Re

Re: [hrl_2] Turkish and Greek ???

Dear Friends,

Hi. This is my response to reader Ari Akkermans' last posting below.

First of all, reader Ari Akkermans' response to my posting is not "inline" as he claims. Putting his comments "inline" would mean that his response would be interspersed with my original writing - but it is not. In fact he completely discarded my response to him from his letter - so that other readers cannot see what I originally wrote. When my original writing is missing from his response, readers cannot correlate his response to my original writing. This is probably intentional elimination of my writing on his part and he should not have done this. Secondly, who is Ari Akkermans talking to? Is he talking to Polat Kaya? Is he talking to the air - or to the wall - or to himself? Most learned people, in a manner of civility, when they write a letter or email, usually start it by addressing the person they are talking to. Ari Akkermans is not doing this. If it happens again, he will not get a response from me.

Ari Akkermans said: "1) Doesn't your theory sound very similar to that good old theory that everything comes from Greece and from Greek, including the Egyptian pyramides and the Mesoamerican temples?"

Polat Kaya: No! The ancient wandering Greeks could not have built pyramids or any other structure because of their wandering habits. It was only after they became settled in what is presently called "ancient Greece" that they learned from the native Turkish-speaking Turanians all the culture that has been falsely attributed to Greeks. When Greeks arrived, they found that the native Turkish-speaking Turanians were living in castles built on mountaintops. The native Turanians were able to build so-called "Cyclopian" walls in their ancient lands which are still standing as part of later buildings in Greece. Only then did the wandering Greeks start to emulate what they learned from those ancient Turanians. The words of the Greek language were manufactured from Turkish words and expressions and are historical evidences for the Greek emulations and adoptations. Therefore Greeks are not in a position to make claims about having build pyramids etc. as reader Akkermans speaks of. On the other hand what I say is based on linguistic evidences which reader Ari Akkermans cannot even comprehend let alone try to disprove.

Those natives, in addition to being known as TUR, THRAC (TURK, Thracians), TAURIC, TURUK, TORIC, ETRUSK (TURKSE), were also known by the name "PELASGIANS" who were Turanian Saka Turks. Ancient Greeks called them "Pelasgians." This name is from the Turkic source "BAL SAKALARI" meaning "Honey producing Saka peoples" and/or "BIL SAKALARI" meaning "knowledgable Saka people". For example, the famed plain of "Thessaly" was one of the lands that was inhabited by them and by their bees. The northern part of Thessaly was called PELASGIOTIS. Similarly, those so-called "Ionians", falsely labeled as "Greek", were also Turkic speaking "Pelasgian" and Turanian peoples who called temselves "Ay-Hans". Note the similarity between Turkish "AyHan" and "Ion". This is not coincidental. These ancient pre-Greek Turanians, evidently took the Turkish name AY-HAN which was known as the name of one of the six sons of OGUZ HAN. The Turkish name "AY-HAN" has been Hellenized and converted into ION. This name is also known by the name "YUNAN" in Turkish and hence Greece is called "YUNANISTAN" by Turks. No wonder that some learned Greeks admit that at least 60% of the Greek population is of Turkish origin who are not all left over from the Ottoman period.

As for the Turkicness of the "Pelasgians" reader Ari Akkermans should read my reading of the Lemnos island stela inscription which is on the Internet. Pelasgians were unquestionably Turkish speaking people contrary to denials: see URL http://www.compmore.net/~tntr/lemstelea.html

"Pyramid" building is again a Central Asiatic Turanian trademark, just like the "kurgan" building is, and just like the "monolithic" stone erecting was - as a monument to the Sun-God and their ancestors. The Turanian "pyramids" of Eastern Turkistan are testament to this. (National Geographic Vol. 175, No. 3, March 1989, p. 302-303, 311 the graveyards near Urumqi). Similarly the pyramids in ancient Masar, that is, the so-called "Egypt" is a testament to this fact. So are the Turkish "mosques" and "minarets" are testament to that fact. For example when one watches from a distance the "Süleymaniye Mosque" in Istanbul which was built for the name of Sultan Süleyman The Magnificent, it is a magnificent "pyramid" itself. The name "MOSQUE" is from the Turkish expression "OKUS ÖYEM" meaning "I am the home of OGUZ the Sky-God".

Those informed readers of academic literature - including reader Akkermans - do not know or did not know the real Turkic source of the words "theorem" and "theory". People who don't know are not in a position to make any learned comparison and/or judgment. They would be simply be repeating what they learned in schools and/or from dictionaries without knowing the real source of these words. The terms "theorem and "theory" are most definitely altered foms of Turkish words "teyorem" (diyorum) and "teyor" (diyor), and no rhetoric on the part of reader Akkermans will change that fact. If he studies carefully what I wrote and with an open mind, he will see that what I say is unquestionable.

