Re: Fwd: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of Scientific Objectivity in Historical Linguistics

Dear Clyde Winters and K. Loganathan,

Hi.  Please find my response interspersed with your posting below. 

K. Loganathan forwarded the following writing by Clyde Winters:

clyde winters <olmec982000@...> wrote:

From: clyde winters <olmec982000@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [akandabaratam] Fwd: Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of Scientific Objectivity in Historical Linguistics

> Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:To:

> Dear Dr. K. Loganathan and friends,
> Hi.  When I read your response I was appalled that
> you label my work a "linguistic game".  This only
> shows that either you do not understand what I am
> saying and showing, or, you do understand what I am
> talking about but you are not in a mood to accept
> the correctness of what I am claiming about the
> ancientness of Turkish language and its being used
> as the source language for the manufacture of many
> languages.....

> On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, the IE
> linguists did a fantastic job to use this simple
> technique of manufacturing languages from Turkish.
> They had done an awesome job of disguising
> everything so well that it was virtually impossible
> to see what went on.  Nevertheless, the whole thing
> was plagiarism, or plainly, stealing from the
> Turanian civilization. >>>>

     Mr. Polat Kaya  is offended by Loga’s assertion
that his work is an example at playing “linguistic
game[s]”. Polat Kaya argues that his method is
scientific. Although this is Polat Kaya’s view, in
reality there is no science in the work of Polat Kaya.
         Traditional linguistic research is based on
the classification or taxonomy of languages.
Linguistic taxonomy is the foundation upon which
comparative and historical linguistic methods are
based. Linguistic taxonomy serves a number of purposes

Polat Kaya: Dear Mr. Winters.  Polat Kaya's view about his work is very strong and very valid.  That is why he insists that his work is scientific.  In order to overcome your doubts, let me explain to you about the word "science", what it means and how it is made up. First, the concept of "SCIENCE" is defined as: 1.  branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts and truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the Mathematical sciences.  2.  systematic knowledge of the physical or material or material world.  3. systematized knowledge in general. 4. knowledge as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.  5. A particular branch of knowledge. 6. skill; proficiency. [ from Latin "scienta" knowledge, equiv. to SCI- (root of scire to know) + -ENTIA  ence].  {This definition is from the Random House Dictionary of the English Language", Random House, New York, 1967, p. 1279}

I have no quarrel with this definition except for the etymology part of the word "science".

The so-called Latin word 
"SCIENTA" meaning "knowledge", when rearranged letter-by-letter as "CANISTE" where the letter C is a distortion of Turkish  letter "K" and/or "G" which then makes the word "GANISTE" or "KANISTE".  When the "Latin" word "SCIENTA" is viewed in this format, it is the Turkish word "GANIShTI" or "KANIShTI" meaning "it is understanding".  If one understands how someting is madeup or functions, then he has "KNOWLEDGE" about the makeup or functionality of that thing.  With this clear cut explanation, I can say without hesitation that I have the "knowledge" of of knowing the make up of the so-called Latin word "SCIENTA".  It is a word which is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish word"GANIShTI" or "KANIShTI".  My knowledge of this so-called Latin word is a special knowledge that I know but you, Mr. Winters, do not.  And when I demonstrate to you how the term "science" was made up, I am demonstrating my special knowledge in a "scientific" way.  You cannot quarrel with that "knowledge", that is, that "science" of mine. You do not understand this because you are not used to hear it in this way or form before.  

Additionally, there is one more thing that I can scientifically demonstrate to you about the make up of the term 
"SCIENTIFICALLY" which is supposedly from the word "science". But yet it also has an immense dishonesty associated with it. When this word is rearranged letter-by-letter as "FENCILICLA-ISTY", this English word "SCIENTIFICALLY" is found to be the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "FENCILIKLE IShTU" (Fencilikli isdi) meaning "it is work with science".  Thus the Turkish data base used in the makeup of the English word "SCIENTIFICALLY" is the Turkish expression "FEN-CI-LIK-LI  ISh-DI".  In this expression Turkish "FEN" means "science", "FEN-CI" means "he who deals with science" (i.e., scientist)  where Turkish suffix "-CI" provides the "doer" quality to the noun, "FEN-CI-LIK" means "scientific" where Turkish suffix "-LIK" provides this quality to the noun, -LI/LE (ILE) means "with", ISh means "work" and the suffix "-TU" (-ti, -du, -di) is verbal suffix meaning "it is".  Of course whole expression could have been said in Turkish with the word "FEN-CI-LIK-LE" meaning "the work with science" or "scientifically".  

In the makeup of this English word, there is the superflous addition "ISTU" to the main Turkish expression.  This addition is important to the IE linguist who takes Turkish words and phrases to manufacture words for English or other IE languages because he has to disguise the Turkic source materal.  These additonal Turkish words are used as "linguistic wrappings" to  disguise the Turkish source text of the IE word. In other words, Turkic additions to the source text provides the "paint" required to do a new paint job on a "stolen car". 

Hence the dictionary claim that the words "science" and "scientifically" are from "Latin" source is a BOGUS claim and is a LIE. 

Mr. Winters, with all this explanation, I just demonstrated to you and to all a bundle of "KNOWLEDGE" and "SCIENCE".  I have also demonstrated with complete clarity how Turkish is a true "agglutinative" language which has a science to its word formation. After all this, you should take back your unwarranted false claim that "what Polat Kaya does is not scientific". 

