"Can Turkish be a source of Sanskrit? Derivation of word Hindu stan - Indu Stan- Soma stan ; Need for more study",
To: B.V. K. Sastry,
Yes my response was long but I will not be as long this time. I felt
that what I wrote in my response had to be written in order to bring
clarity to a very important aspect of linguistics that have long been avoided.
>From our mutual communications, certain facts have come up to the
surface. One was that Turkish words describing the ancient Sun-God,
Moon-God and an all creator Sky-Father-God have also been used in
Indian culture for a long time under different names although in
anagrammatized (altered, restructured and disguised) form. The other
fact was that Sanskrit language also used the anagram technique in
creating words for itself, and they used ancient Turkish language and
culture to come up with words for the desired concepts. The so-called
"Indo-European" languages have all done this. Thus learning that
Sanskrit also did it completes the picture.
Yet in your response you tried to turn the tables around. You tried to
paint a picture in which Turkish supposedly emerged from Sanskrit
rather than being the other way around. In this regard, you turned the
discussion into a debate of sophistry rather than keeping it a
fact-finding discussion. In my discussion, I identified and
demonstrated some very important words of Indian culture being from
Turkish origin, although they were hidden behind curtains of embellishments.
I noticed that in your heading you used the phrase: "Con Theory of
Turkish being another source of Sanskrit; Derivation of word Hindu
stan - Indu Stan- Soma stan ; Need for more study". Your use of the
phrase "Con Theory of Turkish" tells me that you have not really
understood my "theory" at all or do not want to understand it and even
perhaps are wishing that it will go away. But it will not, because my
theory explains the source for many of the present day languages; and
that source was Turkish.
If I may, I will demonstrate once again what I mean by way of
"anagrammatizing" or "anu bandha karana" in the case of Sanskrit.
For the sake of following the matter readily, let us take some
1. The English word MULTICULTURAL meaning "many culturally different
people". Now I say that the source of this word is Turkish but in its
present form its Turkish source is not easily seen because it has been
The word MULTICULTURAL, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "MUL
TURALILUKT", where the letter M is a replacement for "B" and C is
really a K, and read phonetically as in Turkish, is a restructured and
disguised Turkish expression "BOL TORALILUKTU" (Bol törelilikti)
meaning "it is having many cultures", it is multicultural".
Thus Turkish "BOL" meaning "many, plenty" has been converted to "MUL",
and Turkish "TORALILUKTU" meaning "it is with traditions" has been
restructured into "TICULTURAL" and then the two restructured words
have been made into one word making it MULTICULTURAL. I may also point
out that even the English prefix POLY defined as "a combining form
meaning many, much, several" is from Turkish "BOL O" meaning "many,
much, several". Thus when you have a source material from a language
like Turkish, it is easy to make new languages.
Even the word CULTURE, when viewed as "TURELUC", is a distorted form
of Turkish "TORELIK" (törelik) meaning "pertaining to tradition,
culture". And even the word TRADITION (< "ADITTIR-ON") clearly
contains the Turkish word "ADETTIR" meaning "it is custom" or "it is tradition".
2. Let us take another example, say, English word "MULTILINGUAL"
meaning "knowing more than one language". Its letter-by-letter
decipherment shows that it is the anagram of Turkish expression "BOL
TILLILUG O" (bol dillilik o) meaning "it is pertaining to many
tongues" or "it is belonging to many tongues" which is
"multilingualism". In this anagram, one of the four L's in the Turkish
expression has been replaced by "N" and Turkish "B" has been replaced
by "M", thus making the new word MULTILINGUAL. Turkish TIL means
"tongue, language", infix LI means "with", -LIK /-LUG/LUK means
"pertaining to" or "belonging to", and O means "it is". Thus, "it is
belonging to many tongues" which is the definition of MULTILINGUAL.
3. The Greek word "OXUDERKES" or "OKSUDERKES"meaning "lynx-eyed". 
"Lynx" is a wild cat. Hence, the Greek word actually means "someone
whose eyes are like that of a wild cat", i.e., "cat-eyed".
The Greek word OXUDERKES contains the letter "ksi" represented with
"X" which is really KS in this case, hence the original form of the
word is "OKSUDERKES". When this form is rearranged letter-by-letter as
"KEDE-KOSSU-R", it is readily seen as a restructured form of Turkish
expression "KEDI GÖZSÜ ER" meaning "man whose eyes are like that of a
cat". This is not a coincidence. The anagrammatizers who
manufactured this "Greek" word knew Turkish inside out with a complete
knowledge of each root word, infixes and suffixes. And they were
Please also note that English word CAT is also nothing but a
restructured form of Turkish word "KEDI" meaning "Cat". In this
anagram, not only was the final Turkic "I" dropped, but also the
Turkic letter "K" was changed into "C" while still being vocalized as
"K". This is done only through plagiarism. This distortion distances
the word "CAT" from Turkish "KEDI" both visually and also vocally.