Additionally his explanation of saying that: ""theorein" (which is an infitinive) means "to contemplate"" - does not change the fact that the source of the word is Turkish irrespective of whether it is the infinitive form or something else. Furthermore the term "contemplate" does not express the concept of "theorem" or "theory". Yet the words "theorem" (from Tr. diyorum) and "theory" (from Tr. diyor) - according to their defined meanings, are all about making a "statement" of the concept being introduced. But this is also what the Turkish terms "diyorum" and "diyor" are all about. Hence the dictionary "etymology" pointing to a Greek source is bogus. Such misleading information cons the unsuspecting world.

Ari Akkermans wrote:

"4) Your etymology of Hittite is mistaken, since they did not call themselves Hittites in Hittite, do bear mind one vowel or sound of difference brings a totally different perspective, such as the Sumerians called their land "Kungur" and not "Shumer" as it is presented in Akkadian and Canaanite. It is obvious that Hittite is related to Hatti, that they might have been Turkic people is something that can be doubted, but their language was certainly not Turkic. The migration waves seem to have been different."

Polat Kaya: I am aware of the fact that they did not call themselves "Hittite". Another name "NESA" has also been in circulation. The name "Hittite" is a bogus name coined by the westerners in order to confuse the identity of this ancient Anatolian people. I explained that the name "HITTITE" was from the Turkish expression "HATTI ITI" meaning "they were Hatti people". That is why "Hittite" and "Hatti" are related to each other. Thus my etymology is correct contrary to Ari Akkermans denial. Supposedly the name "Hittite" comes from the Biblic name "HETH" which is a coverup of the truth.

Of course the name "HATTI" is verymuch a variation of the Turkish name "OTTI" meaning "it is fire" which would be a Turkish name describing the "SUN" which is "fire". In ancient Turanian "SUN" worshipping civilization, people took the name of Sun and the Sky-God described in words of Turkish language. This is an example of that past civilization.

The river name "HALYS" is the name given to the Turkish river name "KIZIL IRMAK" in Central Anatolia. The name HALYS is a distorted and Hellenized form of the Turkish name "AL-SU" meaning "red water" given to the river "KIZILIRMAK" in central Anatolia. The Turkish name "KIZIL IRMAK" also means "Red River". Thus the ancient name "AL-SU" distorted as "HALYS", and "KIZIL IRMAK" are both in Turkish and one is the continuation of the other. No verbal distortions will change that fact.

Similarly the ancient Hatti city of KANESH, which was situated on the banks of the River Halys, more correctly "River AL SU", has been conveniently attributed to the so-called "Assyrians". As usual such cities are either Greek or Semite or anyone else except Tur/Turk. The name KANESH is nothing but the Turkish word "GÜNESH" meaning "the Sun". Thus again the name of the city is in Turkish and is after the Sun-God. Hence the name KANESH unquestionably identifies the Hatti people as Sun worshipping and Turkish speaking Tur/Turk peoples. That is why they are "HATTI" (OTTI) people and the name of their city was "KANESH" (KUNESH, GÜNESH) meaning "sun city". In ancient times there has been many "sun cities" in the Middle East. Evidently historians have not been telling the truth about the Turkic identity of the ancient city of "KANESH".

It is als said that:  "the king ANITTAS, of the city of KUSSARA, and his own narrative of his deeds is preserved on a tablet from the Hittite royal library. He seized the city of Kanesh, known in Hittite as NESA, and made it his capital". {see "The Ancient World", General Editor: Esmond Wright, Chartweil Books Inc., (The Hamlyn Publishing Group), 1979, page 28}.

It is also said that: "The Hittite people, however, called their language "NESITE" (i.e., the language of the city of Nesa), and their kingdom "Hatti", borrowing the name from the previous inhabitants of the land. Thus it was that their neighbours, the Babylonians and Egyptians, called them 'The people of hatti', while to the Hebrews of the Old testament they were the 'sons of Heth', from which the modern term 'Hittite' is taken". {See "The Ancient World", the same reference as above, p. 28.}

First of all changing the name from "KANESH" (KÜNESH) to "NESA" is signifant. NESA is a replacement for "KANESH". Since the Hattis called their language "NESITE", it means that the original name of their language was "KANESH LANGUAGE", i.e., by another name "KÜNESH LANGUAGE" which was the name for Turkish as "SUN LANGUAGE" ("GÜNESH DILI"). Thus it is clear that the Hattis of Anatolia talked the "Sun Language of TURKISH" even during the time of Hatties, i.e., 2000 B. C. Evidently, those western and Semitic readers of the ancient texts made sure that the name "Turkish" or the "OGUZ Dili", that is "O GÖZ Dili" meaning the "Sun Language" never comes to the surface.

Additionally, the name "HETH" is nothing but a distorted form of the Turkish word "OT/OD) meaning "fire' and referring to the "sun" Hence Hatties, as belevers of the Sun-God, were known as "the sons of the Sun" which makes sense. Thus the present concocted name of "HITTITE" has been coined to identify these people of HATTI in a totally Semitized light just like they changed the identity of Sumerians. All this also shows that the claim that the Hittite language was "an Indo-European" language is also false. In view of all this, perhaps reader Ari Akkermans should reconsider the 'truthfulness' of all the things that he has learned about the "Hitties" and the ancient "Middle East".

Now about the name "KUNGUR": I am glad that Ari Akkermans mentioned the original name "KUNGUR" for the Sumerians who have been renamed as "Shumer" by the Akkadians. Akkadians by renaming this ancient Turkic people as "Shumer", they intentionally obliterated their original name. This act of intentional erasing of the identity of an ancient Turanian people was a dishonest act. The name "KUNGUR" is a Turkic name having the Turkish words of "KUN" (GÜN) meaning "the Sun, daytime, light" and "GUR" (KOR, GÖR) meaning "fire and seeing" respectively embedded in it. This shows the name "KUNGUR" (KONGOR, KONKUR, KANKOR, KIENGIR) was a proper name of Sun-God believing Turkish peoples. In ancient times people were known by the country name that they belonged to. Thus KUNGUR was also the name of this Turanian Turkish people. In this regard, reader Ari Akkermans can take a look at the internet paper entitled "Origin of Türks and Tatars" by Mirfatyh Zakiev at the URL: http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis358-440En.htm
where he will also find variations of the name "KUNGUR" as name for the Sumerians. Additionally, other scholars, such as Noah Samuel Kramer and others, have also indicated Turkish-Sumerian kinship. Ari Akkermans denying this observation does not change the fact that Sumerians (Kungurs) were Turanian Turkish speaking peoples. For his information I like to note that the name "TUR", that is, another Tur/Turk name of "Sky-God" of ancient Turanians and also the name of Tur/Turk peoples, has intentionally been removed from the Sumerian texts transcriptions and replaced by the name "MAR" and/or "AMAR" by the readers of the Sumerian "Kungur" texts. This is also very meaningful.

I myself have also written many articles regarding the Sumerian-Turkish kinship and with many examples of linguistic correspondence. Most of them are in my "Polat Kaya Library". Reader Ari Akkermans should search and read them for his information.

Bringing in new questions without discussing what I have already presented, and/or throwing in irrelevant verbosity to the subject being discussed is a distraction tactic. In Turkish it is called "muddying up the clean waters" so that what is in the water is not clearly visible anymore to the onlooker. Ari Akkermans' posting is nothing more than a debating trick. While we are still talking about the Greek words and how they have been made up from Turkish by way of restructuring and disguise, he attempts to change the subject into something else. By such an attempt he hopes to divert the discussion away from the damming findings that I present regarding the make up of words in Greek and in other Indo-European languages. Instead, he should try to understand and explain why I am able to get Turkish words or expressions from the rearrangements of the Greek words such that they have the same meaning as the meaning of the analysed word. It is obvious that Ari Akkermans wants to avoid that kind of dialogue!

I said it before and I say again that the world community has been conned with master trickery and supreme salesmanship. The ancient Turanian civilization has been both abducted and obliterated. The Greek, Latin and other Indo-European and Semitic languages are the living witnesses for what has taken place. The original abductors never imagined that what they did some three thousand years ago would be detected. I detected and revealed what has taken place and now there is no curtain left to hide behind. Most of the linguists working with sincerity and honesty who are trying to understand the structure of the spoken languages have been sent on a wild goose chase by supplying them with pseudo sources as the etymology for the artificially manufactured words.

With my best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya



Ari Akkermans wrote:

See comments inline

1) Doesn't your theory sound very similar to that good old theory that everything comes from Greece and from Greek, including the Egyptian pyramides and the Mesoamerican temples?

2) Where is your paleolinguistiv evidence to prove your claims? Do you have actual prove that Sumerian was ever a Turko-Sumerian? Where is that language found? Which texts? Who are the scholars who deciphered Sumerograms and found them to be Turkish? I don't think the whole academic community is in an open waged war against the Turkish people, my bet is that they have more sensical interests. As far as I know Sumerian is not related to anything and a relationship with Turkish to make up for the first language is really not that obvious.

3) Where is your proof about the so-called made up languages? Do you have phonological or typological information that can lead us to believe your argument? Are your claims based on phonotactic studies or are you familiar with the different Greek scripts that preceded the Classical alphabet?

4) Your etymology of Hittite is mistaken, since they did not call themselves Hittites in Hittite, do bear mind one vowel or sound of difference brings a totally different perspective, such as the Sumerians called their land "Kungur" and not "Shumer" as it is presented in Akkadian and Canaanite. It is obvious that Hittite is related to Hatti, that they might have been Turkic people is something that can be doubted, but their language was certainly not Turkic. The migration waves seem to have been different.

5)Theory: Any informed reader of academic literature knows that the use of the words theory, theorem and thesis are not in modern English meant as they were in the context of the classical cultures. And to correct your dictionary "theorein" (which is an infitinive) means "to contemplate", or to break down in the meaning given by the Classics, "to see [the truth] like the Gods do".

A.A.