Now that I have said what needed to be said about your "science" requirement, I would like to point out to you that your "traditional linguistic research" is based on false premises that languages are "natural" occurances.  I just demonstrated to you that words used in English and Latin are not genuine and hence these languages are not authentic.  In view of this fact, modern linguistics overlooks or forgets all this artificiality about the IE languages and directs research along a "false" avenue.   Therefore, its findings are not trustable. What it is doing might appear "scientific" to some people, but what is actually being done, intentionally or unintentionally, is a coverup job that buries the deceptions that have been perpetrated in manufacturing Indo-European and Semitic languages. 

Let me also tell you that languages are man made artifacts and have been formed mostly under the influence of religion. Modern linguistics either does not know this or knows it but disregards it. Religion and Language have held hands very closely in the past . For example the Turkish OGUZ religion (Sky-God, Sun and Moon combination) and the AGUZ (meaning "word", "language") are the earliest example of this very important concept. 

For example, to my knowledge, the first three numerals in Turkish and also most other languages are coined after the ancient Turanian OGUZ "trinity" Sky-God deities.  Turkish numeral name "BIR" ("ONE") is after the universal creator Sky-Father-God (Tr. GÖK ATA Tanri) who is regarded as "BIR" ("BIRO"), Turkish "IKI" represents the "SUN" which is "second" in hierarchy after the universal creator god. The numeral name "IKI" for "two" comes from the Turkish words EKE, AKA, AGA meaning "lord" qualifying "greatness" of the "sun", and the Turkish name "ÜÇ" (üsh, üs, Sumerian US)  meaning "three" represents the Moon-god, the third deity in the hierarchy.  The numeral name "ÜÇ" (ÜSh) comes from Turkish "O eÇe" (O-eShe) meaning "that Great father or mother" referring to the "moon".  Similarly, English "ONE" is the Turkish-Sumerian "ANU" (HAN-O) the creator Sky-God, TWO, where the bogus letter W=UU,  is the disguised form of Turkish-Sumerian "UTU-O" meaning  "it is sun-god",  and "THREE" is the disguised form of Turkish "TUR-O" for the Moon-God as well as for the Sky-Father-God and Sun-God.  Thus religion was a very important influencing factor in naming these numeral names.  Numeral names in other Indo-European languages are along the same line. Hence religion was the most important concept dominanting the lives of ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. Others got all of these concepts from the ancient Turanian civilization.

Your statement "
Traditional linguistic research is based on the classification or taxonomy of languages" has nothing to do with how languages were made up.  What you say is an act of "CLASSIFICATION" of already manufactured languages using some rules that do not apply nor explain how the languages were really made.  One can show some "scientific" appearing activity in the classification of the existing languages, but this is no more than educated "clerical" work trying to put the existing confused linguistic material in an order. The modern linguistics is now classifying the existing confusion that some secretive people have caused.  This is mis-directed science. Let us not con each other anymore by use of vague talk to describe things that are already in a confused state. 

Incidently the English word 
"CLASSIFICATION", when rearranged letter by letter as "SINIFCILAC-ATOS", we find that it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SINIFCILIK ETUSH" (SINIFCILIK EDISh") meaning "making classification", "putting things in order", "putting things in classes".  This "correspondence" is startling.  If you, as a scholar, call your clerical work of classifying things as "an act of science", then you should also be able call as "science" what I just demonstrated to you. Otherwise you will be contradicting yourself by talking in "double standards".    

Similarly the word "TAXONOMY" meaning "
1. the science or technique of classification; 2. the science dealing with the identification, naming, and classification of organizms". [From Random House Dictionary}.   

These descriptions are conceptually a number of educated "clerical" works,  self-servingly called "science" with the hidden intention of giving the appearance of "respectablity" to the doers of the work.  So there seems to still be a con game going on even in this regard of linguistic affairs.  

Now when the bogus letter X in the word  
"TAXONOMY" is replaced wih KS (which is what it represents in a disguised way) and then rearranged letter-by-letter as "NOM-TAKYS-O", it is found to be the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "NAM TAKUSh O" (ad takis o) meaning "it is giving names", "it is attaching names",  in other words, "it is classification".  

Thus again we find that these two so-called English words have some peculiar appearance to them.  That is, they are very much usurped Turkish expressions rearranged by some clever linguists and introduced to the world as "English" words.  How do you explain this Mr. Winters? Does your "linguistics" take this "correspondence" into account when it is re-classifying artificially made up languages?  As a scholar do you not find yourself uncomfortable with this abnormal situation?  So, you see Mr. Clyde Winters, you have been very badly conned just like most of us!!! 

You said:

. First, it is necessary  for the identification of
language families. Secondly, linguistic taxonomy gives
us the material to reconstruct the Proto-language of a
people and discover its regular sound correspondences.