That is anagrammatization for you.
4. Let us take the Italian word PREDIZIONE meaning "prediction,
telling things before they happen". 
The Italian word PREDIZIONE, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"PIR-ONZE-DEI", is a restructured and disguised Turkish expression
"BIR ÖNCE DEI" (bir önce deyi/deyish) meaning "One advance telling",
i.e., "one foretelling".
5. Let us take the Italian word PRONOSTICATORE meaning "one that
When this very sophisticated looking Italian word is rearranged
letter-by-letter as "PIR-ONCA-TEOSOTR", it is found to be a
restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "BIR ÖNCE
TEYUCUTUR" (bir önce deyicidir) meaning "he/she is one who foretells".
This is not coincidence either.
Of course, this also explains the etymology of the English word
PREDICTION. When this English word PREDICTION, is rearranged
letter-by-letter as "PIR-ONCE-DTIC", it reveals itself to be a
distorted form of the Turkish expression "BIR ÖNCE DETIK" meaning "one
advance telling", i.e., "one prediction". In this case a slightly
different form of the Turkish verb 'demek' meaning "to tell" has been used
6. The Latin word PRAEDICTUM meaning "prophecy, prediction,
prognostication, foretelling ". 
The word PRAEDICTUM, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"PR-UMCE-DATI", is the restructured Turkish expression "BIR ONCE DETI"
meaning "one advance telling". Similarly the English word PREDICTION,
when rearranged letter-by-letter as "PR-ONCE-DITI", is the
restructured Turkish expression "BIR ONCE DETI" meaning "one advance
telling". In both the Latin and English words Turkish "K" has been
written as "C" but still vocalised as "K".
7. Similarly, the English word PROGNOSTICATION meaning "foretelling",
when rearranged letter-by-letter as "ONCITAN-GOROSTI-P", is a
restructured, distorted and disguised Turkish expression "ONCADAN
GORISTI" (önceden görüstü) meaning "it is seeing ahead of time" which
is what PROGNOSTICATION is all about. In this case instead of using
the Turkish verb "demek" meaning "to tell", they used the verb
"görmek" meaning "to see". The leftover P in the above restructuring
must be additional "wrapping" in order to arrange the Turkish source
text into a desired format.
8. Take the French word CANALISATION defined as: 1. Civil Engineering:
a) canalization (of river, etc.), b) draining of (of plain), c)
piping. 2 a) Pipes, pipe-work, mains." 
When this French word CANALISATION, when rearranged letter-by-letter
as "SO-ACITAN-ILAN", where C is really a "K", is a restructured,
distorted and disguised Turkish expression "SU AKITAN YILAN" meaning
"snake that carries water" or "snake that makes water run fom place to
place". Here in this anagram, the Turkish word "SU" meaning "water"
has been altered as "SO", "AKITAN" meaning "that which carries water
or makes water flow" is altered as "ACITAN" and Turkish name "ILAN"
(YILAN) meaning "snake" is used as a simile. The river beds and canals
generally twist and turn like a "snake".
I believe these examples are sufficient to make my point very clear.
You will note that there is no "CON" job in what I am doing, although
it requires linguistic skill and keen eye sight on my part. Everything
is open and honest. Yet the Indo-European linguists have been playing
games with the Turkish language in using it as source material for the
languages they manufactured from Turkish. Then they turn around and
claime that their fabricated "Indo-European" languages are 7000 to
8000 years old. This is sophistry and misrepresentation.
After all of this, we now have learned that SANSKRIT also does a
similar processing, that is, using "ANU BANDHA KARANA"
(anagrammatizing) or "rearranging and wrapping" applied to the
linguistic source texts in order to come up with some words for
itself. We have shown that some of those source texts are in fact
Turkish in origin.
Now I ask you and all, please tell me what is the probability of
finding a Turkish word or phrase using the letters that make up these
English, Greek, Latin, French and Italian words where both would have
the same or similar meaning? I am quite sure that even you will say
that the probability for this to happen is nil or negligible.
Therefore finding Turkish in every case is the proof that these
languages have been deliberately manufactured from Turkish. Yet the
Turks and the rest of the world have been conned by many colorful
definitions given in many Indo-European dictionaries. So, as all can
see after my revelations, this so-called "Indo-European" concept is a
falsehood having no basis whatsoever.
