Re

Re: [hrl_2] Questions on methodology

Dear Neda,

Now that you signed off with a "Khoda hafez" and with your name "Neda" at the bottom of your posting, I get the hope that we may be able to communicate providing that you do not turn back to your vilfication approach. Here we are talking about "words" and "how they are made up". Therefore when you write regarding my postings you must talk about the words that I am using as examples to demonstrate my point, and where and if possible for you, you can tell me that Mr. Kaya you are wrong because of such and such reasons. I see no harm in that. But you have to show your scholarlyness, rationality and sincerity. Only then we can communicate in harmony, but not with the way that you have been writing all this time.

I have few more things to respond you as I read your e-mail below. They are interleaved in red with your writings.

Frank Verhoft wrote:

To go on a bit:

As a man of science, you should also realise that theories are sometimes

opposed of. Then it's up to the scientist to come with sound arguments

(but not in the meaning of "verbal aggression").

Polat Kaya: My arguments are very sound. If they were not I would not write them! Opposition to my theory must also be sound which I have not seen an example of it yet, particularly from you.

So far, your only

argument is repetition, which, let's be honest, doesn't score high in a

debate.

Polat Kaya: I am sorry that you find them repetitious, but since I am introducing a new opening into a very wide horizon through which reader is not used to look, I have to reapeat so that it is understood. Otherwise, it will escape the attention of even the most carefull reader. I try to overcome that repetitiveness by changing the subject every time so that reader is not bored, yet at the same time, reader can see the relevance of what I am saying regarding the subject being talked about.

The mere repetition that the mainstream linguists are wrong doesn't

suffice as an argument, no matter how many times you repeat that

statement.

Polat Kaya: I also write that most of the what you call "mainstream linguists" are honest linguists and unfortunately do not know what has taken place in the case of linguistics particularly regarding the make up of Indo-European languages. Therefore they are innocent bystanders reapeating only what they have been taught by their teachers.

Of course, we are curious about your sceintific methods, your methodology,

which, if I remember well, has been put in question also by other members

of this list recently. A series of ad hoc explanantions can't be labeled

as "scientific". As a man of science - and I don't have any reason to doubt that - you

should be the first to realise that your linguistic theories need

substantiation. Your theories are so novel that they need a firmer basis

than what is presented by you in this e-group and in your other e-group so

far.

Without any sound explanations on your part, without a systematic

scientific description of the processes you mention, without a sound back

up of your theory of anagrammitization, without all that, I get the

impression that yours is a pet theory, not a scientific one.

Polat Kaya: Dear Neda, you are not the first one who came up with this kind of opposition to my revelation of a linguistic fact explaining the make up of many languages. I can understand your and other readers' doubts about the things I am saying, and for that reason I have given the explanations of at least a thousand words belonging to so-called "Indo-European" languages in all kinds of categories. If the anagrammatization of Turkish was not done in the make up of many of these languages, then all the correspondences that I fined would not be found, because they would have zero probability to take place. I have indicated this with my writings showing the mathematically driven and talked about probabilities. If you have missed these writings of mine, then you have missed a very important link in the whole chain of events. Additionally there is nothing wrong in having a "pet theory", particularly if it is explaining the make up of the Indo-European and Semitic languages and how the people of the world have been conned by a few groups.

Otherwise said: it's up to you to convince us, not up to us to blindly

accept your theory _as it is presented so far_.

Polat Kaya; Dear Neda, all communications have two ends: one transmits and the other receives. But important thing for the completenes of communication is that while the transmitter is talking, the receiver should be listening, receiving and understanding the message being transmitted. If the receiver does not listens, does not understand and/or does not spend any effort to understand what is being said, then the transmitter may talk 24-hours a day and the whole year around, still it would not make the communication "complete". Now as "transmitter", I am doing my part to convince my readers by transmitting so much information. On the other hand, you as a receiver, are you also doing your part to make the communication complete? You may not like what I am saying, but at least you have to listen to what I am saying, understand what I am talking about and only then criticise what I am saying. Without doing this, the criticising reader will turn out to be an irrational and obstinate tyrant against the writer. You have to be fair before you want to kill the other side! (in this case "me").