Polat Kaya:  What you say is a form of clerical work! And it would be acceptable if for example, the Indo-European and Semitic languages were authentic and in their "original" format which they are not.   Additionally what you-call "Proto-Language" is a wild-goose distraction effort concocted to divert from the fact that the so-called "Indo-European" languages have been manufactured from "TURKISH".  This "proto-language" gimmick is just another concoction to further con an already conned public with some more falsehoods.   That so called proto language was the Turkish language that has been so lavishly used in the manufacture of Indo-European and Semitic languages.  Thus modern linguistics is looking for a so-called "proto people" and "proto language" that  are already here, alive and well and in current use in the form of Turks and their language of Turkish.

You said: 


     There are three major kinds of language
classifications: genealogical, topological, and areal.
A genealogical classifica-tion groups languages
together into language families based on the shared
features retained by languages since divergence from
the common ancestor or Proto-language. An areal
classification groups languages into linguistic areas
based on shared features acquired by a process of
convergence arising from spatial proximity. A
topological classification groups languages together
into language types by the similarity in the
appearance of the structure of languages without
consideration of their historical origin and present,
or past geographical distribution.

Polat Kaya:  Yes I have heard all that before.  I am not impressed and I can read and understand writings myself much better than you can explain to me. 

You said:


     The comparative method is used by linguists to
determine the relatedness of languages, and to
reconstruct earlier language states. The comparative
linguist has two major goals (1) trace the history of
language families and reconstruct the mother language
of each family, and (2) determine the forces which
affect language. In general, comparative linguists are
interested in determining phonetic laws, analogy/
correspondence and loan words.  
     The comparative method is useful in the
reconstruction of Proto-languages. To reconstruct a
Proto-language the linguist must look for patterns of
correspondences. Patterns of correspondence is the
examination of terms which show uniformity. This
uniformity leads to the inference that languages are
related since conformity of terms in two or more
languages indicate they came from a common ancestor.
     A basic objective of the comparative linguist is
to isolate words with common or similar meanings that
have systematic consonantal agreement with little
regards for the location and/or type of vowels.
Consonantal  agreement is the regular appearance of
consonants at certain places in words having similar
meanings and representing similar speech sounds.

Polat Kaya: I hear everything you are saying above but there is nothing new in there.  It just describes a process applied to a particular activity.  It is no more than 'clerical' work. My way of explaining the real "etymology" of Indo-European words, on the other hand,  is a far superior science and knowledge.

You said:


     If Polat Kaya’s work is based on science we
should expect to find consonantal agreement between
the Turkic terms and Sumerian terms. Below we will

Polat Kaya:  NO!  You cannot expect to find "consonantal agreement" between a Turkish word or phrase (that has had its consonants shuffled in the process of manufacturing a new IE word) and the resulting IE word.  Of course there are also IE words that are manufactured from Turkish words that without shuffling the consonants.

You said:


compare the terms:
                                 Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Dingir         Dng
Turkic                Tingur        Tngr
These terms  suggest some affinity.

Polat Kaya:  First of all, your wording saying that "These terms suggests some affinity" is a huge understatement.  They are one and the same without ifs and buts.  Secondly, your consonantal pattern "Dng" for Sumerian word "Dingir" is missing the "r". When your mistake is corrected, the Sumerian consonantal pattern becomes "DNGR" vs the Turkish consonantal pattern of "TNGR" . This is a 100 percent correspondence.

You said:


The other terms
lack this type of agreement.

Polat Kaya:  That is because the IE linguists who manufactured these IE words shuffled the consonants around on the original Turkish text.  

                                 Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Gilgamesh         glgmsh
Turkic                Bilgamesh         blgmsh
                                 Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Indra         Ndr
Turkic                Danri        Dnr
                                 Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Enlil         Nll
Turkic                Han Yel    Hnyl
Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Lalartu ‘phantom’                  
Turkic                Lal artu ‘tongueless man       
Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Nishaba         Nshb
Turkic                Ni izaditu baimenagiri        N
zdt bmngr
Consonantal Pattern
Sumerian           Enemebaragesi         Nmbrgs
Turkic                Enetikeme ebakin aragikor
agerika ezi        Ntkm bkn rgk grk z

Polat Kaya:  You are not showing a  scholarly understanding of the matter.  Your consonantal order theory does not hold water because linguists have already changed the consonantal order intentionally to cover up their deceit.  Your expectation of maintaining the exact consonantal order (after the intentional change) is not valid anymore. 

You said: 


     This comparison of Sumerian and Turkic terms make
it clear that these terms show no systematic
consonantal agreement. As a result we can not  accept
the view of Polat Kaya that his work is science. The
linguistic evidence makes it clear that there is no
science in the methods used by Polat Kaya to compare
Turkic languages , and the Sumerian and Tamil
languages, I must agree with Loga, that Polat Kaya is
playing games with lexical items.

Polat Kaya:  I answered your objections with supreme clarity above. Your approval or disapproval is not important for the time being because you have not understod the concept properly yet.  Your assumptions used for the "consonantal agreement" are faulty. You are ignoring the shuffling (restructuring) that has been done.  The serial number and the color of the car have been modified and now you are saying "The two cars are different colours and the serial numbers don't line up".  Yet we know that they are the same car.

You said:


     This begs the question, why does Turkic , show  a
relationship  to Tamil and Sumerian. The answer is the
Turks lived in close proximity  to Tamil speakers for
hundreds of years and over time they adopted some
Tamil and Sumerian terms.

