NO. 4) [hrl 2] Re: Fw:
[bcn2004] Hitit ve Hatti Gök-Tanri OGUZ Töresi
Dear Friends,
Greetings. My
response to Mr. James M. Rogers' posting is
interspersed within
his text below.
emarhalys wrote:
>
> Yes, the User
sceptre was a symbol of kingship. But likewise, using
> the
anagrammatizing theory, you might try to associate the ancient
> name of the
most Supreme Egyptian god, Osiris,
POLAT KAYA: Let me
see. You are trying to tell me "do not try to
recognize USER as
Turkish by employing an anagrammatizing theory".
You are very
confused. There is no need for me to anagrammatize. You
do not seem to have
understood what I have been saying or more
correctly you do
not want to understand. I do not use
"anagrammatizing"
as you insinuate. I only decipher words that have
been intentionally
usurped from Turkish and anagrammatized into
Indo-European (IE)
and Semitic languages. Since I write in English you
should have no
difficulty in understanding what I am saying unless you
have a hidden
agenda to distort and alter my writings.
The ancient
Masar/Misir (incorrectly labelled EGYPT - referring to
GYPSY) was a state
of Tur/Turk peoples contrary to the perpetrated
misrepresentations.
The name "AS ER", "OS ER" and "US ER" were
appellations used
to describe the Supreme Sky-God OGUZ ER. The name
"OSIRIS"
is the Hellenized form of the original Turkic name "OSIR" (OS
ER). In other
words, the name "OSIRIS" is a Greek distortion of the
actual name OSIR.
Why did the Greeks have to add an IS to a proper
name? Why did they
have to distort and "Hellenize" everything? The
answer is that they
were busy usurping and changing ancient Turkish
words, expressions
and names. OSIR is Turkish and unquestionably from
OSER/OZER
(OGUZ-ER). My recognizing that the Masarian OSIR is nothing
but the Turkish
OSER/OZER (OGUZ-ER) has nothing to do with
anagrammatizing or
association.
Turkish is a
language that uses a lot of vowels and is a very
transparent
language. You can see this from my many examples. Just
because you lack
knowledge regarding Turkish, does not mean that I
should not
recognize my language. Your insinuation is rather out of
place.
Evidently wanderers
loved to change everything on their path from its
original form, thus
making the original Turkish source unrecognizable.
This game of
deception was adopted by the cabalists of Babylon to
confuse the one
language that the whole world spoke which was Turkish.
The Semitics
removed the vowels of Turkish and Sumerian words leaving
only the
consonants, i.e., the skeleton of words. This way they could
read into each set
of consonants many distorted meanings taken from
the one source
language of the ancient Turanian civilization. By
altering an
existing language they opened up a path for them to come
up with
manufactured languages that helped them to become a "nation"
from a state of
wanderers.
G. S. Kirk,
Emeritus Professor of Greek at Cambridge, (1974) writes:
"The very term
'Greek' is full of ambiguity. 'Greek', like 'Akkadian',
denotes a language
rather than a people. The Greek-speaking people
began to enter the
Greek peninsula shortly before 2000 B.C., but they
found there an
indigenenous population that already had cultural and
perhaps linguistic
connection with Asia Minor." (p. 267).
This makes one
wonder why they were not a 'people'?
Ancient Masarians
were not "GYPSIES" as is implied by the concocted
name
"EGYPT" or "EGYPTIAN" - which refers to GYPSIES. The world
has
been conned by way
of using this deceptive verbology in defining
ancient Masarians
(Misirians). Thus by way of altering their name,
this longest living
ancient civilization of Tur/Turk peoples
(MASAR/MISIR) has
been artificially assigned to group of wanderers
that had nothing to
do with that state and their civilization. This is
an act of
"usurping" other people and their civilization By this act,
at the same time,
the name of the original Tur/Turk owners of this
magnificent
Masar/Misir state and civilization has been cut off from
the Turkish world.
You said:
> whose names is
Asar
> with User? If
you did, you would be wrong. Though the consonants are
> identical a S
a R vs. u S e R, AS is a throne hieroglyph and User
> is one glyph
itself. They are not even remotely the same, though
> they both
share the common themes of kingship.
>
POLAT KAYA: It is
peculiar that you have the audacity to tell me not
to recognize my own
language when I see it. There has been enough
deception
perpetrated already to con the whole world. Please don't
try to add to it. I
will say this once again. You do not know
Turkish, Turkish
history or Turkish civilization therefore you are in
no position to make
such judgements. ASER (AS ER), OSER (OS ER), USER
(US ER) are all
Turkish words no matter how much denial you show. They
define and describe
the ancient Turanian supreme creator Sky-God OGUZ
ER - which the
ancient Masar/Misir people worshipped. Do not think
that I will not
recognize my own language in Masarian writings just
because you tell me
not to do so. Evidently you are well trained to
deflect things that
are not to your liking.
You wrote
> This is what I
see in your theories. These "associative"
> definitions.
Thus your thread about the Wise, the penultimate Sky
> God, they are
corrolary. Meanings of significance that do not find
> their root in
the consonants chosen for the words. Perhaps in
> Turkish, of
course, they are closer, as you say Turkish word
> meanings are
based on a monsyllabic system, but in most languages,
> the meanings
are syllabically based. Akkadian & Turkish are based on
> monosyllabic,
Greek, Hebrew, on syllables, and in my opinion
> Egyptian
hieroglyphs in "syllable strings" if that is such a term?
>
POLAT KAYA: You
seem to be superficial in understanding what I say in
my writings.
Meanings given to words are extremely important. They
give life to the
words. Without a meaning associated with each word,
words become lull.
Then no communication would be possible. So, let
us not didtort or
underestimate my writings by playing games on words
with the use of
terms like "corolary", etc. Additionally, it seems
that your
understanding of "syllable" and my understanding of
"syllable"
are two different things. When I say "syllable", using V
for
"vowel" and C for "consonant", I mean sets of: V, VC, CV,
CVC
basic arrangements,
not the way, for example, that words in English
are syllabized.
This different understandings cause a lot of misunderstandings.
As I have stated
over and over, so-called Semitic languages are made
up from Turkish
and/or Sumerian / Masarian. Probably, Akkadians were
the first one to
start the looting. The name Hebrew is another case
of a stolen and
repainted car. Its source is from Turkish "BIR O" as
I have pointed out
before. "Hebrew" term was applicable to the
language of
Cananites, Palestinians and Masar/Misir peoples contrary
to perpetrated
disinformation. These peoples were not Semitics. The so
called "West
Semitics" or "North Semitics" were Tur/Turk peoples
contrary to all the
misrepresentations. They have been claimed as
"Semitic"
just like the ancient Turkish Hazar Empire has been
deceptively named
"Jewish Hazar Empire". Thus changing Turkish names,
words and phrases
of Turkish civilizations has done wonders for some
wanderers.
You write:
> Thus righ now,
I am in "the doghouse" with you which is an
> expression
which basically means you are not pleased with me. In
> fact, my
behavior is more like the dog part of the word.
POLAT KAYA: You put
yourself in the "doghouse" by your own obnoxious
behaviour and your
insincerity. After all that misbehaving, what did
you expect me to
take you for. I tried to elevate you, yet you
insisted, as you
say, on playing the dog part of the word which puts
you in the
"doghouse". It is a shameful behavior on your part. Grow
up Mr. Rogers.
You say:
> But if
> doghouse were
Greek, to take elements out of it and rearrange it --
> why the
possibilities could be innumerable. In any good word of six
> or more
letters, you have 1/4 of an alphabet to work with in finding
> associations.
Thus these longer examples for Synchronism, it is an
> eleven letter
word!
>
POLAT KAYA: Now you
are faulting me for having found the Turkish
source for a longer
IE word? Have you lost your directions?
Yo say:
> Consider the
problem you had with Urek, Urekti. You found the match
> at six letters
but not at four. Do you see what I am saying?
> Associatively,
given enough letters and combinations, I would think
> you could get
a match for almost any word whether there was a
> legitimate
connection there or not?
POLAT KAYA: You are
under the misconception that the anagrammatizers
had a rule that
they followed when they were manufacturing IE words
from Turkish
sources. Not so. They were free to steal and rearrange
according to their
whims and desires. The French anagrammatizer
decided to take
Turkish UREK and transform it into French COEUR while
the English
anagrammatizer decided to take Turkish UREK" with the
Turkish suffix
"TI" added to it and transformed it into English HEART.
The two together
(i.e., "UREK" + "TI") means "it is heart" where
Turkish K was
softened into H. The Greeks did the same by taking
Turkish
"UREK" + "DI" and came up with KARDIA. The Latin
anagrammatizer took
Turkish UREK and altered it into L:atin COR. You
see how easy it is?
It is a joke. Once you have a Turkish model in
front of you,
making alterations and embellishments is as easy as
making a dough. So
contrary to what you are saying, I had no problem
with recognizing
English HEART as being sourced from Turkish UREKTI.
You wrote:
> What I think
will make or break your theory, Dr. Kaya is the amount
> of matches you
can get for very short words of Greek from Turkish.
> Five or four
letters, no more?
POLAT KAYA: Your
flimsy complaint has no validity at all. You must
note that I have
dignosed many short IE words and long IE words as
being sourced from
Turkish. You will find them in my writings in my
library. You know
very well that I hit the nail on the head when I
revealed that
Turkish UREK was the source for all the IE versions of
HEART. You are
bothered by this and that is why you are trying to
belittle it or
divert it. I also pointed out that all medical terms
centred around the
bogus etymology of Greek KARDIA are actually
sourced from
Turkish UREK. For your information, even the term
ETYMOLOGY is
sourced from Turkish. One more thing, let me assure you
that you are in no
position to put "rules", "demands" or "limitations"
on my work.
You say:
> Have you ever
heard the saying that
> if one million
monkeys were given typewriters and they typed at
> random for a
hundred years, that the entire works of Shakespeare
> could be found
in their random typings?
POLAT KAYA: Yes, I
have heard this before but it is pure rubbish.
Even if you gave 10
million monkeys a computer and let them type for a
million years, you
would not get Shakespeare out of it. This is
dishonest
sophistication designed to con people with. Another
used-car salesman
talk. If you belive this kind of nonsense, you are
more naive than I
thought.
You write:
> This is what I
see with your
> theory,
because the longer the word you are trying to trace to the
> Turkish
etymology, the easier it will be for you to find a match?
POLAT KAYA:
Nonsense. Nothing can be further from the truth. Your
logic, if one can
call it that, is faulty again. On the contrary, the
longer the word,
the harder it should be to unearth its source, that
is, if the IE
languages were original and developed independently away
from Turkish. Your
admission that I have found a "match" is proof that
I am accurate in
what I am saying, that is, the IE word was in reality
made from Turkish.
You must remember that the Turkish source I present
for a given IE word
has the same or very related meaning. I am not
just producing
unrelated Turkish expressions which would be easy but
would have no
relevance. There is no way a Greek linguist or any other
linguist could have
come up with IE words containing a gobledeegook
arrangement of
consonants and vowels that just happen to line up with
a Turkish
expression in both meaning and letters unless they sourced
their IE word from
that Turkish expression. This process is
encryption of
Turkish source material to form IE words.
Finally you say:
> That is why syncretism
or synchronism were so "easy" to find. They
> were both very
long words?
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...
>
POLAT KAYA: You
must have a really big bag of excuses. You took my
"UREK"
example and labelled it as a "weak" example. I gave you much
harder examples and
you came up with the excuse that "they were longer
and therefore
easy". I gave so many other examples which you ignored.
Why don't you just
admit that my examples represent the truth? After
all, I have nailed
it completely and undeniably. I understand it may
be difficult for
you to admit it but if you throw away your built-in
prejudices and
bias, it should be easy.
I am confident that
you would not be able to find the Turkish source
of even a few IE
words - even if you knew Turkish and wanted to. In
other words,
deciphering is not an easy task so don't try and portray
it as one. Your
statement "That is why syncretism or synchronism were
so "easy"
to find" is again an admission that I was right in my
deciphering of
these so-called Indo-European words. You see no matter
how much
"repainting" and "embellishing" the usurpers did when
manufacturing IE
words out of Turkish source material, the Turkic DNA
was left just below
the surface.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
===============
emarhalys wrote:
>
> Yes, the User
sceptre was a symbol of kingship. But likewise, using
> the
anagrammatizing theory, you might try to associate the ancient
> name of the
most Supreme Egyptian god, Osiris, whose names is Asar
> with User? If
you did, you would be wrong. Though the consonants are
> identical a S
a R vs. u S e R, AS is a throne hieroglyph and User
> is one glyph
itself. They are not even remotely the same, though
> they both
share the common themes of kingship.
>
> This is what I
see in your theories. These "associative"
> definitions.
Thus your thread about the Wise, the penultimate Sky
> God, they are
corrolary. Meanings of significance that do not find
> their root in
the consonants chosen for the words. Perhaps in
> Turkish, of
course, they are closer, as you say Turkish word
> meanings are
based on a monsyllabic system, but in most languages,
> the meanings
are syllabically based. Akkadian & Turkish are based on
> monosyllabic,
Greek, Hebrew, on syllables, and in my opinion
> Egyptian
hieroglyphs in "syllable strings" if that is such a term?
>
> Thus righ now,
I am in "the doghouse" with you which is an
> expression
which basically means you are not pleased with me. In
> fact, my
behavior is more like the dog part of the word. But if
> doghouse were
Greek, to take elements out of it and rearrange it --
> why the
possibilities could be innumerable. In any good word of six
> or more
letters, you have 1/4 of an alphabet to work with in finding
> associations.
Thus these longer examples for Synchronism, it is an
> eleven letter
word!
>
> Consider the
problem you had with Urek, Urekti. You found the match
> at six letters
but not at four. Do you see what I am saying?
> Associatively,
given enough letters and combinations, I would think
> you could get
a match for almost any word whether there was a
> legitimate
connection there or not?
>
> What I think
will make or break your theory, Dr. Kaya is the amount
> of matches you
can get for very short words of Greek from Turkish.
> Five or four
letters, no more? Have you ever heard the saying that
> if one million
monkeys were given typewriters and they typed at
> random for a
hundred years, that the entire works of Shakespeare
> could be found
in their random typings? This is what I see with your
> theory,
because the longer the word you are trying to trace to the
> Turkish
etymology, the easier it will be for you to find a match?
> That is why
syncretism or synchronism were so "easy" to find. They
> were both very
long words?
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...