Now in view of all these explanations, if the title of your paper had
been: "Can Turkish be a source of Sanskrit? Derivation of word Hindu
stan - Indu Stan- Soma stan ; Need for more study", it would have been
much more appropriate and correct than the one you used, that is: "Con
Theory of Turkish being another source of Sanskrit; Derivation of word
Hindu stan - Indu Stan- Soma stan ; Need for more study".
I can understand your being defensive but you need not be. You are a
scholar, a linguist, a scientist and I am sure you are also trying to
find out the truth regarding the source of so many languages being
spoken by the public at large. Your qualifying my theory as "Con
Theory of Turkish . . ." does not really change anything from my
theory. In fact it is not a "theory" anymore, it is a "fact". As you
know I am very open in my writings with many references. God forbid,
I have no intention of conning anyone. In fact we, that is, you, me
and billions of others, are the ones that have been conned all along
by a few.
If Turkish is a source to Sanskrit as it has been used as a source for
all other Indo-European and Semitic languages, it is not all that bad,
is it? In fact when I look at the end products, I think these very
secretive, intelligent but dishonest workers of new languages from
Turkish, working behind closed doors have done an unbelievably good
job. Although the end results is great, it does not negate the fact
that they were plagiarized from one language called Turkish.
One only wishes that they had admitted what they did rather than being
so secretive about it. However what was unbelievably super was the
creation of a phonetic, monosyllabic and agglutinative Turkish
language created by the ancient Turanians which led itself as the
initial tongue of mankind, and led itself for the invention of writing
which itself was another gift to the world.
You will agree that "buildings do not make bricks." It is "bricks that
make buildings". Similarly, a phonetic, monosyllabic and
agglutinative Turkish language, with simple but mathematical rules and
structure, can serve as a source material, i.e., the building bricks,
to later languages. And this is what has taken place.
 DIVRY's "Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary,
 C. Graglia's New Pocket Dictionary of the Italian and English
Languages: from Baretti, Bottarelli, Polidori and Petroni. Third
Edition, London, 1864, p. 288.
 C. Graglia's New Pocket Dictionary of the Italian and English
Languages: from Baretti, Bottarelli, Polidori and Petroni. Third
Edition, London, 1864, p. 294.
 Cassell's Latin-English Dictionary, Compiled by D. P. Simpson,
MACMILLAN, USA, 1987, p. 175.
 J. E. Mansion, "French and English Dictionary", D. C. Heat and
Company, Boston, 1940, p.93.
My best wishes to you and to all,
The reader is cordially invited to visit Polat Kaya Library for other
writings at URL:
Kamil KARTAL wrote:
> From: "BVK Sastry" <sastry_bvk@...>
> To: Polat_Kayafirstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
> Subject: Con Theory of Turkish being another source of Sanskrit ;
> Derivation of word Hindu stan - Indu Stan- Soma stan ; Need for more
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:42:20 -0500
> 1. First, I am sorry for misspelling your name. My apologies.
> Responding to a long response ( 23 pages) with intricately connected
> deep points took time for making this response. The response
> segments are marked by separators and the dialogue format is
> 2. The reason for using the phrase like `may be' is NOT due to lack
> of home work. It is a polite way of pointing that the stated point
> is not acceptable and needs more deliberation. I have the conviction
> that the Vedic Sanskrit is the root language for many of the
> languages of the ancient societies including the Turkish. If I make
> this an assertive statement, which you call as `no guessing-direct,
> loaded assumption that is pre aligned with the establishment's
> view ', no dialogue goes on. The discussion gets colored. You can
> ask the basis for my statement. And I can provide the facts (if I
> have) for the same. The `feelings' can not be changed by
> 3.I am looking at the entire analysis within a frame work, which
> goes as below:
> Without carrying any prejudice about the vedic Sanskrit, or any
> specific language like Tamil or Turkish, it is important to revisit
> the understanding of the classical languages and languages of the
> ancient civilizations. It would be much preferable to make efforts
> in getting at how the ancient users themselves viewed their language-
> grammar-literature than porting the current understanding of
> linguistic theories. This calls for `out of the BOX' thinking. This
> out of the box thinking is the exploration of the link of language
> and the elevated states of human consciousness. And the exploration
> has to take had in hand the language-grammar-phonetics-cultural
> contexts and some space for unknown variables that may emerge as the
> exploration goes on. I don't say that this is easy, but this is the
> only way in my best of consideration.