Polat Kaya:  The real answer to your question is that because TURKISH is the "BIR-ATA" language, that is, the  so-called  "proto" language for them all as I shown over and over. Additionally it is not known that Turks and Tamils, as separate peoples, ever lived side-by-side as neighbours.  Where did you get this idea?  You have to explain your claim before going any further. Please do explain where and when did Tamils and Turks live in close proximity?  Could it be that you are coming up with a new  "historical" distraction and campaign to replace the TURKS of Turan with "TAMIL" people?  After all such a trick can be expected from those that have already usurped the Turkish language without anyone noticing. In fact these kinds of deceptions have the peaceful co-existence of peoples in the world. For your information, Sumerians were the Turkish people and their language was a dialect of Turkish before it was presented in the way that it has been presented.  Did you expect that those who usurped the Turko-Sumerian language as a source for thier own language manufacturing would now identify the Turkishness of Sumerian?  I am finding a lot of "alteration and deception" at the core of  many presentations of the ancient world.  

With regard to Tamils, most likely they were Turkic speaking peoples who migrated into India a long time ago and where in time they mixed with the natives of the land.  There seems to have been considerable alteration in their language while retaining some of the Turkish words intact. 

Any affinity between Turkish and Tamil is not because Turks got words from Tamils as you would like us to believe,  but rather because the Tamil people were most likely ancient Turan people who moved into the Indian Sub-continent. Hence they presently speak a language that is akin to Turkish.  

Tur/Turk peoples have migrated to all directions out from Central Asia (Turan) and where ever they settled they continued with their old civilization in a new format adopting themselves to the conditions of new homelands. Thus the original Turanian civilization continued where ever the Tur/Turk peoples moved.  If you are offended by my saying, the roots of the so-called European civilization are in actuality in the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk civilization rather than the Greek and/or Latin or Semitic civilization.  Greeks and Latins destroyed the old Turanian civilization in Europe and and wherever they went and genocided the Tur/Turk peoples whenever they had the opportunity.  After that they put a new face on Europe with what they learned from the ancient Turanians.  In the same process, they changed the ancient Turkish language and manufactured new languages for themselves.  Such were the ways of ancient wanderers. 

You said:

     Archaeological and historical evidence make it
clear that Tamil speaking people were the dominate
agro-pastoral group in Central Asia between 1000 BC ,
and especially 500 BC. This is supported by the
Dravidian-Altaic relationship viz Turkic and
Mongolian. As a result we find that they share lexical
parallels and analogous case and verbal affixes.

Polat Kaya: What evidence are you talking about?  Please be specific.  If what you say is correct than those people whom you falsely call "TAMIL" must have been the Turkish peoples but you do not have the courage to call them "TURKS".  It is amazing that many European "scholars" drag their foot when it comes to mentioning the name of Tur/Turk peoples.  The reason for this racial discrimination is because they got everything from Turks but attributed their source of civilization to wandering Greeks and Semites and any other group but the Turks.  Again for your information anyone who comes out of Central Asia are Turks and Turks alone no matter what kind of politically motivated names or verbosity one may be using.

For example the so-called ancient name BAKTRIA (Bactria) is said to be 
the ancient name of the country lying between the Hindu Kush mountains and the Amu Darya (OXUS) river with its capital BACTRA, also called BACTRA-ZARIASPA (probably Balkh [WAZIRABAD], ancient Vahlika). In islamic times the area was known as TUKHARISTAN, after the Tukharians  who settled there in the first century B. C. and was usually differentiated from the northen plain of Amu Darya. ...  Archaeologically Bactria has great potentialities. There is a profusion of mounds and abondoned water channels that testify to its ancient prosperity".{Encyclopaedia Britannica , Vol. 2, 1963, p. 1020}. 

The name BACTRIA, when rearranged as "BAK-TR-IA" is actually the restructured and disguised Turkish name "BEK-TUR-ÖYÜ" (Bey Tur Öyü) meaning "the home of Lord Tur".  Similarly if we rearranged the name as "BAI TARIK", it is the rearranged form of Turkish expression "BEY TARIK" or "BEY TURUK" or "BEY TURK" or "TURK BEYLIK" all  meaning "Turk Lord" or "Turk state".  Yet this altered and disguised name BACTRIA gives a totally different identity to an ancient Turkish state in Central Asia (Turan) making it appear more like an "Indo-European" state.   Thus, whatever number of "Arayans" were really there, by their force of habit, they changed the name and the identity of the Turkish people in their own home and state and concocted a bogus "Indo-European" identity.  This simple trick as applied to lands and peoples of Turks works every time.  It is an easy and sneaky way of stealing peoples and lands.  Changing the names of peoples and their lands changes the identities hence it becomes easy to make bogus Indo-European claims.   

The name "OXUS" appearing as the name of a river in Turan lands gives the false impression that it is a Greek name.  Yet in actuality it is the altered and distorted Turkish name "OKUS SU" (OGUZ SU) meaning "Oguz Water" (Oguz river) indicating that the so-called Bactria (BEK TUR ÖYÜ) geography was the home of Oguz (Tur) peoples since ancient times. But altering the name presents a totally wrong picture.  Very sneaky!

