Re: [bcn2004] Re: Part-2 Turkish-Sumerian Kinship: Was it "Dingir.AMAR-Dingir.ZUEN", "Tengir.TURAN ZU-HAN (SU-HAN)" or "Tengir.TURAN UZ-HAN (OGUZ-HAN)"?

Dear John Halloran and all,

Greetings. This is in response to your posting regarding my paper on
the Sumerian and Turkish relationship, you said:

> The quoted text is filled with misinformation caused by trying to
> force Sumerian words into a relationship with similar-sounding words
> in Turkish.

You are very wrong my friend. Your response is a typical dismissal
confronting me with the word "misinformation" hoping that I will stop
my questioning the way the "Sumerian" language has been portrayed,
particularly with respect to Turkish. I assure you that I have no
"misinformation" in my paper, and therefore I reject your accusation
altogether. I hope you read, very slowly and carefully, my Turkish -
Sumerian Kinship Part-1, Part-2 and Part-3 papers. Hopefully you will
respond to the questions that I have outlined in Part-3.

When you say that "The quoted text is filled with misinformation
caused by trying to force Sumerian words into a relationship with
similar-sounding words in Turkish", that is again a similar behavior
without addressing my very valid points. Actually, I am explaining
things to get readers to understand the situation, not forcing. You
are probably not used to hearing such questioning of Sumerology,
particularly with respect to bringing the Turkish-Sumerian
relationship to the forefront in such a manner.

I ask you now, how would you know that Sumerian TUR and Turkish TUR
are not one and the same? How do you make that judgement? Do you know
Turkish, Turkish culture and Turkish people? What basis do you have
to make such a pronouncement? Did you know that TUR was the name of
the ancient Turanian "Sky-God"? It is embedded in the name TURAN, and
TUR/TURK and the name TURCA (TÜRKÇE), that is, Turkish. It also
defines the ethnicity of the TUR/TURK peoples. It is one of the most
widely used "suffix" in Turkish. Many of the "TR's, DR's, TRA's, DRA"
and others appearing in the so-called Indo-European languages are the
usurped and disguised forms of this Turkish suffix and name.

I am sure you know that the so-called "Akkadian" language was an
artificially manufactured language from Sumero-Turkish by way of
"anagrammatizing" words and expressions of these languages. I have
also been demonstrating that the Indo-European and Semitic languages
are also artificially manufactured languages which have generated
words for themselves by restructuring and disguising Turkish words and
phrases. With this kind of very invisible background activity,
changing TUR to AMAR or MAR should constitute no problem whatsoever.
Who would know the difference or notice it? Currently, only the
"DINGIR AMAR" is being promoted. The "DINGIR TUR" aspect is not
promoted at all. Yet that is the genuine and original Sumerian term!
Promoting AMAR or MAR is just like promoting "GILGAMESH" rather than
the original Sumerian "BILGAMESH". This kind of misrepresentation is
totally unacceptable.

You said:
>
> The writer devoted the bulk of the article to one of the Sumerian
> names for the Moon - Suen.

Yes that is true but that is no deficiency on my part. I regard the
proper and truthful identification of this name, that is, the
so-called "Dingir.AMAR-Dingir.ZUEN", extremely important. Because
proper identification of this name alone opens a whole new horizon of
understanding the Sumerians and their language and culture. That is
why I dwelled on this name particularly making sure that I bring to
daylight the relevant items for the readers to see.

Evidently the real God name "TUR" has been replaced with "AMAR" or
"MAR" and thus TUR has been suppressed intentionally and has remained
suppressed until now when I pointed it out in my paper. This simple
act of replacing one very important name TUR with the nebulous AMAR
along with a mythological explanation, buries the real Sumerian and
thus Turkish name "Dingir TUR" into darkness, yet the claimed
Babylonian "Dingir.AMAR" or the name MARDUK has been made prominent.
Of course by doing this kind of magical shuffling in names and words,
one people are obliterated and another one is put in its place as
desired. If we do not question all these things then we will never
know the truth about the real identity of the Sumerians and their
language which is a language that resembles Turkish very much. This
name changing and thus getting into the shell of others is a
well-practiced linguistic trick that has been going on for quite a
long while. It is just like renaming the ancient MASAR / MISIR by the
name "EGYPT" which comes from the name "gypsy". It is known that those
ancient "Egyptians" were not Gypsies. So the replacement name
"Egypt" obliterates the Tur/Turk people of ancient Masar and replaces
them with "Gypsies". Do you not think that this is misrepresentation?

