaning. So it did not require a linguistic genious
to come up with the new word and its meaning. It was just taken from
the older Turkish language and cleverly "SYNCRETIZED".

In the case of Greek "SYNKRETISMOS", two Tuirkish words in a phrase
have been combined and rearranged to make one word in Greek. In other
words, this Greek term is itself a model for "syncretism", that is,
taking, changing, combining, fusing together and obliterating the
original source language and civilization.

Now let me demonstrate once more: When the Greek term "SYNKRETISMOS"
is rearranged letter-by-letter as "YOKISTRMISSN", with the first two
"S" being Turkish "Sh" and read phonetically as in Turkish, we find
that the Greek term is a distorted rearrangement of the Turkish
expression "YAKISTIRMISSIN" (BENZETMISSIN, KARISTIRMISSIN) meaning
"you likened them to each other". Embedded in this Turkish expression
"YAKISTIRMISSIN" is the notion of "mixing as intended" and "mixing up
incorrectly". This is a common trick done by anagrammatizers of
Turkish language into Indo-European languages, that is, combining two
or more notions expressed by Turkish homnyms into one word.

It is curious that the term "SYNKRETISMOS" does not appear in the
Greek dictionary that I have, instead it gives the form "SUGKRETISMOS"
or "SUYKRETISMOS".

Now let us also examine the Greek term "SYNKRETIZEIN" meaning "to
combine". "SYNKRETIZEIN", when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"KERISN-ETINYZ" where S = Sh, and read phonetically as in Turkish, we
have the Turkish expression "KARISIM ETINUZ" ("KARISIM EDINUZ",
"KARISTIRINIZ") meaning "combine them, mix them" which again is the
meaning given for this word, and it is the same as the one given for
the word "SYNKRETISMOS".

Even the Italian word "SINCRETISMO" meaning "syncretism", when
rearranged letter-by-letter as "KORISM ETINS", is seen to be an
anagram of the Turkish expression "KARISIM ETINIZ" meaning "make
mixture", "combine them", "mix them" which verifies the above
findings.

So you see, I am not confused at all about these so-called
"Indo-European" words. As can be seen, although they belong to three
different IE languages (English, Greek and Italian), they are sourced from
Turkish. Here I am unearthing a disguised "SYNCRETISM" that some
cabalist linguists concocted, yet the genuine and honest linguists
were not aware of.

Along the same line, there is the Greek word "SYNKRISIS" corresponding
to English word "SYNCRESIS" said to mean "to compare". [2] The word
for "comparison" in Greek is also given as "SUYKRISIS". [3]

The word "SYNKRISIS", when rearranged as "KYS SIRNIS" and read
phonetically as in Turkish, it becomes the Turkish expression "KIYAS
SERINIZ" meaning "show comparison". Here again we are face to face
with a seemingly "Greek" word, yet I am able to find a Turkish
correspondence.

Similarly the Greek term "SUYKRISIS" meaning "comparison", when
rearranged (deciphered) letter-by-letter as "KYS UIRISS" where the
bogus letter U = V and SS=Sh, is an anagram of the Turkish expression
"KIYAS VERIS" meaning "giving comparison". Here again we have another
Turkish expression usurped into Greek.

The above analysis of these words are testament that Turkish has been
used as source for Indo-European languages. Thus your accusing me of
making "syncretism" is unjustified.

Evidently the Greek and English anagrammatizers knew Turkish very well
and also knew that they could drop some of the vowels, because of the
fact that Turkish follows the "vowel harmony" rule. Thus the missing
vowels could be recovered if there was a need for it. But in Greek
and also in English you do not have a need for "vowel harmony" rule,
because they are already broken and restructured languages from
Turkish anyway. Therefore, in words belonging to these languages,
frequently, vowels as well as consonants are bunched together side by
side as if Greek "ears", "tongues", "mouths", etc., were different
from that of Turks. But of course there is no difference. The
cabalists had to cover up their traces. That is why there are so many
bunching of consonants and vowels in the words of Indo-European
languages.

It must be noted that by training from childhood, any complexity in
words can be learned to be spoken fluently, although adult learners
will do the same with some accent.

In your message, you wrongly thought that I chose the Turkish term
"ÜREK" (YÜREK) comparison because it just happened to meet all the
requirements and I was lucky. But here I have just shown that even a
complex word such as SYNKRETISMOS or SYNKRETIZEIN or SYNKIRISIS can
be shown to have been made up from Turkish. Above examples prove that
I am not really selective in my choices, but rather that the
Indo-European words have been structured from Turkish. That is the
reason for all of of these correspondences. Turkish words and
expressions have been intentionally embedded in most of the
Indo-European words. It is not due to my making "syncretism".

As I was doing my research regarding the word "SYNCRETISM", I saw
another similar word, namely "SYNCHRONISM" meaning "concurrence of
events in time"; "happening at the same time"; "concurrent in time";
"simultaneous".

As usual the source for this English term is said to be the "Greek"
language word "SYNCHRONISMOS". But this term somehow is not in the
Greek dictionary. Instead there is the word "SUGXRONISMOS" [4]. Thus
there seems to be a false etymology cited.

The Greek letter "G" (gama) is also identified as "Y" [5], and Greek
letter X (named "hi") which is a composite bogus letter used to cause
confusion and disguise in transliterations and the anagrammatization
of Turkish texts, most frequently is represented as "KH" which is
actually a "KI" (see how confusing the Greek alphabet is?). When we
put these actual representations in place of the bogus letters in the
word "SUGXRONISMOS" we get the word "SUYKIRONISMOS".

When the Greek word "SUYKIRONISMOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as
"UYM ON OKIRSISS", with SS=Z, and read phonetically as in Turkish, we
find that it is an anagram of Turkish expression "UYUM AN OKIRSIZ"
(UYUM AN OKURSUZ) meaning "you read (or sing) in concurrent time" or
"you read (or sing) at the same time". Thus we find another Turkish
expression (but distorted) embedded in this Greek word.

In this Turkish expression "UYUM" means "act of accord, harmony, in
unison", "AN" means "time" and "OKIRSIZ" (OKURSUZ) means "you read" or
"you sing".

Similarly, there is the Greek word "SUGXRONOS" (or "SUYKIRONOS" with
the replacements for the bogus symbols), meaning "contemporary;
simultaneous; synchronous".

When the Greek word "SUYKIRONOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as
"OYNI N OKRUSS", we find that it is an anagram of the Turkish
expression "AYNI AN OKURUZ" meaning "we read simultaneously", "we sing
synchronously". This again shows conclusively that the source for
this word is from Turkish.

In this anagram of the Turkish expression, "AYNI" means "same", "AN"
means "time" and "OKURUZ" means "we read" or "we sing". Thus all
sincere linguists should be able to see that the source is pure
Turkish which has been broken, changed, combined and fused together
into a "Greek" word. In other words an act of "SYNCRETISM" has been
committed. Dear friend James M. Rogers, I hope you will see this fact
and not accuse me with making more "syncretism". The real real
syncretism makers are the manufacturers of Greek, Latin and all the
other "Indo-European" languages.

It is interesting to note that while the source for "SUYKIRONISMOS"
was Turkish "UYUM AN OKIRSIZ" (UYUM AN OKURSUZ), the source for
"SUYKIRONOS" was "AYNI AN OKURUZ". We note that in this clever trick,
the cabalist anagrammatizer took the present tense of verb "okumak"
meaning "to read" or "to sing" for different persons. For example
while "OKURUZ" is for 1st person plural case, "OKURSUZ" is for the 2nd
person plural case of the present tense of verb "okumak".

Another related word to "SYNCHRONISM" is the English word
"SIMULTANEOUS". When this word is rearranged (deciphered)
letter-by-letter as "UUM ANTE OLISS", we find that it is an anagram of
Turkish expression "UYUM ANTA OLIS" (UYUM ANDA OLUS) where S = Sh,
meaning "happening in harmonious time", "taking place at the same
time". This is exactly the meaning of the English term
"SIMULTANEOUS". If the reader knew Turkish, he or she would readily
understand what I am writing. Those who do not know Turkish will
surely have difficulty in understanding what I am talking about.


In concluding, I say to our dear friend James M. Rogers:

1. By choosing random words and analysing them in this paper and by
giving all necessary details needed to understand this presentation, I
have proven your allegations as wrong and without justification.

2. Once again I have shown in this paper that Indo-European languages
are encripted Turkish. The present day linguistics as followed by the
establishment is a "CULT" in which only a few know, or knew in the
past, the real nature of Indo-European and Semitic languages, but
never disclosed it to the public. It is a hard-kept secret because
these languages are all artificially manufactured from Turkish. The
rest of the honest linguistic students have been misdirected into
confusion.

3. Turkish is the so-called "PROTO" (from Tr. "BIRATA" meaning "ONE
FATHER") language that they are looking for in a different "quadrant"
of space. The game, however, is to get the search for "PROTO" (BIRATA)
language as far away from Turkish as possible.

4. Labelling my work, i.e., my deciphering of Indo-European words and
finding their source in Turkish, as "syncretism" has no basis and/or
justification whatsoever. My deciphering of Indo-European and Semitic
words is not as Mr. J. M. Rogers terms "a fanciful theory based on
handpicked examples" but rather a very solid discovery based on the
analysis of at least 2000 words of all kinds all randomly chosen from
many dictionaries.

5. I am shining a light onto the path of those who want to walk on an
enlightened path and see things clearly and truthfully, however, my
writings cannot help those who prefer to stray into darkness. I cannot
force anyone to read, study and learn my papers. That is the choice
of the reader alone. If you do choose to read my papers, please read
them very carefully. Understand what I am saying and then make
comments, accusations, or whatever.

Thank you for writing.


REFERENCES:

[1] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 1012.
[2] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 1012.
[3] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1947, p. 63, 688.
[4] DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary,
p. 688.
[5] DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary,
p. 10.


Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

30/07/2004

Readers are cordially invited to visit Polat Kaya library where they can
find many more discussions of this kind, at URL:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/

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


emarhalys wrote:
>
> To approach your subject, I start with quoting a noted Turkish
> Etymologist and then give a short intro of myself and a general
> overview opinion of your short paper.
>
> Turkish Etymologist Professor Erol Mutlu wrote in 1999:
>
> "One of the peculiarities of my dictionary is the existence of the
> abbreviations at the end of each page that sometimes may last a
> quarter of a page. It is in this part that I gave references for a
> word pointing to the significant writings and resources relating to
> that word that were written until that date, and mostly with a short
> evaluation of them. This is a method which is not applied in every
> dictionary in Europe. I guess, by this way ethymological
> dictionaries gain a distinctive value. It is also possible not to be
> satisfied just with words in ethymological dictionaries"
>
> from " 7 November 1999, Ankara
>
> The Importance of Etymological Studies in Understanding the Turkish
> Language and History
>
> Presented by Prof. Dr. Erol Mutlu
> Participants: Prof. Dr. Hasan Eren and Prof. Dr. Sema Barutcu
> Ozonder
> pc12.soc.metu.edu.tr/epart/epart003.htm
>
> Now Dr. Polat Kaya goes to great lengths to show that the
> consonantal elements (hypocoristicons if the consants retained their
> inner word order) of Turkish are rearranged in equivalent Greek &
> English words but that the order of the letters is sometimes mixed.
> Yet we see no time markers for when a Turkish word comes into vogue
> in terms of century & usage or how it changes through time.
>
> Also various urls suggest there are up to 40 to 50 dialects of
> Turkish. How would those variations effect the information
> presented? Are the dialects only variations of the vowels of the
> words, and thus do not effect the subtext of this paper?
>
> In order to explore Dr. Kaya's work, I thought to just intersperse
> my questions directly in the text. And I hope to do that in further
> posts.
>
> I must comment I am no linguist, though I enjoy comparative study of
> Bronze Age cultures in the Eastern Med. Because of this interest I
> have acquired a collection of books on Hittite & Hurrian Myth, as
> well as developed an avid interest in the Luwians and their
> interrelation with the Mycenaeans. So through these latter people
> and trying to understand the topography of the Mycenaean colonies, I
> am taken into the landscape and language of Archaic Greece.
>
> I am not polyglot. I can only transliterate Hebrew, Greek and
> egyptian hieroglyphics into English as well as decipher Coptic using
> the charts. I have had to study source material in Spanish, German,
> French & Italian, but I can't read those language so much as
> navigate them? But I have books in my library on early writing and
> I tried to teach myself cuneiform one summer by using John
> Huehnergard's "Grammar" and David Marcus' guide. I've also studied
> Martin Bernal's "Cadmean Letters" and Andrew Robinson's "Lost
> Languages". I even tried my hand at deciphering the Phaistos disk
> and found IMHO the disks were calendrical "groupings of day
> intervals" in some calendrical form of accounting.
>
> So foreign languages do fascinate me though I do not understand the
> grammars. I have no experience whatsover with Turkish though. And I
> know Dr. Kaya's name from his work on an inscription from the island
> of Lemnos. It is a pivotal island in regards to Easten Med & Aegean
> migrations of peoples. I have also studied the Phrygians, Thrace
> and the Etruscans as I was learning about the spread of the Teresh
> Sea Peoples. And I have a fondness for studying faience production
> as well as antimony trade routes in regard to ancient glass. Thus my
> interests are all around this sphere, and the translation of names
> from one language to another fascinate me. I have many books in my
> personal library exploring Proper Names whether they be from Amarna,
> the Bible, Egypt, Kizzuwatna or even Elam! One of the books, to
> paraphrase the title posits that within "proper names" are archaic
> features of early languages. I personally believe that within the
> names of the Old Testament are remnants of up to ten or more
> languages or language families -- everything from Akkadian to
> Egyptian hieroglyphics, Mycenaean titles, and Edomite place names.
>
> So this is my introduction. I am not a professional but a hobbyist
> who studies these histories as a diversion. I note though, that Dr.
> Kaya does not select "proper names" for his comparison, and find
> that odd for this phenomena he describes must have been transmitted
> not then via place names or personal names we would see in an "oral
> history", but more from language usage of syntaxes? I am unfamiliar
> with what the technical term would be for this?
>
> Also in my study of beginning studies of Hebrew, or Akkadian for
> that matter, the root word rarely changes its consonantal order when
> translated from one language to another. Thus for Dr. Kaya to
> suggest that in almost every case the letter order is mixed, is a
> phenomena I have not seen and would like examples of this from
> other languages that are not Turkish to a transitioning language?
>
> The reason for this request is obvious. Words are composed of
> letters which can form in many combinations. Sometimes patterns can
> be found in some words from language to language that fit
> an "artificial pattern". That is, if you were in a hardware store
> and you looked hard enough for scratched 5/8" right handed pvc
> elbows, and you managed to find some in the back store room
> inventory, that would not mean that all 5/8" pvc elbows were created
> with that scratch! It would not mean they were created with a
> scratch at all! So I would like to see an example of what Dr. Kaya
> is describing in other languages? Certainly Turkish to
> English/Greece etc.. can not be the only case? If it is, then I
> would have to side that this research though endlessly fascinating
> is but a syncretism.
>
> A syncretism in historical studies are when obvious parallels in
> historical events in separate cultures is revealed. The problem with
> syncretisms is that many times the historians do not bother to fully
> explore the "time factor" of the comparison. What results are two
> renditions of history that appear "identical" but in reality
> happened many hundreds of years separate in time.
>
> In the examples of Dr. Kaya that he wrote, I do not see any
> indications of dialects, or time frames. If Kaya's information is
> indeed correct, then etymologically we need those milestones of time
> markers to allow us to see the comparison.
>
> In fact in the article below we see reference to the Sumerians, the
> Tower of Babel, the ancient Turanians (whenever they were?), we have
> modern English, and "words in Turkish" which are not dated in terms
> of usage or frequency of first use?
>
> For me to compare the English word of "DINGIR.MESH-kan I-NA (uru)"
> from KuT 27 Obv 9' (KuT is the same as KuSa I/1,5) see pg. 156-157
> in "The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults During the
> Thirteenth Century B.C. An Appraisal of the Hittite cult
> inventories" by Joost Hazenbos (Cuneiform Monographs 21, Brill,
> 2003). To try and compare that phrase with the English word would be
> ludicrous! However we know the town mentioned in the transliteration
> pg. 15, Tuhupiia could have been close to Canaan in Bronze Age/LBA
> times. This is a syncretism (kan-I-NA vs. Canaan). We have taken an
> obviously technical term and transliterated it into a foreign
> language (English) and then made associations from there! That is
> called a "false etymology."
>
> Thus for Dr. Kaya to give us an equation for DINGUR = Turkish
> Tengur -- that comparison can not be made. The term we call DINGUR
> is actually a cuneiform symbol of a triangle with two "arrows"
> permeating a "vertical line." Some think these cuneiform are not
> letters at all, but phonetic instructions for pronunciation. There
> is no GUR in DINGUR. DINGUR is how the logogram is written, but not
> pronounced.
>
> These are the sorts of comparisons that trouble me in
> this "simplified version" Dr. Kaya has written below. Because we are
> lacking etymological markers as to time frames, it is hard to see
> chronology or anachronisms in the comparisons?
>
> Let us consider the Lemnos Stone for example? I am untrained in
> Pelasgian, but came in contact with Pelasgian studies while studying
> Mycenaean colonies in western Greece over towards the Albanian
> border. Greek would be a derivative of Pelasgian perhaps? As I say,
> I am no linguist.
>
> www.compmore.net/~tntr/lemstelea.html
> " Text 1 transcription:
> HaTaPASE : I : aNAaPaTaTa AKER : TAKARISTe QAM . APA .aNÇaSAP :
> IERaTa aNASaMaTa eReSeNASaP
> [Hatapase : i : anaapatata aker: takariste qam . apa . ançasap :
> ierata anasamata eresenasap ]
> Turkish : Hatapasa : iy : anaapa tata ak er : takariste kam . apa .
> ançasap : iy erata anam atasi er esen asap
> Eng.: Hatapasa : O grandfather honest man : Thracian?
> shaman .father. thus lays? : O brave father my mother's
> father sound thinking? man "
>
> I am going to go out on a limb here and guess tata is grandfather?
> As Da is father, thus Ta Ta or Da Da would be grandfather?
>
> But that is a guess. Do you see? The comparison is "plain". It is
> obvious. It is still a guess. And till I footnote it and "do the
> work" as they say, why would I have a want or need to explore the
> etymological connection?
>
> Dr. Kaya, I would certainly like to read your paper, but to read it
> fully I need all the details you have left out. The etymologies
> which may or may not prove your point. The centuries of usage.
> The "english etymology" as in how that particular word came to
> evolve within the English language?
>
> Here let us take from your paper an English word that you are using
> for comparison? I will pick one at random by paging down eleven
> times? I pick eleven as it is a number sentimental to me, you could
> call it my "lucky" number. But to you it would be random. I found
> no "english words" and so I paged down eleven more times again. This
> time I found an english example.
>
> Let us look at how you compare the Turkish and the English?
>
> " The Turkish word "ÜREK" (YÜREK, URAK) means "heart". Additionally
> Turkish "KALB" also means "heart" but it is said to be sourced from
> Semitic. First of all, the English word "HEART", when rearranged as
> "ERAHT", reveals itself as an anagram of Turkish expression "ÜREHTI"
> (Ürekti) with K to H softening. Turkish "Ürekti" means "it is heart".
> The Frençh word "COEUR" (pronounced as "KÖR") and meaning "heart",
> when rearranged as "UOREC", where C is K and U is Y, is the
> rearranged
> form of Turkish "ÜREK" (YÜREK) meaning "heart". Of course, these are
> not coincidences.
>
> The word "CORE" meaning the centre of someting, that is the most
> inner
> part of a "body" is also from Turkish "UREK" rearranged as "KURE",
> "KORE" and "CORE". For example, the SUN is the CORE (UREK) of the
> Solar system. When the heart stops, the rest of the body dies. So too
> would our solar system if the Sun (i.e., ÜREK) ceased to be. The
> Latin
> word "COR" meaning "the heart" is also a distorted form of Turkish
> "ÜREK". All of these are embellished backward readings of the Turkish
> word "UREK".
>
> Your first example is this:
>
> " First of all, the English word "HEART", when rearranged as
> "ERAHT", reveals itself as an anagram of Turkish expression "ÜREHTI"
>
> We know in language study that vowels are useles. Thus we are left
> with H.R.T vs. R.H.T.
>
> The etymology of the English word "heart" from my falling apart
> Webster Seventh Collegiate Dictionary, 1963, pg. 383:
>
> "1heart \hart\ n. [ME hert, fr. OE heorte; akin to OHG herza heart,
> L cord-, cor, Greek Kardia] here we see a chonism of development of
> the English word from Greek to Latin and to English. K.R.D = C.R.D.
> = H.R.T. = H.R.T.
>
> Clever. Good. Urehti which means heart in Turkish means "it is
> heart." However, I have to wonder why out of all the comparisons you
> have chosen the term "heart"? From what master list did you start?
>
> If you look here at this url I pulled out, we get a comparative
> study of the word "heart"
>
> sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/ 40%
> 20Language/461AncientTurkicWordsEn.htm
>
> And please note here, UREHTI is not the equivalent that is given!
>
> heart English
> jurek Turkmen
> cere Cuvash
> urek Gagauz
> urek Turkish, Azeri
> ?urek Karachi, Kumyki
> jorek Itil, Tatar
> ?urek Kazakh
> d'urek South Alaic
> jurak Uzbek, Uygur
> curek Tuva
> surex Yakut
> curek Khakas
> ?urok Kirghiz
>
> Thus we do not have the needed T that is required in your
> comparison? So I have to ask again, how did you select Urehti? The
> answer is you added an expression suffix, something that just
> happened to have a T in it! Without that suffix, there would be no
> comparison between Heart and Urehti. And why did you choose that
> particular form of expression? From which dialect? When first was
> that form used? Was it used older than the Latin Cord- that this
> comparison is based? All I can see, is you chose it because "it
> fits."
>
> I might be tempted if I was making the comparison, to use the
> English word HURT to this example you have made. The letters of Hurt
> H.R.T. are imminently comparable. Plus when you are "hurt" your
> heart often aches? Or your heart will ache if you die from your
> hurt? Or even worse, doesn't your heart hurt a little?
>
> Do you see? The method of your comparison in effect obliterates any
> comparison that could be made! You did not scientifically find the
> Heart-Urehti comparison, but instead "went looking" for comparisons?
>
> What we have then are associations you are making with data that is
> not scientifically sampled? Where are the populations of the other
> words you used that did not compare? What percentages are we
> talking? All that you show are those ones that do compare, and
> compare exactly with your theory. Do you see the weakness of that
> presentation?
>
> Okay, the second example from our excerpt was:
>
> " The word "CORE" meaning the centre of someting, that is the most
> inner
> part of a "body" is also from Turkish "UREK" rearranged as "KURE",
> "KORE" and "CORE". For example, the SUN is the CORE (UREK) of the
> Solar system. When the heart stops, the rest of the body dies. So too
> would our solar system if the Sun (i.e., ÜREK) ceased to be. The
> Latin
> word "COR" meaning "the heart" is also a distorted form of Turkish
> "ÜREK". All of these are embellished backward readings of the Turkish
> word "UREK"."
>
> On first look, that follows from the previous example. CORE= or
> C.R./K.R. is a part of Greek Kardia, the heart.
>
> The Greek term for Core, at least as recorded in Strong's Exhaustive
> Concordance, the New Testament Greek word for Core was used in Jude
> 11 (what a coincidence! BTW, I was born June 11 at 1:11...) is the
> #2879 is KORE. Thus the example holds?
>
> What is the Latin for Core? Websters does not tell us, only quoting
> ME (Middle English) Koer pg. 185. This url does have a Latin English
> dictionary:
>
> So here we have from this example, that there are pros and cons to
> your methodology. You have found an example that works but only
> after adding a suffix in the case of Urehti, and a comparison from
> Core in English to Kore in Greek to Urek in Turkish.
>
> Dr. Kaya it has been a pleasure studying your theories. They are
> very interesting syncretisms, but in the absence of etymological and
> chronological data, and the addition of a suffix here and there, at
> least in this example, we have a worthwhile comparison.
>
> I think for you to strengthen your work you need to explain how you
> chose your examples, and show the sampling of the population where
> your comparisons failed.
>
> If you also showed another set of languages that were not Turkish or
> Greek with its derivatives, but showed this similiar "jumbled
> consonant" theory between two separate language transmissions, then
> I would have another source to enable me to compare your work with
> that of others. Surely someone before you has considered
> this "consonantal mix" approach? If so, you should give due to those
> who have explored this concept before you -- both those who
> succeeded & those who failed.
>
> In essence, approach it like a dissertation. Do the work. Do the
> research and then prove your findings.
>
> As it is, all you have is a fanciful theory based on handpicked
> examples.
>
> Please accept these comments in the positive light I have hoped to
> show them to you?
>
> All the best,
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...