> For this `out of the box' thinking, the boxes are too many. In one
> model, the boxes are like the Russian dolls, one hidden in another,
> as in linguistics which interprets ancient beliefs and life styles
> in terms of current society. It is difficult to see what is being
> picked from what box. The proto approach on linear historicity
> suffers this defect.
> In another model, the boxes are laterally spread out- like different
> study disciplines. Medical sciences, material sciences and the like.
> It is difficult to get to the roots of the hypothesis and the
> experiments based on which the particular conclusion has been drawn.
> For example- The output from medical disciplines on neural memory
> model and linguistic intelligence is traced to DNA, some part of the
> physical brain and the like; but the dependency of it on allied
> disciplines and limitations of experimentation, the extensions of
> the theory are not strictly verified.
> If we don't go with the out of the box thinking, we would have
> to face two situations: Either the ancients were great conmen and
> played a big fraud, which absolutely negates any pride in any
> cultural tradition; OR ancients were super intelligent and we have
> not been able to get to their level of understanding.
> I would prefer to go by the view of open mind- In the current
> situation, it would need further exploration basing research on firm
> material and avoiding extensions based on it. My recommendation for
> this start with firm material as at the totality of Ancient
> Bharateeya (call it Indic, Indian, Asian if necessary) languages as
> of the period circa 500 B.C.E – reckoning to the historicity of
> Buddha and Mahavira(Buddhism and Jainism) and move back step by step
> with the integrated consideration of language-grammar – sacred
> source documents. This would help in clearly marking what
> information -understandings of the post reference period is getting
> to influence beyond the border line marked.
> The other issue that needs to be critically reviewed and much
> more seriously is the historic date marking techniques drawn from
> material sciences and lingusitcs. I am specifically referring to the
> carbon dating techniques, about which tacit acceptance is made,
> despite the serious doubts expressed in this matter. The dating of
> the literary works like Tol,Veda or biblical references when drawn
> on linguistic platform need to be carefully reviewed. The time
> keeping and the historic documentation practices of the ancient
> societies differ for sacred document sources in relation to the
> profane documentation; at least the ancient Indian historical
> documentation has limitations of this kind. What holds firm in
> Sanskrit documentation for the entire post period of Panini to
> current day is the rule conformity and consistency of grammar for
> sanskrit document. What happens prior to Panini and why is it so ?
> is the real issue debated. Traditional thinking is that there is NO
> change in the grammar, at least in the sacred source documents of
> Veda. Modern linguists are questioning this foundation, projecting
> language historicity. And this is the area that needs specific
> research, in my opinion.
> There are many dimensions of explanations for linguistic
> diversity where in the issue of language and higher consciousness
> states is not explored in its fullest existent by the current
> linguistic theories. The classical theories, especially in sanskrit
> start with this key point. The changing perspectives create
> differences in explanation. The same holds true for the proto
> language concept itself.
> The difficulty is where does the border of mystic perspective
> and historical perspective of language get the overlap and can be
> verified on the medical sciences as well as mystical traditions
> alike. This needs clarity of thought and exploration.
> Thus if the word SAVITRU is to be taken as conned word, the
> preceding theory of language behind it is one of `historicity'. If
> the same word is to be taken as a mystic revealed word, then the
> preceding theory of language behind it is one of `divinity'. Mixing
> of the cultural symbolisms, popular usages, historicity will not
> help in clarifying the issue.
> This is the deviation on which Dr.Loganathan's views on
> Sumero Tamil has been questioned. And when you bring in Turanian
> origin, the same question needs to be addressed by you also.
> Whether one likes it or not, Classical sanskrit bound in the
> rules of Paninian frame work defines the grammar processing for
> Sanskrit language, to be more conservative, at least after 500 BCE
> and all post documentation of this period, in Sanskrit abides by
> this rule. The issue of historicity, evolution of language and the
> like concepts stop at the doors of this one language. The only logic
> and (charged explanation!) made by the non traditionalists to
> explain this is a con man ship on the Brahmin religious priests.
> This in my opinion is a flawed theory. If one were to look at the
> entire societal usage and acceptance of Sanskrit based documents
> (and supposedly ? !) sanskrit originated and influenced bharateeya
> langauges in a duration of two millennium, the demographics show
> that Bramhins were NEVER in statistically significant numbers in
> society; Bramhins were NEVER in Social economic power; Bramhins were
> at best the advisors who held to truth and god fearing life style.
