Re: [hrl_2] Digest Number 128

Dear Frank Verhoft,

I thought you (and your kind) were ready to accept "nostratic" as the "proto" language for all languages.  Somehow you were not bothered with that idea.  When I put forward the fact that it was the Turkish language which the Indo-European languages and Semitic languages were made up from, suddenly you started to be an alert and selective questioner. Why is that?  Does it bother you?

Yes Frank Verhoft, whether you like it or not, all evidences are proving that there was no Greek language and there was no Latin language before they stole from Turkish and used this very ancient language as a source data-base for the manufacture of languages that they called their own. Then the rest of the European languages followed the same path.  With this revelation, suddenly we find that the "king" not only did not have any clothes on, but also did not have any civilization of his own, was also a thief and a liar about his "language" and "civilization".  This startling fact may not be too enjoyable for some people, but face it, facts have a sour tasting effect on those who do not want to hear them.  It is curious that even those who are caught stealing or committing some crime on camera do not readily admit their crime. Not only do they deny the fact that they were stealing, but they also turn around and make counter accusations directed at the detective who caught them in the act. 

Additionally even if the number of your  "....ologies"  were multiplied by ten or even hundred, still it would not make a difference on what I am saying, irrespective of whether I am an "amateur" or not, as long as those "....ology" holders are knowingly or unknowingly using "falsehood" as a base for their studies. Millions of honest and trusting people may believe in a falsehood without knowing that their belief is "false", because they have been well conditioned by a propaganda machine.  However, that huge number of belevers still does not make the "false" concept a concept based on "truth".  Unfortunately we now discover that the European languages are in that false category and are not genuine and authentic languages.  

Furthermore, I see your attacks as those of a hurt politician rather than a linguist. You carry two hats at the same time.  At this moment I do not know which "Frank" is talking. Are you Frank Verhoft  the "Frank" or Frank Verhoft the "Neda"?  Or am I talking to an invisible "angel"?  I wrote you a very lengthy response regarding your queries, but you did not even show the courtesy to send back a "thank you" note. Why do you think that I should pay attention to your additional queries now?  If you do not believe what I am saying, that is your problem.  You can keep your head in the shade as long as you wish. That is your choice.  But regarding the Indo-European and Semitic languages, the trick that some very deceitful people have used in manufacturing these languages has now been discovered whether you like it or not. Most of the ordinary Indo-European and Semitic peoples had nothing to do with this secretive cultic operation. What I say is a fact and that fact stays as I say it!  It just happened that while I have the "knowledge" of knowing what happened regarding the make up of languages, you do not have the slightest inkling about it.  You are just following what has been told to you.  Thus your attempt to "claw" my face by putdown verbosity will not change anything - even if you had ten diplomas to your name.  

By the way some "amateurs' have made "earth shattering "revelations in the past and there is no reason that there would not be more of them now or later.  "Knowledge" belongs to its beholder, but not necessarily to those who may have all kinds of certificates indicating that they have gone through "schooling". Incidentally, I have written a library-full of articles each of which is a paper for a "doctorate" degree" and they are being read by many people out there. 

With respect to your last query, once you accept the fact that Turkish was the "birata" (proto), that is, "one father" language for all of the Indo-European and the Semitic languages, then we will cross the next bridge that leads us to the answer to your last question.  In the meanwhile, let me say that it was tens of thousands of years of Turanian linguistic development that paved the way for the present existence of the Turkish language. 

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

Frank Verhoft wrote:

It seems that, according to Polat Kaya c.s., all questions concerning
historical linguistics only have one reply: Turkish roots.
Turkish is the root language, dixit Mr Kaya, even if that implies that the
efforts done by thousands of people in the fields of general linguistics,
sociolinguistics, dialectology, historical linguistics, history,
anthropology and a few dozen -ologies more, efforts done in the last few
centuries are viewed upon as an anti-Turkish conspiracy. Let's make an
abstraction of both the paranoia and of the 1000s of professional
linguists, historians, etc. vs. the amateur linguist that Mr Kaya admits
he is, and accept Kaya's ideas, for the sake of the debate.
Then this would leave us with one last question, which I'd love to see
answered by Mr Kaya, or anybody else with the same ideas: Where does
Turkish come from? Or otherwise asked, what was there before Turkish, if
Just curious.