Additionally, even the name ZUEN (SUEN) which is actually written as
EN-SU from Turkish "HAN SU" is pure Turkish no matter which way one
reads it, that is, whether EN-ZU or ZU-EN, it means "SU-HAN" meaning
"Water-Lord". Of course, there is the other alternative reading of
these Sumerian signs as "EN-UZ" or "UZ-EN" which makes this Sumerian
God's name UZ-HAN (OGUZ-HAN). It makes me think that the UZ (Oguz)
aspect of this sign has also been supressed. In personification of
the Sky-God, the names UZ (OGUZ) and TUR are one and the same - just
like the Tur/Turk peoples are also known as UZ (OGUZ) peoples.

Again, even if the sign was "ZU" (SU) which is the Turkish "SU" (ZU)
meaning "water", this Turkish word also has been suppressed. This
again is extremely important. Admitting the so-called "ZU" (SU) being
Turkish "SU" would be tantamount to admitting Sumerian being Turkish.
Additionally, when words ZU (SU) and EN (HAN) are concatenated
together as ZUEN or SUEN rather than "SU HAN", the problem becomes
even more nebuolus. No reader, whether he/she knows Turkish or not,
will be able to make the Turkish and Sumerian connection by the visual
appearance of this word. Because it is very cleverly disguised.
Surely that was the purpose and that is what has been done.

All of this is just like converting Turkish "SU" meaning "water" into
English "SEA" meaning "a large body of SU". It must be admitted that
it is a very clever linguistic alteration, but it is still an
alteration, a disguise, and a usurpation. This game has been played
since very ancient times and has come to present times without anyone
noticing. Of course, those readers who do not know Turkish would have
no idea what has taken place and I dont blame them. They are just
innocent bystanders trying to learn what is being taught by the
"scholars". Even those readers knowing Turkish would still be conned
by all the verbose mythology attached to all sorts of names. Hence
they would not detect the connection between "sea" and "su". Only
certain people would have the knowledge of what is going on and they
would be eternally mum on it.

I trust this will clear up the misunderstanding on your part regarding
my paper. Dear John, there are many questions in the realm of
"linguistics" that need to be truthfully answered. Linguistics has to
stop being a "cult" and start being a truth searching science.

My best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

03/02/2005



Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> Newsgroups: sci.lang
> From: "JohnHalloran" <johnp...@...>
> Date: 27 Jan 2005 12:47:29 -0800
> Local: Thurs, Jan 27 2005 12:47 pm
> Subject: Re: Part-2 Turkish-Sumerian Kinship: Was it "Dingir.AMAR-
> Dingir.ZUEN", "Tengir.TURAN ZU-HAN (SU-HAN)" or "Tengir.TURAN UZ-HAN
> (OGUZ-HAN)"?
>
> The quoted text is filled with misinformation caused by trying to
> force Sumerian words into a relationship with similar-sounding words
> in Turkish.
>
> The writer devoted the bulk of the article to one of the Sumerian
> names for the Moon - Suen.
>
> The actual word and Sumerian etymology is:
>
> d suena, d suen[EN.ZU]: the moon (sú, 'knowledge', + en(2,3), 'time',
> + -/ak/, 'of').
>
> Regards,
>
> John Halloran
> http://www.sumerian.org/
>
> --- In bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:
> > Part-2 Turkish-Sumerian Kinship: Was it "Dingir.AMAR-Dingir.ZUEN",
> > "Tengir.TURAN ZU-HAN (SU-HAN)" or "Tengir.TURAN UZ-HAN (OGUZ-HAN)"?
> >
> > By POLAT KAYA
> >
> >
> > About the name AMAR-SIN (AMAR-ZUEN):