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 concerninghistorical linguistics only have one reply: Turkish roots.Turkish is the root language, dixit Mr Kaya, even if that implies that theefforts 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 fewcenturies are viewed upon as an anti-Turkish conspiracy. Let's make anabstraction of both the paranoia and of the 1000s of professionallinguists, historians, etc. vs. the amateur linguist that Mr Kaya admitshe 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 seeanswered by Mr Kaya, or anybody else with the same ideas: Where doesTurkish come from? Or otherwise asked, what was there before Turkish, ifanything?Just curious.