Incidentally, I agree with you that you should not blindly accept my theory. That would be very superficial grasp of the concept I am presenting. I feel that once you have a true understanding of what I am saying, then I am confident that you, as a reader, will choose my side. In order to be in that position reader must also read a lot in many subjects that are outside of what he/she has been trained in.

And please don't be surprised by that: the days of the "magister dixit"

arguments are over. A title of "doctor" in one field of science doesn't

particularly strike me as a guarrantee for expertise in a completely

different field.

Polat Kaya: I do not dictate anything on anyone. I share my knowledge with my readers. You are free to take it or leave it. But if you want to critize what I am saying, it is not good enough for you or anyone else just to say "I dont like it" or "I do not agree with you". The critizer has to come up with a better explanation than these clishe responses. Generally, that can be done if the critizer has understood what is being said. Without that understanding, the criticizer makes no contribution except he/she makes noise to confuse the issue.

The simple fact that people are reacting to your mails, indicates that the

topic is interesting enough to spend energy on it. You write, people read

and (dis)agree: this is not a "lecture e-group", this is a debate e-group.

On the other hand, diasagreeing with you is not a matter of disrespect.

Polat Kaya: I am happy that you and my readers find my writings interesting to read. And I am happy to hear that you speak thus now. Dear Neda, if you notice you are speaking now in a different tone. If you read your previous letters, you will find that you were not talking to me in this way at all. You were belittling and putting me down. Only after my reaction, you started for the first time signing you off with a Khoda hafiz. Even these two words make considerable improvement in your postings.

"let me say that it was tens of thousands of years of Turanian linguistic

development"

Then we have a problem: the oldest textual attestations in a (now

deciphered) script date only from the third millennium BCE. If i can count

well, that's roughly 5000 years. As the dear and respected Dr. Guo (doctor

in linguistics, that is, and member of this forum) pointed out in a

private mail, there are 'inscriptions' (or rather carvings) found back in

a.o. China being much older, but there are very good reasons not to accept

them as scripts.

But even then, let's accept them as scripts for the sake of the debate,

even then, "tens of thousands of years of [whatever] linguistic

developments" sounds impressive, but it cannot be verified due to the lack

of attestations. I'll put it in an other, more clear way: language in

itself probably dates back from 100.000 years ago (or something), so of

course there is a development of "tens of thousands of years", but we

can't trace it because in a period spanning more than the first 9 tenths

of those developments, nobody left any records.

So, it's equally valid to say that there is a tens of thousands of years

in !Xhosa linguistic development, but also equally empty. Every language

has a history of 10.000s of years.

But all this makes me even more curious about your ideas where

Turkish/Turian comes from. It's the next logical step, isn't it?

Polat Kaya: Turkish is a very well developed language. Probably you do not know much about it. It should not be learned and spoken superficially. It is a language of mathematical precision to the degree that it is the "perfect" language. This kind of development can take only thousands of years of development. It is true that presently I cannot show you a 10,000 years old document written in Turkish, but the very fact that Sumerian and Masarian writings were by Turanian Tur/Turk peoples and they were dialects of Turkish make the Turkish a most ancient language. After having noted this, additionally I ask how can we be sure that those people who invented the name "SUMER" and the term "Sumerian" did not invent this name just to replace the name "TURKISH"? Afterall, those people who read the Sumerian texts removed the name "TUR" from the Sumerian writings and replaced it with the "Semitic" sounding "MAR" or "AMAR" name. How can we be sure that every thing was done on a "fair and honest" manner in reading the Sumerian texts? How do we know that they did not read the whole thing in Turkish and then presented the written material as texts belonging to a "dead" language called Sumerian? Afterall, they had no hesitation in Babylonia in confusing the "one language that world spoke", and had no hesitation in manufacturing a whole set of languages from Turkish, then how can we be sure that they did not do that again by replacing the name "Turkish" with the invented name "Sumerian"? There are a lot of questions regarding the readings of both the ancient Sumerian and the Masarian written texts.

A last note on one of your favourite rants: (PIE) linguistics is

"anti-Turkish", linguists are part of a worldwide anti-Turkish conspiracy.

It's quite an accusation. Isn't it a bit off the wall to mix a linguistic

theory with (fairly) modern political notions? The implied argument that

PIE linguists are exhibiting a racist attitude towards Turkic languages is

completely unfounded and even uncalled for. I remember a

(ex-)colleague-listmember (of an other group) being called an anti-semite

because he opposed to the idea that PIE evolved out of Hebrew. I hope you realise by now that this kind of attitude, accusing somebody of

racism, is very offensive.

The objections are made on linguistic grounds, and not on ethnic ones, no

matter how you'd define "ethnic".

Polat Kaya:

-    In Babylonia, when the priests change the names of Turko-Sumerian deities, alter their meanings and the concepts behind those deities, then call the altered civilization as their own, then I say there is an anti-Turkish world out there!

-    Dear Neda when they remove the name TUR from the ancient Sumerian inscriptions and replace it with "MAR" or "AMAR", then the "world" is against the "TUR/TURK" names, otherwise they would not do it!

-    When they manufacture their languages using Turkish words and phrases as the source data-base, but never admit that they used Turkish for that purpose, then the "world" is against Turkish and I can understand their worry!

-    When the world admits that ancient Masarians (falsely called "Egypt"), Sumerians, the Cannanites, the Phoenicians, Anatolians were all "TURANIANS", but TURKS have nothing to do with the name "TURAN" and with these ancient Turanians, then I say "world" is against TUR/TURK name and "world" is lying!

-    When the European world classifies Turks as Arabs as in the case of Turkish Saricans, so-called Sarecens, and the Seljuk Turks, and the Tuareg (Turg/Turk) Berbers as "Arabs" and attributes their 700 year old "MOORES" Empire in Spain to "Arabs" without mentioning the name TUR/TURK, then I say Europe is against the name "Turk"!

-    When they remove the name TURK from the identity cards of Tur/Turk peoples of Eurasia and call them by the "adjective of "moslems of Russia", then I say "world" is against Turks! The religious term "Moslem" does not identify the ethnicity of its members. It intentionally obliterates the ethnic identity.

-    When more than ten Greek Seleucid rulers take the title of "ANTIOCHUS" meaning "Anti OGUZ" , then I say the Greeks and together with them the Europeans are anti-Turkish!

-   When the ancient Greek rulers take the title "ANTIGONUS" ("anti-Günesh")  meaning "rejectin sun", that is, rejecting the Turanian "SUN" religion, then I say they were "anti-Turkish" and they still are!

-    When they steal the Turkish name "BEK TUR ÖYÜ" (Bey Tur Öyü) meaning "the home of lord TUR" and replace it with the bogus name "BACTRIA", then I say the world is against Turks!

-    When they dig the Central Asian lands and find ancient artifacts and attribute those findings to any other name but Turks, then I say there is something wrong in the field of "archeology" as well!

-    When most of the population in ancient Iran was Turanian Turkish speaking people and they are never mentioned as such by the historians, then I say world is against the Turks.

-    When dishonest "linguistics" and "missionaries" break up a part of Turks and call them by the name "Kurt" (note the name is the opposite of the name "Turk") and uses them against the Turks, then I say world is against the Turks!

I can list many more cases to demonstrate my point further. But this many should be sufficient for the time being.

And for your information, and I hope we can at least settle this issue: my

name is Neda, I'm Iranian and female. I hope you're not bothered by that.

I'm interested in PIE linguistics, especially Indo-Iranian languages. Khoda hafez, Neda

Polat Kaya: Dear Neda, when you write openly and sincerely there is nothing that we cannot settle between us! Additionally, I am not bothered at all with you being an Iranian or female. I have had many good friends from Iran and we were very close and understanding towards each other. In fact culturally we have a lot of things in common. I also had many good and dear friends from Greece, India, China, Masar ("Egypt") and othe Middle Eastern countries. I have noting against you or anyone else. I respect the views of all my readers. But when you criticize my work, do not try to badmouth and/or belittle me by sophistry. I will not be intimitaded by such bad writings. I am against it and will always be against it.

Before closing this, please note that I will forward to you and to the groups the letter that I sent you earlier which you say that you did not receive. With this I am going to close this writing with the saying: Dear Neda "Khoda hafez" to you too meaning "God save you too".

My very best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya