Re: [hrl_2] Turkish and Greek
Dear David and friends,
Greetings to all.
"So what Polat Kaya is saying is that Turkish is related to Greek to some degree. But we probably do not find close correspondences in other Altaic languages relating to the Greek elements."
David, your above summarization of what I say is incorrect and, therefore, a misrepresentation of the relationship between Turkish and Greek. It's not that the Turkish language is related to Greek, as you put it, but rather that Greek is related to Turkish. This I say because Greek is a language that has been artificially manufactured from Turkish. Only in this sense Greek is related to Turkish because Greek has taken its linguistic source material from Turkish. From the point of view of linguistic formatting, Greek is a broken up and restructured and therefore inflected language that does not resemble Turkish at all. On the other hand Turkish is a monosyllabic, agglutinative, and totally phonetic language of mathematical consistency and accuracy. Underneath the superficial external inflected appearance of Greek, it is related to Turkish because its manufacturers used words and expressions of the much older Turkish language as a data base in manufacturing Greek. In other words, TURKISH was the working "model" (proto) language from which Greek and all other Indo-European languages were made up. There was no Greek language when Turkish was a world language spoken throughout the ancient world. Turkish was the language of a worldwide accepted and practiced trinity sky-god Oguz (Tur) religion (Gök-Tanri, Gün-Tanri, Ay-Tanri) which was conspired by wanderer groups to be disbelieved, disbanded as a world religion and then replaced by new "religions". Even GENESIS 11 admits the presence of a one world language in the ancient world and its intentional confusion (destruction) although it omits to mention the name "Turkish".
So when you summarize my revelations with "Turkish is related to Greek", you alter the relationship that I presented and you give prior position to Greek while giving the very subtle impression that Turkish is a secondary and later developed language. This is the false aspect of your statement. Please read carefully my last posting about the name AESCULAPIUS (ASCLEPIUS), that is, the mythological Greek "god of medicine" where I showed the antecedent position of Turkish. In that paper I solved the so-called "Greek" mythological names which were all alterations from Turkish words and phrases. The meaning of all this is that the Turkish language, and the civilization that it represents, was far earlier established and universal than the Indo-European and Semitic languages put together. Evidently, some groups took the elements of the very ancient Turkish language, altered them inside out and then claimed the resulting distorted words as belonging to "languages" they call as their own.
You say that you are having problems with the presented data. I am sorry for that. I present my subjects in a very easy to understand manner so that it can be understood by all readers. Since I am presenting an unaccustomed new position regarding the makeup of some of the spoken languages in the world, I need to be explanatory and long when necessary. Additionally,in the present day linguistic comparisons of languages and their understandings, the Turkish language has not been given any credence whatsoever. In the linguistic world, all we hear is Greek, Latin, Semitic and all the other so-called Indo-European languages. A false picture has intentionally been (and is still being) presented - giving the impression that Turkish is just another newly developed language coming out of Asia while the facts are totally the opposite. My position is to not only undo the established misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the Turkish language, but to also point out the deceptive claims about these other "reference" languages. Therefore I cannot take chances by being vague and/or concise about what I am saying.
Additionally, I present subjects that belong to the ancient world thereby bringing in the timeframe that those names and/or words were used. In my presented picture, I compare those mythological names with their Turkish source which antedated them. Of course such comparisons require much explanation.
"But we probably do not find close correspondences in other Altaic languages relating to the Greek elements."
Again in this sopisticated expression you refer to "Greek elements", thus implying the Greek as the "reference" language - which it is not. The term "ALTAIC" is an alternative term for "TURKISH". Let us not make any mistake about it. There are no other "Altaic languages" different than Turkish, but there are other Altaic dialects of the Turkish language. These are different and very subtle concepts that should be noted. Sophistry should not be used in classifying the dialects of Turkish.
You seem to be unclear about the unitary kinship between the Turkish as spoken in Anatolia as versus the Turkish spoken in other parts of the present and ancient Turkish world. They are just dialects of one main language which is called TÜRKÇE (TURKISH, TURKIC), or OGUZ language or TUR language. Basic words and language structures are all the same. When one takes words and phrases from any of these dialects of Turkish language in manufacturing words for Indo-European languages, the source is still Turkish irrespective of where it was taken from. It must be noted that some linguists in the past in their ill intentions artificially called the Türkçe spoken in Turkey (Türkiye) as "Turkish" and the other dialects of Türkçe as "Turkic" or Altaic languages. These politically motivated false classifications are intended to divide the Turkish world rather than being sincere and truthful classifications.
"I am working on Hebrew-English correspondences, but I do not prefer to give long discussions as Mr. Kaya does, I try to give the essential data."
But David, you have not given us any samples of what you are doing and how you are doing it. Therefore we are not in a postion to say anything. If you can share your "Hebrew-English correspondences" material with the readers, there may be comments about your preferred way of presentations.
Best wishes to all,
David L wrote:
So what Polat Kaya is saying is that Turkish is related to Greek to some degree. But we probably do not find close correspondences in other Altaic languages relating to the Greek elements.
I have a problem with the presentation of data. On a language to language basis one should present the best evidence first, and then leave other evidence as a secondary presentation, even if they are presented together, separate between the best evidence first, then the other evidence.
So what is the best data showing a connection to Greek?
I am working on Hebrew-English correspondences, but I do not prefer to give long discussions as Mr. Kaya does, I try to give the essential data.