The name "WAZIRABAD" being another name for the distorted name of "BACTRA", when rearranged as "W-AZ-IR-ABAD" where the bogus letter W = UU, and hence the arrangement becomes "U-AZ-IR-ABADU" and is a distortion of the Turkish expression "O AZ ER APADU" meaning "It is Peerless Man Father" indicating that the name of the place was coined after the Ancient Turanian Sky-God but in Turkish.  But the ABAD portion of this expression was also coined as a Persian name "ABAD" meaning "city".  This name has also been used considerably in India as well.  Of course the name "WAZIRABAD" gives a false impression - as if this Turkic place was "Persian" and hence, an "Indo-Europeaan" identity.  Indeed very handy work!!

Similarly the name 
TOCHARIAN is nothing but the restructured and and disguised Turkish name "TORK-HAN-AI", that is, "TURK HAN ÖYÜ" meaning "the home of Lord Turk". Again this name identifies that the people of this area were Turkish peoples.  Even the name "TUKHARISTAN indicates that they were Turkish people.  But all of this does not matter, once the name is changed into an Indo-European looking format.  The ancient civilization of Turs/Turks are instantly wiped out and transferred to an "Indo-European "culture".  How convenient!   This again shows the power of name changing and annihilation of one culture and artificially making up another culture. 

Tocharians are referred to as a member of a Central Asian people of high culture, who were assimilated with other peoples about the 11th century A.D. 2. The language of the Tocharians , an extinct Indo-European language." {Random House Dict. p. 1490}

Evidently, altering the Turkish language not only helped to make new "Indo-European" languages, but it also helped to name new "Indo-European" people out of converted Turkish people.   The present day example of such sneaky activities is the example of eastern Anatolian Turks being named as "Kurds" and separated from Turks by way of extensive missionary and linguistic propaganda.  Evidently the same ancient trick of dividing Tur/Turk peoples is still going on with full speed. That shows the obliterating power of "language and name alteration". 

You said:


     The Dravidians (mainly Tamil speakers) formerly
lived in Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia
and the Gansu Province of China, beginning in Harappan
times. During this period the Tamil had intemite
relationships with the Turkic speaking people. The
close relationship between  Turkic and Tamil should be
recognized as an areal linguistic relationship, not
genetic as maintained by Polat Kaya.

Polat Kaya: If the "DRAVIDIANS" were not "TUR/TURK" peoples originally, why would they be living in the Turkic land of Central Asia?  Were they invaders of Turan? With this kind of writings, are you trying to re-do a "Bactrian" type alteration and usurpation job? If the "Dravidians" formerly lived in Turkmenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Mongolia and the Gansu Province of China, beginning in Harappan times, then most assuredly they were the Tur/Turk peoples as the name "DRAVIDY" suggests.  The name DRAVIDY is the restructured and disguised form of Turkish "DUR EVIDI" (TUR EVIDI) meaning "they were Tur houses".  Thus even their "generic" family name has been alienated from Turkish by way of alteration.   

Similarly the name "GANSU" / "KANSU" province of China has the Turkish name "KAN-SU" (GAN-SU) where name means "blood-water".  The reason for this name is the fact that a river flowing through this geograpy called GANSU or KANSU takes a "reddish" color.  The reddish color must come from the reddish soil surrounding the river. The Turkish word "GAN/KAN means "blood" and 
"SU" means "water".  Incidentally, even in the Chinese language, the word for water is "SUI" which  is nothing but a form of the Turkish word "SU" for "water",  just like the English word "SEA" is a distorted form of Turkish "SU".  Additionally the area has always been a Turanian Turkic land since ancient times.  The toponyms of ALTUNDAG, "Golden Mountain" and many more names are evidences of Turkishness.  When were the "TAMILS" there and how come we do not see names in "Tamil" among the toponyms? 

You said:

     This agrees with  J. Vacek’s idea that an axial
relationship exist between the Dravidian languages and
the Altaic group. Vecek based his conclusion on the
geographical distribution of these languages along the
north south axis between the Altaic and Dravidian
     Finally, Polat Kaya, claims that the Turks are
related to the ancient Turanian people. This is a lie.



Polat Kaya: Mr. Winters,  I do not know where you get all your loose ideas about the Turks, but evidently you seem to be a very confused person regarding Turks' identity and also racist toward the Tur/Turk peoples.  Where do you get all that hostility and racisim from?  You are not only confused about the Turks as TURAN people and their ancient homeland in TURAN and their blood, genetic and language relation to ancient Turanians, but you are also  manufacturing and spreading disinformation about the Turks with your writings. What you are saying and writing is no different than stealing Turkish language for Indo-European languages and at the same time suppressing the Turkish source. With your above statement  you are trying to obliterate and/or steal away the TURAN identity of Turks. Evidently you have a very narrow and distorted view of the ancient Turkish people and their past.  

For your information, let me tell you this much: Turks are not going to learn their ancestry, background and their Turanian origin from you or from your reference source. Additionally what Polat Kaya says IS NOT A LIE.  Ask most anyone about the Turk and Turan relationship, they will tell you that they are one and the same at all times.  So, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS A BIG LIE!!!  

Some wanderer groups have stolen the Turkish language, their ancient Turanian religion, culture, laws and the whole civilization that Tur/Turk Turanians created wherever they went. Now you are trying to take away their "TURAN" and "TURANIAN" identity by some gobbledegook writing of yours.  Your above statement gives me additional cause to repeat my saying that history is infested with lies.  You are adding to that infestation by your above given statement.  

Here is something for you to consider.
 Charles Annandale, in his "The Concise Imperial Dictionary", (London, 1901, p. 728) gives the following definition of the word "Turanian".  He writes: "TURANIAN a name for the TURKS AND THEIR KINDRED RACES". 

Thus, as you can see, TURANIANS are TURKS and TURKS are TURANIANS as Turks themselves know this fact in all meanings of the word irrespective of how much verbal sophistry or disinformation you or others spread. Evidently you have to freshen up your knowledge of Turks without bias.  I am not even sure how much it may help you, particularly when you have such an acute built in animosity against the Turks.    

I can see that you are bothered because you hear me saying that the European languages are fake. This is not my invention but it is my discovery of what has taken place in the past. Hence, what Polat Kaya says is fact contrary to your twisting things around.  But let me tell you once more what is a lie:

-    The Indo-European theory is a LIE.  

-    Loking for a proto "Indo-European" language other than Turkish is a LIE.

-    The claim that the so-called "Indo-European" languages are "genuine and authentic" is a LIE. They did not exist before.

-    Authenticity of the Babylon civilization is a LIE. 

_    The Tower of Babel is a LIE.

-    The Aryan view of the ancient world history is a LIE.

-    Your manufacturing that Turks are not related to ancient Turanians is a big LIE.

-    Your view of Central Asia without Turks is a big LIE.

-    The Western view of the Sumerians and ancient Middle East and ancient Masar (Misir) is a big LIE.

-    Western view of ancient Anatolia is a LIE.

-    Western view of Troy (TUR ÖY) is a LIE.

-    Western view of Etruscans, Phoeniciens and Carthaginians is a LIE.

-    Western view of ancient "Europe" is a LIE.

I can add a lot more to this list but it should suffice for the time being.  

The term "ARYAN" is actually the laundered and distorted form of the Turkish word "ARAYAN" (gezginci) meaning "wanderer".  The "wanderer" groups altered the Turkish language words and phrases to come up with languages for themselves and along with it they wrote mythologies to cloud the past Turan civilization.  This gave them a foothold in the linguistic chart.

They all talked Turkish at one time in the past before they started to change Turkish into coded forms. Yet  the fact is that all so-called "European" languages  are totally manufactured from "TURKISH" and the world has been conned about this and all things related to Tur/Turk peoples.  

You said


Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the cuneiform writing
makes it clear that the ancient Turanians were the
“Hamitic Nations” mentioned in the Bible: Kush (Cush),
Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud ( Sumerians and Elamites) and
Canaan (Phonesians) (see: C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on
the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic
Society  (First Series) 15, p.230. ).

Polat Kaya: You just unintentionally proved me correct by citing Rawlinson. Saying that the so-called "Hamitic Nations" were Turanian peoples proves me right.  This is what I have been saying all along, thatthe ancient MASAR people, whom you call as  "MISRAIM" with the bogus name "EGYPT" were Tur/Turk peoples  - without being aware of the fact that Rawlinson said the same thing about them.  I have also said in my writings that the Canaan people (Phoenicians and Carthaginians),  Sumerians and the Minoans and even the People of the Sea, that is, the present Palestinians, and many others were Tur/Turk peoples.  Now you are verifying my sayings.   

On the other hand,  if Rawlinson excluded Turks from his list of Turanians, then he has cast a long shadow on his own neutrality and credibility by his own hands.  The whole world knows the fact that Turan means Turk and Turk means TURAN. 

The fact that ancient Masar (Misir) people were Tur/Turk peoples is evident from their king names and city names and from their pyramids.  When you have names such as MENES (MANAS), SKA (SAKA),  ATA, KUFU (KAFA) and many more as the names of the founding fathers of ancient Masar (Misir) state, then one knows that they were Turkish speaking Tur/Turk peoples and were Turanians.  But the problem is that the "scholars" of near-ancient and modern times have deceptively denied this fact from the public by suppressing the name Tur and Turk at every opportunity. This is their disgrace. Of course this is not science or history writing as it should be, but rather the forgery of history, that is, taking the ancient civilization of the Tur/Turk peoples and intentionally assigning it to people other than the Turks so that those "other" people get unwarranted recognition while the real Turkish creators and owners of that civilization get pushed aside. 

The Turkishness of ancient Masar (Misir) is also evident from their language because I find many words in their language that are Turkish. Of course their language has also been  badly presented and Semitized. In their later years, thousands of Greek, Latin and Semite "priests" invaded their land, not to teach "religion"to the ancient Masarians because Masarians, as ancient Turanians, were the inventors of religion, but rather they were there to take over the control of the Masarian religion, and to confuse and destroy their civilization and state.  Evidently, this is another well kept secret of "history" which suppressed the Tur/Turk identity of ancient Masar (Misir) peoples who founded the longest living Tur/Turk empire in human history around the River Nile and the rest of North Africa. 

The ancient Canaan people were Turkish people because their name is the distorted version of Turkish "KAN-HAN" (GÜN-HAN)  meaning "SUN-LORD" which is the legendary name of one of the six sons of OGUZ-KAGAN. What is presently called as "SYRIA" was in ancient times "TURIA" meaning "home of Turs".  Doing a sneaky T to S shift and U to Y change in the name TURIA makes the name SYRIA readily. Thus the Turkic character of the Middle East instantly becomes "Semitic".  Hence the same trick of  name alteration used by Aryans was also used by the "Semites", thus taking what belonged to the Tur/Turk peoples and giving it to the Semites.

It is no wonder that the writers of the West has suppressed anything related to the name TUR/TURK just like they suppressed the name TUR from Sumerian writings, and the Turkic MOORISH Empire in Spaine by intentionally identifying them with the Arabs. From whatever corner one looks at the problem, there is a built in anymosity against the Turanian Turks. 

Now you, in your confused thinking, express the view that Turks are not TURANIAN and they are not related to ancient Turanians.  This view of yours is invalid no matter what corner one looks at it. 

Additionally the Bible has many holes in its classification of names.  It was written by another group of wanderers that arranged the Bible stories from the ancient Turanian religion and civilization so-called "Pagan civilization". Distortions, allegories, metaphores, similes and many riddles  are used in the Bible so much so that even those who claim to be experts about the Bible cannot understand what is going on. The names SAM and HAM are used in the Bible.  The name SAM is the distorted form of Turkish "ESME" ("ESMA") meaning "blowing" associated with the Wind-God ENLIL (HAN-YEL), and the name HAM is the Turkish word AHAM (AGAM) meaning "my Lord" referring to the ancient Turanian sky-god concept consisting of the Sun, Moon and the Sky-Father-God (Gök Ata Tanri) trinity. The Turkish word AHAM meaning my lord also appears in the name BRAHMA from Turkish "BIR-AHAM" meaning "my only lord" and also in the Semitic name ABRAHAM is also from Turkish "BAR-AHAM" again meaning "My only lord" in Turkish.  So these words are usurped from Turkish and they are the personifications of the ancient Turanian Sky-God in disguised forms. 

For your information the so-called "Egyptian" god "AMEN" (AMON) is nothing but the Turkish expression "O MEN" meaning "He is me" and "I am him" relating to the ancient Turanian "SKY-GOD".  This expression defines and relates "GOD" and "MAN" to each other.  Additionally, the term "HAMITIC" is the distorted form of Turkish expression "AHAMCITI" meaning "he/she is the follower of the Sky-Lord".  Similarly "SEMITIC" is the distorted form of the Turkish expression "ESMECITI" meaning "He/she is the follower of the wind".  

Now Mr. Clyde Winters, you do not know these things but I do, and you are talking without the knowledge of these things. In view of all this, it looks like you have also been conned along with the rest of the people in the world by a few.

You said: 


archaeological research make it clear that Dravidians
and Harappans were related to the Kushites (see:  Lal,
B , "The Only Asian expedition in threatened
Nubia:Work by       an Indian Mission at Afyeh and
Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April
1963.). There is no evidence of the Turkic speaking
people having any relationship with the ancient
Turanians, except a course, the Tamil/Dravidian people
of Central Asia. Polat Kaya, like the IE researchers
he admonishes, is tilling the history of the authentic
ancient Turanians.


Polat Kaya:   Did you read my paper that I addressed to scholar Ram Varmha the other day entitled "ÇATAL HÜYÜK"?  The reference citing from Will Durant should enlighten you considerably.  Additionally, again for your information the very name KUSH (Cush) that you use for "Nubians" is a Turkish one also.  Actually, it is the Turkish name "KOSH Kushites used this name as their "logo" as can be seen from their ruined "pyramids" which are strewn with the remains of so many statues of "RAMS" (KOCH / KOSH in Turkish). I am sure you do not know this fact.  The so-called name "KUSHITE" is made up from two Turkish words: namely "KOSH (KOCH) + ITI" meaning "they were "KOCH" people. The Turkish term  KOCH (KOSH/KUSH), that is, in this case meaning "Ram" which is also a "bull,  is a substitute name to Turkish "OGUZ" (Bull) for the OGUZ (TUR) peoples. Additionally even the word KUSH is a Turkish name and it means "bird".

In your internet paper entitled, "The Decipherment of Merotic", from URL

You wrote: 

"As I mentioned in the first posting I searched for a cognate language in the areas where Ural-Altaic was spoken. But I never said it was related to this group. I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family.

I chose Kushana for two reasons. Firstly , Philostratus in , claimed that the Gmnosophists of Kush, who settled along the Nile, descended from the Brahmins of India, having been forced to migrate after the murder of their King. This passage pointed to the Kushana, who left China in 176 B.C., after the murder of their king. Because both of this groups called themselves Kushana, it suggested that they may be related , given the Classical tradition for a migration of "Indians" to Kush. Moreover, C.B. Rawlinson , in "Notes on the early History of Babylonia", , 15, PP.221-22, discussed the Kushites of Asia and Africa.

Using the evidence of classical traditions pointing to the Kushana, as possible settlers of Meroe,gave me the confidence to compare Kushana to Meroitic. This comparison proved fruitful."

Polat Kaya: Although you are using "double talk" in your writing, essentially you are indicating  that the MEROIT languages are related to TURKISH.  Those "URAL-ALTAIC" language group that you chose to compare with Meroit was and is the TURKISH language group.  And how quickly you state that "Merotic was not related to this group, but it is related to KUSHANA". But you are wrong again because ancient MASAR was Tur/Turk peoples and their language was Turkish.  "Merotic" being the language group related to people in SUDAN area, was under the influence of the ancient Masar (Tur/Turk) peoples and cultures.   Even the present day Sudaneese people feel very close to Turks.  

You said: "I did find that Meroitic was related to the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family." 

Polat Kaya: For your information, that classification (i.e., the Tokhrian/Kushana language, which is classed in the Indo-European family) is a bogus one, a sham, a concoction as are the so-called "Indo-European" manufactured languages.  Without knowing anything about your writing in the internet, I already indicated above in this writing how the name TOCHARIAN was stolen from the Turkish  expression "TORK-HAN-AI", that is, "TURK HAN ÖYÜ" meaning "the home of Lord Turk". Some history and language changing busy-bodies altered this Turkish name for a Turkish land and gave it to "Indo-Europeans". How handy!  Now you have the short sightedness of calling this Turanian Turk peoples as "Indo-European".  Above I also pointed out that so-called "TOCHARIAN" land was also called "TOCHARISTAN" which stands for "TURK HAN ISTAN" which is a name just like the other names of the Turkish states of Central Asia but it also carries the Turkish names TURK, HAN and ISTAN.   

You also mentioned the name KUSHANA as being the same as the name "TOCHARIAN".  Again for your information KUSHANA is a composite word involving "KUS + HANA/HANI" in which "KUS" stands for the Turkish name "OGUZ" (GUS, GUZ, GÖZ, KÖZ, etc) and "HANA" (HANE, HANI) means "home", thus making the name KUSHANA to mean "HOME of OGUZ" which again is Turkish.  

Will Durant ("The Story of Civilization: Part-1, Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, new York, 1954, p. 450) writes:
  "In the first and second centuries before Christ, Syrians, Greeks and Scythians poured into the Punjab, conquered it, and established there, for some three hundred years, this Greco-Bactrian culture.  In the first century of what we provincially call the Christian Era the Kushans, a Central Asian tribe akin to the Turks, captured Kabul, and from that city as capital extended their power throughout northwestern India and most of Central Asia."

Thus you see, KUSHANS WERE TURKISH PEOPLE, and not an Indo-European one, as we know it so!

The so-called Greek name "SCYTHIANS" is the restructured and disguised Turkish name "ISKIT HANS" meaning "Iskit Lords" or "We are Iskit Lords".  

Evidently the Greek habit of changing Turkish names and expressions to make for themselves a so-called "Indo-European" language, also changed the name of this Turkish land to make it appear as an "Indo-European" looking name. And now modern linguistics, in its "wisdom" or lack of it, is classifying an ancient Turkish land and Turkish language of TURK-HAN ÖYÜ" (TOCHARIA) as "Indo-European". First they change the names of Turks and their lands to sonething else and then they classify them as Greeks or Indo-Europeans or something else. I must say it is indeed a fantastic usurpation technique that has continuously been applied to Turkish peoples and their language and culture!!!

Additionally, this KUSHANA in Central Asia and the KUSHITES in Nubia are not exactly the same name and same people.  The one in Asia is light colored people and the other in Africa is dark colored.  The one in Africa could have been the Central Asiatic Turkic stock migrating into this area in Africa a long time ago and then mixing up with the natives - as is the case for the Tamils. Hence they could have ancient Turanian connections as well.  But please let us not confuse apples with oranges.   Of course the Oguz peoples who migrated into ancient Masar (Misir) and created a fantastic civilization also influenced the surrounding areas in Sudan and Ethiopia.  

So you see Mr. Clyde Winters, you are wrong on all counts. Now all this explanation should  set you straight about who was who in the geography so-called "Tocharistan".

Finally, you said: "Polat Kaya, like the IE researchers he admonishes, is tilling the history of the authentic ancient Turanians."

Polat Kaya:  Dear friend, Polat Kaya is not "tilling" anybody's back yard to find and own something that does not belong to the ancient Tur/Turk peoples;  Polat Kaya is only searching the history of what you call "the authentic ancient Turanians" who were the ancestors of Tur/Turk peoples.  There is nothing more natural for a Turk than trying to better understand his ancestors and their civilization.  In the process, Polat Kaya discovered that the Turkish language was the language of the ancient world and the ancient Turaniancivilization was the civilization of the world for tens of thousands of years. But to his amazement, Polat Kaya also discovered that the Turkish language together with the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk civilization was simply stolen by some "priestly" groups and this fact had been kept secret up until Polat Kaya pointed out that there was something terribly wrong with the Indo-European and Semitic languages.  And in the process of forming the concepts of "Indo-Europeanness" and "Semiteness" the whole world had been conned. 

How ironical it is that a Turk would be using the English language to tell the world that English is not an authentic language and is not as it has been portrayed.  That is, countless number of English words are encrypted forms of the Turkish language words and phrases. Of course English is not alone in this respect,  so are the Greek, Latin, and the rest of the Indo-European and Semitic languages.   In other words, English, like the other IE languages, is really "altered Turkish" and everybody who is speaking English or Greek now is really speaking altered Turkish. But then, as I have said before, the truth has its own way of coming to the surface and shining like the Sun.  Lies, on the other hand, are like feeble candles that last only for a while and then burn out.  

Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya