No. 3) Re: [hrl_2] As far as the matter of Urek

Dear Friends,

Greetings. My response to Mr. James M. Rogers' posting is
interspersed within his text below.

emarhalys wrote:
>
> I have only mentioned it as it seemed a weak example. I am not
> dismissing your theory on the merits of Urek and its suffive -ti,
> but I would suggest you not try to defend it as a "good example"
> when it is not.
>

POLAT KAYA: Please refrain from offering fallacious suggestions.
Actually my "Urek" example is very powerful. What is your yardstick
for measuring "weakness" in examples? It seems that you either dont
know what you are talking about or are a very skilfull "confuser". You
know very well that my "UREK" example goes to the "heart" of the
deceitful usurpation of Turkish in building IE and Semitic languages.
That is why you are suggesting that I should not defend it. Evidently
you are well versed in vague and confusing talk which seems to be a
legacy since Babylon times. If you were really interested in learning
the "truth" regarding the makeup of the IE and Semitic languages, you
would also talk about all the other examples that accompanied "Urek"
in my response to David L. I even gave you examples of "Syncretism,
Synchronism, Syncrisis and simultaneous" yet you still danced your way
around them with flimsy excuses.

You wrote:

> Usually when I research, I try to find "the weak links". When I play
> games, I try to test the limits. Without knowing the tensility of a
> theory, it is hard to build a house on a weak foundation. And so,
> when I study your "unique theory", I look for ways it fails. If it
> is a sound theory, it will hold in all cases, but in the two I have
> looked at so far at random, the theory has not been successful. In
> both cases the "match" you have found only works if you accept
> prefixes or suffixes to the root.
>
> It is nice and considerate though that you would choose Urek to
> engage David. One of the hallmarks of great scholars are that they
> try to teach others.
>

POLAT KAYA: You are confusing sincere research with playing games to
trick or trip up your opponent. I am not playing games here Mr.
Rogers. I am very serious. You saying "but in the two I have looked
at so far at random, the theory has not been successful" is not a
valid judgement. You are not qualified to make such a judgement. You
don't even know Turkish in order to fully understand what I am saying.
You also give the impression that you are mixing up your prejudices
with scientific analysis. If you could find a way of cleansing your
built-in bias against Turks and Turkish, you might be able to see what
I am saying in a different light.

You write:

> Now, you have gamely rose to the occasion to work your theory
> on "syncretism". But I must say, I have a fondness for words and
> letters too. Here in America we have a popular boardgame
> called "Scrabble." You take letters of the alphabet and rearrange
> them on a board to create words. But depending on where you place
> the letter you might get a double letter or triple letter point
> score. Sometimes you can get double word scores and if you build
> your word onto another word, and create a string that can be read
> vertically and horizontally, then you get those points also.
>

POLAT KAYA: I am happy that you enjoy playing Scrabble so much,
however, what I am saying is much more serious than you think and it
is not like playing Scrabble.

You said:

> And I also enjoy discussions on etymologies. My name, James, comes
> from Jacob, and means "a supplanter." That is one who takes the
> place of another, or to borrow from your post, "an usurper."
>

POLAT KAYA: There is no way linguistically that one can derive "JAMES"
from "JAKOP" or vice versa unless slight of hand is applied. So the
etymology you present is false. As far as "supplanter" goes, you are
correct in saying that it is "an usurper". It may interest you to
know that both of these words are also sourced from Turkish.


You said:

> And I understand about the tyranny of Turkish being forced upon the
> population. Consider the poor residents of Robbinsville, NC when I
> the Cherokee language was banned by the US government in the 1950s.
> The children were not allowed to speak it in public or at home, and
> even though Sequoyah a 150 years earlier had just come up with a
> written alphabet for a language hundreds of years old. Only in this
> modern day is the Cherokee language making a revival.
>


POLAT KAYA: Unfortunately you are very confused and in want of wisdom.
Your analogy is not valid. In the case of Native American First
Nations, as you say, they have suffered huge tyranny from the American
government. In view of your knowledge about Turks, you do not know
enough about them to make any judgement. Most likely your
"knowledge" about Turks comes from prejudiced sources. For your
information let me tell you that throughout history when Turks were
ruling many ethnic groups under their umbrella, the ruled ones had the
best and the most peaceful years of their lives with their schools,
religions and languages intact and flourishing. The ruled ones were
not subjected to any "tyranny" that you erroneously and with
ill-intentions label as "tyranny of Turkish". Please note that you
did not use the word "tyranny" when explaining the acts of the US
government. Is that a coincidence or an intentional omission?

Thus, your use of the term "tyranny" does not apply to the Turks
although Turkish villifiers would like to associate Turks with such
character. Your double-standard language seems to be a remnant of an
ancient religiously motivated black game against the Tur/Turk peoples.
Turkish was not imposed on any one at any time. If anything at all,
it was the other languages that encroached in on Turkish. Please
correct your manners and watch what you say. I believe an apology from
you is in order.


You wrote:

> The point of this anecdote, is that many places names in Georgia get
> their names from old Cherokee terms. Thus the Etowah Indians Mounds,
> the Chattahoochee River, Brasstown Bald mountain, Stone Mountain --
> they are all Cherokee terms translated into English. Etowah, for
> example, means, "high tower", and that is why the mound complex has
> a very tall main ceremonial mound. There is even a road around here
> called Hightower Road, and people with the last name of Hightower.
> But for me to say that "Etowah" and "tower" are the same word via
> this anagrammatizing from Cherokee to English is far off base.
>
> e T o W a h TW T o W e R TWR?
>

POLAT KAYA: No! You are mixing up concepts with each other again. A
'TOWER" and a "MOUNTAIN" are two different notions. You cannot get
one from the other. Additionally, TW and TWR are not the same
structure. Unless you artificially change one and attach a fake
meaning to it. This is not anagrammatizing, this is totally changing
a word or a name in form and in meaning".

It is just like your erroneous likening of HRT consonants to "HEART"
and "HURT" trying to show them as being related to each other.
Comceptually they have nothing in common. You may fall on your face
and end up with a bloody nose in which case you have "hurt" yourself
but it has nothing to do with your "heart". On the other hand, if a
"linguist" artificially assigns two different meanings to the word
"HEART", such as: 1. Heart; 2, Hurt, then you have combined them into
one word because these words have similar soundings in English. This
kind of faking has been done very frequently when Turkish was being
usurped into Indo-European languages.

By the way, the first nations people of the Americas having mounds and
holding ceremonies at the top of their mounds is a remnant of their
legacy from Central Asia and is very Turkic. Tur/Turk peoples have
always done their religious ceremonies at least annually, at the top
of mountains because mountains were sacred to them. The pyramids and
ziggurats of the Sumerians and Masarians were also representations and
emulations of mountains - a legacy of ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples.


You said:

> It is a coincidence. And though the pattern of the consonants seems
> to suggest that the TW of Etowah is present in the TWR of tower, it
> is not.
>
> This is what I see in your theory Dr. Kaya. Human beings have
> associative minds. They want to find linkages in disparate elements
> so that they can have "the whole picture".
>

POLAT KAYA: What you call as my "theory" is actually my revelation
which is a demonstrated fact as I have shown it to be true with many
powerful examples. Evidently what it says is too big a bite for the
chit-chat discussions going on presently in the cult of linguistics.
Either you have not understood my descriptions or you are willfully
misrepresenting what I said. Most likely it is the latter one since
you have clearly defined your methodology. For your information, even
the widely used term "THEORY" supposedly being from Greek "THEORIA" is
not Greek. It is again sourced from the Turkish word "TEYOR O" (DIYOR
O) meaning "it says, it postulates". So too is the term "THEOREM'
which is from Turkish expression "TEYOREM" (DIYORUM) meaning "I say"
or "I postulate". Even using the Greek bogus symbol of "TH" cannot
hide it anymore. So you see even these widely used supposedly Greek
and/or IE words are like the cases of "stolen and repainted cars". No
amount of verbosity can hide this anymore.

Human beings might have "associative minds" but stealing is again a
different matter. With such vague terminology, do not think that you
will get away easily with your con game. You know that you are wrong
but admitting it is a different matter. You are trying to divert a
situation that is not to your liking. Hence you are bringing in all
kinds of false arguments in an attempt to portray a "stolen and
repainted car" case as a "legitimately owned car" case. Slippery and
sophisticated arguments will not work anymore. Mathematically there is
no justification that one can get Turkish "KARISIM ETUN" meaning "make
a mixture, combine" from English "SYNCRETISM" meaning "to combine"
unless "syncretism" is manufactured from the Turkish expression
"KARISIM ETUN". Everyone knows that the plagiarizer who takes and
alters will always deny what he has done. The people who broke up
Turkish words and phrases and fused them together to form new words
for Indo-European and Semitic languages would rarely admit what they
have done - even if they were caught on camera while in the act of
doing it.


You wrote:

> As far as Syncretism and Karisim Etun, I must ask, is "Karisim Etun"
> a common word, or did you just find a combination that would work?
> That is the point of my questioning your methodology.
>

POLAT KAYA: It is difficult for me to teach someone who does not know
Turkish and on top of it is confused with what he knows. It doesn't
matter to the anagrammatizer if the Turkish expression is commonly
used or not. "KARIShIM ETUN" (KARIShIM EDIN) is a Turkish expression
which is made up with Turkish "KARIShIM" and "ETUN" (EDIN) and is used
in many occasions as the need arises. In fact, the anagrammatizer
would rather prefer to steal words and phrases that are not used
frequently so that they are better concealed from Turkish eyes. From
the point of view of language usurpers, all that matters for him is to
make new words for his manufactured language. He does not care
whether the expressions that he steals are frequently used or not.
Hence your question has no validity.


You say:

> I am a punster. I love puns and I can pun on any word ever written.
> But just because I can pun does not mean the language will make
> sense. It does not even mean it will be funny as they usually
> aren't. In fact, I guess you could say if you care sum you can sing
> etun? Do you see, it is a pun, I made a sense of something that
> should have no sense!
>

POLAT KAYA: This statement of yours clearly indicates your lack of
seriousness and your prankstership in the subject that I have clearly
demonstrated to be true. You have just proven that you are not
interested in hearing the "truth" but rather in playing games -
probably because the "truth" would upset you. What you say is not even
a "pun", it is pure nonsense designed to confuse and darken rather
than enlighten. That is how usurpers talk. With this kind of
non-sensical talk, you are being silly and obnoxious. I suggest you
do some growing up.


You wrote

> Just googling i can find no hits for "Karisim Etun". Thus though you
> get the combination, is that phrase in the vernacular? Is it used
> often, and if so by whom. These are the details you leave out of
> your theories. How can we assess the match if we have no
> corroborating evidence?
>
> If I use the turkish to English url
>
> http://www.onlineturkish.com/Dictionary.asp
>
> and try to look up karisim or etun, I get nothing, but again that
> might be because I don't have the right keyboard?
>

POLAT KAYA: Why would you expect to be able to find different forms
and tenses of Turkish on the Internet? That is not a reasonable
expectation. The Internet does not contain all knowledge. The root
for these words are the Turkish verbs "KARISTIRMAK" and "ETMEK"
respectively. As I stated earlier, if you knew Turkish, you would see
a whole lot clearer. You not only have the deficiency of not knowing
Turkish but you also have a closed (and probably biased) mind.


You said:

> I understand about the y=u, you used, as they are weak consonants as
> termed in akkadian so I would think in other Northwest Semitic
> languages. But googling I do see KARISTIRINIZ in reference to
> alchoholic drinks, so I would think "mixing" would be the context? I
> find it interesting though that this Karistiriniz has an extra R in
> it?
>

POLAT KAYA: All Greek alphabet is made up with bogus lettering each
having more than one identity. Letters, X, W, V, Y and U are the most
widely used bogus letters designed to usurp and confuse.

I also gave the presently used forms within brackets so that it can be
clearly understood by those who speak Turkish". Instead of nitpicking
you should dwell on the Turkish expression that is embedded in the
term "SYNCRETISM" and all the other related words.


You wrote:

> I liked the point you made about vowel harmony though. I am sure
> Turkish and Greek are quite intimately related as the proximity of
> the peoples and lands. As far as the matter of UYUM AN OKIRSIZ,
> singing in time is an associative definition. The root of the greek
> is Chrono, yet we do not see that in Okirsiz. I am no position as I
> can not find Okirsiz on the web.
>

POLAT KAYA: Turkish and Greek are not structurally related languages.
They are not intimately related in any way because of the proximity
of their peoples and lands. Greek is an artificial language and is
manufactured from usurped and restructured Turkish words and phrases
like the other IE languages - contrary to the erroneous knowledge
established in the minds of people by mountains of propaganda
perpetrated by biased linguist and historians. As I have stated
before, the only association or relationship that exists between Greek
and Turkish (and the IE languages and Turkish for that matter) is that
of looter (usurper) and lootee (usurped) respectively.

Just because you could not find "OKIRSIZ" (OKURSUZ) on the web system
does not mean that this Turkish expression was not used to make a word
for the alien manufactured IE languages.


You said:

> Still you have some interesting work that is fun to follow along!
>
> I must say I have tried to put no emotional inflection upon the
> drawbacks I see to your theories, but think there is more
> substantive details you must include before presenting this to the
> public. There is no way an English speaker unschooled in Turkish can
> assess the frequency of the "turkish equivalent" phrases you are
> coming up with. In fact, to help your readers follow along, perhaps
> you could include a good url of a Turkish to English dictionary, so
> that your readers can follow along through the languages if they
> wanted to?
>
> All the best,
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...
>

POLAT KAYA: You say: "I must say I have tried to put put no emotional
inflection upon the drawbacks I see to your theories" but the truth of
the matter is that you are bothered because of my findings. That is
why you behave the way you do although you try to hide your emotions
with deceptive verbosity. You are upset because I have convincingly
shown that Indo-European and Semitic languages have endlessly taken
Turkish words and phrases to come up with new words for themselves and
this wrongdoing has been covered up with spurious etymologies. The
public has been deceived about this for a long time so when someone
comes along and tells the truth as I did, some people are not going to
be happy. That is understandable but then the detective should not be
blamed for his thorough investigation in locating and identifying the
wrongdoer. Otherwise one would be siding with the wrongdoer rather
than the truth.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

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

emarhalys wrote:
>
> I have only mentioned it as it seemed a weak example. I am not
> dismissing your theory on the merits of Urek and its suffive -ti,
> but I would suggest you not try to defend it as a "good example"
> when it is not.
>
> Usually when I research, I try to find "the weak links". When I play
> games, I try to test the limits. Without knowing the tensility of a
> theory, it is hard to build a house on a weak foundation. And so,
> when I study your "unique theory", I look for ways it fails. If it
> is a sound theory, it will hold in all cases, but in the two I have
> looked at so far at random, the theory has not been successful. In
> both cases the "match" you have found only works if you accept
> prefixes or suffixes to the root.
>
> It is nice and considerate though that you would choose Urek to
> engage David. One of the hallmarks of great scholars are that they
> try to teach others.
>
> Now, you have gamely rose to the occasion to work your theory
> on "syncretism". But I must say, I have a fondness for words and
> letters too. Here in America we have a popular boardgame
> called "Scrabble." You take letters of the alphabet and rearrange
> them on a board to create words. But depending on where you place
> the letter you might get a double letter or triple letter point
> score. Sometimes you can get double word scores and if you build
> your word onto another word, and create a string that can be read
> vertically and horizontally, then you get those points also.
>
> And I also enjoy discussions on etymologies. My name, James, comes
> from Jacob, and means "a supplanter." That is one who takes the
> place of another, or to borrow from your post, "an usurper."
>
> And I understand about the tyranny of Turkish being forced upon the
> population. Consider the poor residents of Robbinsville, NC when I
> the Cherokee language was banned by the US government in the 1950s.
> The children were not allowed to speak it in public or at home, and
> even though Sequoyah a 150 years earlier had just come up with a
> written alphabet for a language hundreds of years old. Only in this
> modern day is the Cherokee language making a revival.
>
> The point of this anecdote, is that many places names in Georgia get
> their names from old Cherokee terms. Thus the Etowah Indians Mounds,
> the Chattahoochee River, Brasstown Bald mountain, Stone Mountain --
> they are all Cherokee terms translated into English. Etowah, for
> example, means, "high tower", and that is why the mound complex has
> a very tall main ceremonial mound. There is even a road around here
> called Hightower Road, and people with the last name of Hightower.
> But for me to say that "Etowah" and "tower" are the same word via
> this anagrammatizing from Cherokee to English is far off base.
>
> e T o W a h TW T o W e R TWR?
>
> It is a coincidence. And though the pattern of the consonants seems
> to suggest that the TW of Etowah is present in the TWR of tower, it
> is not.
>
> This is what I see in your theory Dr. Kaya. Human beings have
> associative minds. They want to find linkages in disparate elements
> so that they can have "the whole picture".
>
> As far as Syncretism and Karisim Etun, I must ask, is "Karisim Etun"
> a common word, or did you just find a combination that would work?
> That is the point of my questioning your methodology.
>
> I am a punster. I love puns and I can pun on any word ever written.
> But just because I can pun does not mean the language will make
> sense. It does not even mean it will be funny as they usually
> aren't. In fact, I guess you could say if you care sum you can sing
> etun? Do you see, it is a pun, I made a sense of something that
> should have no sense!
>
> Just googling i can find no hits for "Karisim Etun". Thus though you
> get the combination, is that phrase in the vernacular? Is it used
> often, and if so by whom. These are the details you leave out of
> your theories. How can we assess the match if we have no
> corroborating evidence?
>
> If I use the turkish to English url
>
> http://www.onlineturkish.com/Dictionary.asp
>
> and try to look up karisim or etun, I get nothing, but again that
> might be because I don't have the right keyboard?
>
> I understand about the y=u, you used, as they are weak consonants as
> termed in akkadian so I would think in other Northwest Semitic
> languages. But googling I do see KARISTIRINIZ in reference to
> alchoholic drinks, so I would think "mixing" would be the context? I
> find it interesting though that this Karistiriniz has an extra R in
> it?
>
> I liked the point you made about vowel harmony though. I am sure
> Turkish and Greek are quite intimately related as the proximity of
> the peoples and lands. As far as the matter of UYUM AN OKIRSIZ,
> singing in time is an associative definition. The root of the greek
> is Chrono, yet we do not see that in Okirsiz. I am no position as I
> can not find Okirsiz on the web.
>
> Still you have some interesting work that is fun to follow along!
>
> I must say I have tried to put no emotional inflection upon the
> drawbacks I see to your theories, but think there is more
> substantive details you must include before presenting this to the
> public. There is no way an English speaker unschooled in Turkish can
> assess the frequency of the "turkish equivalent" phrases you are
> coming up with. In fact, to help your readers follow along, perhaps
> you could include a good url of a Turkish to English dictionary, so
> that your readers can follow along through the languages if they
> wanted to?
>
> All the best,
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...