> Coming to specific point:
> a) The word SAVITRU is - a RU vowel (svara) ending word. When
> processed it becomes SAVITUH (aspirated H) in two case forms; After
> that, when the word is in close conjunction with the next
> word `VARENYAM' which is a verb + Affix process derived word,
> finally becoming a technical noun), the euphony is responsible for
> the pronounced form `(SA)(VI)(TUR)(VA)(RE)(NYAM)'. This two word
> combine is a part of larger sentence unit, with accents and is taken
> as a `linguistic revelation associated with a higher level of
> consciousness'. And the phonetic pronunciation of this is rigidly
> maintained for at least two millennium as a living tradition in
> India. To say that indo-european speakers are vocalizing these
> abnormal phonemes without admitting consciously that they are –
> needs to be subject to verification. Either one has to take the
> stand that the members of the entire Indo European language speaking
> are insensitive in their pronunciation and hearing to distinguish
> between phonemes and abnormal phonemes; which is a tall claim that
> needs substantial proof. OR the statement is simply non-factual.
> b) How are ethnic names derived ?- The conventions of naming in the
> ancient civilizations is going by the words in the sacred texts,
> gods words, names of the elders and the like. The naming of the
> community goes by the name of the `lead personality'. And in this
> case, the investigation is about the name of the lead personality by
> whose name the turaninas have gone. My proposal was to
> explore `Saviturvarenyam' as the basis of for this. This fits well
> with the accepted norms of naming. Could you bring in the details of
> the traditional guidelines for the naming of a person in the family,
> especially in the rulers and spiritual groups? Some times this could
> be second naming convention beyond the worldly popular names, with a
> special rite associated with it, like the occupying of throne,
> acceptance of a different life order like monk hood. And the
> occasions for this would be the assuming of the power by a lead
> personality. The guidelines in a subject called `political
> astrology' needs to be brought in here. The reference for
> this "Astrology in the Renaissance, The Zodiac of Life" by Eugenio
> Garin (ISBN 0-7100-9259-8). Another possible source Abu Ma'sar on
> Political Astrology: "The Book of Religions and Dynasties" (on Great
> Conjunctions) Vol 2: The Latin Translation: Albumasar, "De Magnis
> Conjunctionibus ( On Great Conjunctions) (editor Keiji Yamamoto,
> Charles Burnett) Brill, Leiden 500 pages.
> c) The affix Tur : The process meaning of this affix what I notice
> from the illustration given by you is `one of past tense'. This very
> well fits with the affixes that occur at the end of the verbs for
> past tense forms and the euphony combinations in sanskrit. The
> euphony combinations of precise nature marked in sanskrit can not be
> irregularly taken to other contexts in the name of phoneme
> d) On some of the specifics in the post:
> D1. Coming to your statement, you are asserting the language
> lineage in the order of (Turkish source)ŕ Manufacturing, fabrication
> by cunning priest ŕ Sumero Tamil, Vedic Sanskrit and the like. In
> this sense, you are not differing in any way from Dr. Loganathan who
> asserts Sumero Tamil is the basis of every ancient classic language
> be it Vedic Sanskrit, Turkish.. or any thing.
> So the name of the game is to prove how a given central asian
> language A is the father/mother of language families B,C,D. So you
> go to find proofs for demonstration about How this process occurs or
> could have occurred.
> For this, the stock you (and every one of us dip hand in) happens to
> be the (a)ancient classical languages (b) current interpretations
> and understanding (c) the historicity backdrop provided by the
> material and other sciences (like the carbon dating of the
> excavations and the like, astrology, other documentary evidences
> like the records in Vatican, genealogy lists..)
> In this process, when the references from Sanskrit sources are
> given, the one advantage that exists is the unchanging nature of the
> language and rigidity of rules in the span of 500 BCE to current
> day. Call it an advantage or disadvantage, which other languages
> does not have. Therefore when the explanation is provided on the
> basis of Sanskrit, with reference of clearly defined historic source
> document, the historical time referencing can be confirmed to a pre-
> christian era period of 500 BCE with a certainty. There is a live
> tradition, literature and current teachers who can explain the
> linguistic document in a language frame work the same way as it was
> created. The faith and cultural interpretation variations does not
> influences this issue. And this holds for the later period
> completely. In every other language of the world, the languages have
> acceded change and later understanding, usages have over written the
> ancient practices. THIS APPLIES TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGES OF TURKISH,
> SUMERO TAMIL UNDER DISCUSSION- FOR THE SIMPLE REASON – THE
> GRAMMATICAL FIRMNESS OF THE LANGUAGE HAS NOT BEEN RETAINED FOR THE
> TIME RANGE UNDER CONSIDERATION. Thus when sumero tamil is being
> explained by Dr.Loganathan he is reading ancient text with the lense
> of later period than the work was created. It does not matter how
> late this period is, It matters that the distance separation causes
> distortion. When multiple layers of change has occurred in the
> languages, the assertive claim that language A is mother/father of
> langague B needs adequate justification on words and also grammar.
> The absence of the grammar based discussion and proof is the key
> defect that has been pointed by me. For which every time the
> response is in terms of `I have given proof'. What proof? The
> supposed proof is based on incompatible statistics, selective
> ignoring of grammar rules and substitution of laxities in
> pronunciation from a language usage segment which is NOT connected
> to the `religious scriptural literature' which is the stock from
> where the stock is taken and ungrammatical data and extension of
> cultural interpretations.
> D2. About `NON DEBATABLE' issue: Your post reads:-
> POLAT KAYA: The term PITRU is another form of Indo-European words
> such as PADRE, PATER, PEDER, PUTRA, FATHER, etc. meaning "father".
> All of these are actually different forms of the Turkish
> phrase "APATUR" meaning "he is father". This Turkish _expression
> defines the meaning of these words in Turkish as being the words for
> the concept of "father".
> In the Turkish _expression "APATUR", "APA" means "father" and "TUR"
> means "he/she/it is".
> Incidently, all versions of PITRU in so-called Indo-European
> are made up from Turkish APATUR including the English term "FATHER".
> They have all been anagrammatized from Turkish.
> Similarly, all versions of MAATRU appearing in Indo-European
> are made up from Turkish expressions. In other words, Turkish has not
> been derived from Sanskrit or any other language as claimed. It is
> the other way around. And this is non-debateable.
> BVK Sastry :- If you hold that view, no dialogue would be
> possible. My reading of the situation shows – the Turkish
> word `APATUR' is from the vedic sanskrit word `APTOR' which means
> sacred source, Sacred Seed, Sacred Water. Reckoning father as the
> sacred source of birth is well accepted ancient ethical standard.
> In making the statement < Additionally, if PITRU is actually
> from "PITUR", why don't they write it the way it should be written,
> that is, "PITUR" rather than PITRU"? They do not write it that way
> because it would make Sanskrit, or others so-called "languages
> derived from it", look very Turkish-like. Obviously they do not want
> that picture to come out, because they were originally usurped from
> Turkish. They would not turn back and admit that they manufactured
> it from Turkish now -would they? Thus there has been a deep rooted
> language alteration activity perpetrated since ancient times.>
> you have overarched your position. The word Pitur is written as
> spelled in Sanskrit, in the conventions of the Devanagari script. It
> is a true script with true phonetic values for the symbols, left to
> right, just as there are true scripts from left to right. The
> conventions of scripting do not change the true phonetic value. That
> is the limitation of roman alphabet character. It is not to be
> loaded on the Devanagari sanskrit script.
> Regarding the `manufacturing activity from language to language in
> ancient society', you have to come out with more proof. Let us trace
> the motives and the documentary understanding in the cultures and
> current practices. The point made by does not get substantiation.
> The logical reasoning you provide for the origination of Turkish to
> Sanskrit is the following: < The Turkish language basically is a
> monosyllabic language in which much larger expressions are made up
> by joining together many smaller root words, used as suffixes and
> infixes. Composite objects are made up with smaller basic building
> blocks. Similarly, it is reasonable to
> think that mono-syllabic languages would be developed much earlier
> than the composite languages such as the Sanskrit. Hence Turkish is a
> much earlier developed language than Sanskrit or any other language
> regarded as being derived from Sanskrit.>
> I have used the same argument to point out how the point of anu-
> bandha-karana protects sanskrit in its purity; and removal of it
> makes the derived languages from it get corrupted. The matter of
> anagrammatic process in the sanskrit paradigm is called
> the `evolving of prakrit from Sanskrit'. A language giving birth to
> another language like a seed at the root giving birth to a seed in
> the fruit. There are commonalities; but then there are process
> diversities. Just because the seed have the common potency, the
> trees and fruits don't become the same.
> Regarding Ganesha-sun : Your view point as below is a historical
> distortion < "The Lord of Success The son of Shiva and Parvati,
> Ganesha has an elephantine countenance with a curved trunk and big
> ears, and a huge pot-bellied body of a human being. He is the Lord
> of success and
> destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped the god of
> education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth. In fact, Ganesha is one of
> the five prime Hindu deities (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and Durga being
> the other four) whose idolatry is glorified as the panchayatana
> Ganesh Chaturthi The devotees of Ganesha are known as 'Ganapatyas',
> and the festival to celebrate and glorify him is called Ganesh
> Of course this Indian Supreme Deity name "GANESHA" is another form of
> the Turkish name "GUNESH" meaning "Sun". Thus the Elephant-God
> is also a personification of the Sun, that is, the ancient Turanian
> Sun-God. The name GANESHA also represents the following concepts as
> the Turkish GUNESH does: >
> The view given in the URL is post C.E interpretation. The worship of
> Sun as independent supreme god is an independent line of worship
> that has always been present, and live practice even to this day. If
> Ganesha represented Sun, why then a duplication would be allowed
> in tradition ? This does not make sense.
> The entire explanation given by you about the `Word' is well
> summarized in the concept of the vedic tradition being the `Sacred
> word revealed –`Shruti'. All this strengthens the view that Vedic
> tradition put in to practice in a distorted form resulted in the
> spread of many deviant traditions, which may be called Abrahamic,
> and out of this. one is , in my opinion is current Islamic and other
> is biblical. The commonality of key concepts is taken by me to
> reiterate the same.
> About the original source language-
> < This Biblical statement is a description of the ancient Turanian
> God OGUZ and his language, that is, "AGUZ" (SÖZ) meaning "mouth,
> word, speech and language" without referring to it. Referring to the
> name OGUZ would be an admission that they got their religious
> understanding and knowledge from Oguz. They preferred to stay mum
> on it. Yet the implication of this Biblical statement is that first
> there was the God OGUZ and with him there was the first language
> (AGUZ), that is, "OGUZCA" in Turkish, i.e., "TURCA/TÜRKÇE" the
> TURKISH language. OGUZ is also the name of the ancestors of the
> TUR/TURK peoples. Thus it is also the ethnic name of TUR/TURKS. This
> Biblical statement puts all other languages after the TUR/TURK
> (OGUZ) language implying that other
> languages have been made up from Turkish contrary all
> the "scholarly" verbosity. This is also verified by the Latin
> word "DEUS" means "God". With this name for "God" is also the
> Turkish word "DEUSh" (DEYISh) meaning
> "word, speech, language". Similarly, the Greek word "THEOS" means
> "God". But this name also has embedded in it the Turkish
> word "TEUSH"
> (deush, deyish) meaning "word, speech, language". DEO also means
> "God". Bu "DEO" is also the Turkish "DE O" meaning "it is Word", "it
> is what we say", i.e., "speech". The root these Indo-European "God
> names comes from the Turkish word DE/TE meaning "speak" comes from
> Turkish verb "demek" meaning "to speak". Again we find the Turkish
> word "DE/TE" meaning "word" associated with all of these Indo-
> names for God. This again shows that Turkish was the first language
> associated with the name of God in the beginning. All other languages
> were derived thereafter.>
> I can use the same argument for the opposite of the case.
> Unless some one from the Sanskrit tradition provides the decoding
> key, Turkish can not recognize its own source in sanskrit. The power
> of the argument is same. The holding of the final key for sacred
> interpretations is a well known practice in ancient masters. < Now
> you will note that the core word "ARVAT" which is Turkish has
> been "elegantly wrapped", as you put it, with "P" and "I" in the
> Indian word "PARVATI" which hides the main word ARVAT and makes it
> not recognizable as Turkish. In other words, the Turkish word ARVAT
> been disguised in the word PARVATI because of the "wrapping" that
> occurs in Sanskrit as you pointed out.> Putting it the other way
> round, unless sanskrit supplies the keys of P and I, the sanskrit
> form PARVATI of the TURKISH word ARVAT can not be recognized.
> The same argument can also be reversed : The inaccurate preservation
> and practice of the vedic tradition due to lack of guidance is the
> reason for current confusions. Turanina civilization is a partial
> facet of the vedic practices. < These are not coincidences. This is
> so because the Vedic revelations which transcend time and place;
> when localized get different regional flavors. They show that there
> has been a very conscious and conning changeover from a Turanian
> Turkish speaking world into a totally confused and muddled up
> Thus again we see that all Sky-God concepts in various languages are
> woven around the Turkish names of the ancient Turanian Sky-God TUR
> and OGUZ concepts. This is so because Turanian civilization was the
> first in the world.>
> .< POLAT KAYA: Yes indeed Turkish "APATUR" also means "Grand
> father" and thus "ancestor". TURKs are known for "ancestor
> worshipping" throughout their history.>
> The word APTUR in the meaning of grand father is a deformation of
> PRA-PITRU for grand father. Ancestor worship is a very shortened
> version of the RISHI sacred lineage and VAMSHA recognition in Vedic
> < POLAT KAYA: These meanings you list are attributions of the SUN-
> Additionally, the term "VARENYAM", when rearranged letter-by-letter
> "NAR-V-AYEM", is a restructured and distorted form of the Turkish
> _expression "NAR VE AYEM" meaning "I am Fire and Moon"; or
> "AY-V-NAREM", is a restructured and distorted form of the Turkish
> _expression "AY VE NAREM" meaning "I am Moon and Fire". In both
> these Turkish expressions refer to the ancient Turanian Sun-God and
> Moon-God" which are noblest, desirable and great. >
> The pointers you have given in this are interesting The specific
> alterations of the vedic syllabery is sued in Magical rites and for
> personal desire satisfaction. This was called the `ATHARVA PITRU'
> tradition. May be this line of analysis has to be done to explore
> how Turkish is linked to vedic sanskrit. This tradition of what you
> call anagrammatic arrangements, which is called in vedic tradition
> as `mantra nyasa', linked to the eight fold recitation techniques'
> will lead to interesting observations about the origin of Turkish
> Reg. ANu-BANDHA-KARANA you are partially right except the last part.
> Sanskrit ANU versus Turkish ONU meaning "it"; Anu in sSanskrit
> is `Following, after that'
> Sanskrit BANDHA versus Turkish BEND (baglamak, dizmek, bend etmek,
> eklemek) meaning "to tie, to attach, to fasten as in the links of a
> chain"; BANDHA in Sanskrit is to tie, tag.
> Sanskrit KARANA versus Turkish KIRIN meaning "you break". KARANA
> in Sanskrit is `NOT to break' but integrate. This precisely means –
> Sanskrit is a languge of integration where as the derived language
> is by `breaking this integration. This is what exactly the prakrit
> process is. Your view supports what I have been pointing, if you see
> the point of jump you have made.
> These correspondences cannot be due to coincidence.
> Coming to the next point about the name of the land My view is
> further supported here. The traveling teams took the vedic culture,
> to different lands; and where they could not maintain the purity of
> the ancient tradition, the distortions continued to survive. Only
> the masters had the key of providing the right words which will
> connect to the source tradition. The absence of the masters
> tradition is the reason for loss of knowledge about the origination
> of Turkish tradition. The vedic tradition of worshipping the sky,
> sun, moon ,fire continued but without a proper understanding of the
> revelation. The real name `HINDUSTAN' with the `Ha' sound currently
> used needs to be understood in the ancient context where "H" is
> actually an "I". Thus the word `HINDU-STAN' is really `INDU-STAN'
> which means the land of the moon' (=Indu) which very well matches
> with the earlier explanations. It is no wonder that the turks took
> the symbol of Moon for their identification along with the star, as
> guided in the vedic traditions. The word `Indu' is a substitute of
> the word `SOMA' the vedic name for Moon and the supreme deity. This
> is the true background of the word HINDU-STAN (Later Turkish) ŕ INDU-
> STAN (The H is really I and Indu standing for the SOMA= MOON=INDU)
> the land of SOMA, the real land of VEDA. The Bull, Moon, Fire, Sun,
> Ganesha are all integrated in the description of family of Shiva in
> the Vedic tradition and he is a SKY God. Thus Turkish tradition is
> an offshoot of vedic tradition. < `Having these concepts present in
> Indian religious texts, is another evidence that the ancient India
> was a land where the ancient Turanian sky-God religion was widely
> worshipped. It is no wonder that INDIA is also called by the
> Turkish name HINDUSTAN. This is not a coincidence. >
> Coming to the last point < Based on your writing, K. Loganathan, by
> misjudgement, countered me by the fallacious conclusion that you
> also think Turkish is derived from Sanskrit. Of course that is not
> the case at all. It is the other way around.>
> Dr.Loganathan was mixing up issues for which clarifications were not
> coming forth. When he started drawing the references from Turkish,
> and you responded, I have placed my responses. In my very considered
> opinion, there is a lot of history that needs to be rewritten. While
> there are commonalities, the interpretations are highly flavored by
> limitations in the frame of understanding. The ignoring, sidelining
> and misinterpreting the ancient tradition of sanskrit language in
> the name of linguistics, and reading unwarranted cultural overtures
> in the sacred sources is the primary reasons for this. And this has
> damaged the tradition, scholarship and served only the games of
> political historians.
> Dr.B.V.Venkatakrishna Sastry.
> Hindu University of America.