Re: [hrl_2] Turkish and Greek
Dear Ari Akkermans and friends,
Ari Akkermans wrote:
Dear Polat Kaya
Please see inline comments.
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.
Ari Akkermans: Do you happen to have an idea on the
ethnic background of the earliest Greeks and the
origin of their traditions based on the different
mythological traditions? The subject is too complex to
elaborate, I would recommend some serious reading of
W. Otto, K. Jung and K. Kerenyi or much better, a few
classes of Greek pre-history at a Classics Seminar of
any respectable and science-oriented university.
Polat Kaya: Western books on the ancient
so-called "Greece" talk about the ancient Greeks as wanderers who had
nothing valuable of their own. They were barbaric and destructive wherever they
went. They first destroyed the cities and the civilizations of the native
peoples (Turanians), and then built on it what they learned from the Turanians.
Thus the destroyed civilization disappeared and what became visible was called
Greek. The wandering Semitic Akkadians also did the same thing in
the ancient Middle East. The western writers of ancient history
falsely dump together the Ionians (AY-HANS), the Dorians and
Achaeans (ACHAYWA, ACHAIOI) and call them all Greek but they were
not all Greek. Prof. H. D. F. Kitto, Professor of Greek at the University
of Bristol, [H. D. F. Kitto, "The Greeks", Penguin Books, 1957, p.24]
"But they all fell, and the decaying Mycenaean Age came to an end, at the end of the twelfth. Other conquerors, the Dorians, came down from north-central Greece, this time not successful adventurers seizing or harrying small kingdoms, but destroying flood of men, making a sudden end of a long civilization, and beginning a Dark Age, three centuries of chaos, after which Classical Greece begins to emerge. The Ionians have taken refuge across the sea (except the Athenians), the name "Achaea" is confined to the narrow plain along the southern coast of the Gulf of Corinth, and the "brown-haired Dorians, if they were also of this colour - have been absorbed into the dark-haired type which Greece produces, much as the fair-haired Celts of Gaul became dark Frenchmen."
More from Kitto [p. 15]:
"The latter Greeks themselves believed in an original non-Hellenic population which they called "pelasgian, remnants of which still remained pure in classical times, speaking their own language. Heredotus, who was interested in nearly everything that came to his notice, was interested in the origin of the Greeks; and of the two main branches of the later Greek people, the Ionians and the Dorians, he asserts the Ionians were Pelasgian by descent. indeed in distinction to the Ionians he calls the Dorians 'Hellenic'. He goes on to say 'What language the Pelasgians used I cannot say for certain, but if I may conjecture from those Pelasgians who still exist . . . they spoke a barbarian language' - meaning by 'barbarian' no more than 'non-Hellenic'.
This tallies well enough with what we have conjectured about the Athenians, for they claimed to be the leaders and the metropolis of the Ionian Greeks, and they also claimed to be indigeneous."
Polat Kaya: I want to dwell on this statement a bit more although it is fairly self explanatory. First of all Ionians and Greeks were not the same people. Ionians were the ancient Turanian "AY-HANS" and were Pelasgians, a Turkic name restructured from Turkish "BAL SAKA" meaning "honey producing Saka people". SAKA people are known to be Turkish people. Their remnants are still in Siberia under the name of SAKA Republic (old Yakutistan). the name "Pelasgians" also appear in the writings of Homer and he recalls them as "The Noble Pelasgians".
Secondly it is curious that this historian "Herodotus", who was so interested in everyones' background, somehow forgot to ask to those Pelasgians, whom he knew well, what language they were speaking and what it was called! There is something fishy going on here. Somebody is hiding something!
The supposedly Greek name HERODOTUS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TOROHSUDE", contains the Turkish word "TOROHCUDE" (TARIHCIDI) meaning "he is historian". Now everyone knows that Herodotus was a "historian" and supposedly a "Greek historian". However this Turkish correspondence does not define HERODOTUS as a proper name but rather as a "profession" which fits the actual profession of Herodotus. This implies that he was probably a 'historian' but he may not necessarily been "Greek". He could have been any well-known historian of the time - but not necessarily Greek.
Additionally the rearranged form "TOROHSUDE" of the name "HERODOTUS" can also be read as "TOROHCUDE" (TURUKCUDI, TÜRKCÜDI) meaning "he was a historian of Turuk (Turk) peoples", that is, someone whose studies are related to TOROH (TURUK, TURK) peoples. All this is very enlightening and questions the authenticity of the "Greek" identity of Herodotus. Could it be that we have all been conned again even in this name? Could it be that an ancient historian of Turk/Turuk peoples has also been usurped as "Greek". Students of the ancient world out there have to be questioning the true identity of this ancient "historian".
Prof. Kitto writes: [Kitto, p. 15]. "An indigeneous non-Hellenic race inhabited Attica and the Peloponnese. At some time that cannot be determined Greek-speaking peoples from further north migrated into this region - no doubt very gradually - and imposed their language on them, much as the Saxons did in on England. This was not a sudden, catastrophic invasion: the archaeological records show no sudden break in culture before the Dorian invasion of about 1100 . Pelasgian 'pockets' which escaped the influence of these incomers continued to speak a language unintelligible to Herodotus."
"Herodotus, an avid and not uncritical inquirer, regarded the Ionian Greeks as a "barbarian" people who had been Hellenized." [Kitto, p. 19]
Prof. Kitto writes [Kitto, p. 14]: "Athena is non-Greek, and there is some reason to think that she and her people are also pre-Greek, which is a different thing."
The city name of Athens is after the goddess Athena. The Greek version of the name Athens is given as "ATHINAI" or simply "AI" [Divry's English-to-Greek Dictionary, p. 31, 399]. First of all the name "AI" is nothing but the Turkish name"AY" meaning the "moon". So, the city of Athens must have been built after the ancient Turanian Moon-God "AY-HAN". This makes sense because Athena was the goddess of "ION-IANS", a name that embodies the Turkish word "AY". Inother words, IONIANS were the believers of the Turkish "AY-HAN", that is, the Moon Lord. This information also implies that, in one meaning, the goddess Athena must have been a personification of the "moon deity".
Additionally, the name ATHINAI, i.e., Athens, is an embodiment of the Turkish expression "ATHIN AI" (ADIN AY) meaning "your name is 'moon'". Thus the names ATHENA and ATHINAI (Athens) are not Greek in origin but rather is pure Turkish taken from the ancient Turanians by the infiltrating and invading Greeks. Prof. Kitto is also saying that Athena is non-Greek. So they even usurped the name of Turkish "Moon-God" and made it a "Greek" goddess. A similar situation was being played by the Akkadians in the Middle East where the Turko-Sumerian pantheon was usurped. Akkadians were also wanderers who had nothing of their own and had been protected under the wings of Turko-Sumerians first before they destroyed the Sumerians. The Hazar and Ottoman Turks also took some of their kins under their protective umberalla for centuries.
Mythology states that Athena was the daughter of Zeus. I have already written a lengthy article on the Turkic identity of Zeus. First of all Zeus is said to be from DODONA, a Pelasgian oracle. Secondly, the name ZEUS is a composite name personifying many concepts expressed in Turkish. ZEUS was the personification of Turkish "AZ-SU" meaning "peerless water", "AZ US" meaning "peerless wisdom", "AZ AYAS" (ZIYAS) meaning "peerless light", "SÖZ" meaning "word, speech, language", "SES" meaning "voice", "AZ AUS" meaning "peerless mouth" and of course Turkish "AZ OGUZ" meaning "Peerless OGUZ" - the name of the ancient Turanian Sky-God. Zeus personifying the "mouth" and also the "word"and "athena" mythologically coming out of his head in a fully grown up and embellished manner indicates that the word "ATHINAI" was also a personification of a special word. Words do come out of the "AGUZ" (mouth) fully grown. Thus Zeus and Athena and Artemiz (and many other so-called "Greek" mythological names) were personifications of different concepts expressed and named in Turkish. They were not Greek. Please see my paper on ZEUS and his daughters called "Muses".
Prof. Kitto, while writing about the country life of "ancient Greece", writes:
"Of specialized trades we hear of only two, the trades of the smith and the potter. These were "DEMIOURGOI", 'men who work for the populace', not themselves consuming the product of their own toil. The demiourgos is the craftsman: in Plato, the Creator: hence Demirurge in Shelley's Prometheus Unbound. It is interesting to notice that these two are the only crafts which, in Greek, have divine exponents. Hephaestus (Vulcan) the smith, and Prometheus, also a fire-god, but in Attic cult the god of the potters." [Kitto, p. 40-41].
Polat Kaya: In the Greek mythology, Hephaestus is known to be a master craftsman capable of doing all kinds of things masterfully. Among many things, he was the designer and the maker of Pandora the first model of woman, he was the maker of the armory of Achilles in the Trojan wars, and also the maker of an iron net designed to catch Aphrodite, his wife, in a deceit. In the Ares and Aphrodite story, the iron net that he built was so light and fine that Ares and Aphrodite could not see it and hence they were caught in it in the act. This indicates that Hephaestus was the personification of an "iron and/or metal worker". But the "ironworker" or "metal worker" is called in Turkish by the name "DEMIRGI" meaning "he who works with iron or metals" or "iron smith" or "metal smith". Now, for the attention of all linguists, this Turkish word appearing in the form of "DEMIOURGOI" in the ancient Greek language of the first millennium B. C.( at least 3,000 years old) and also in the form of "DEMIURGE" in the work of Shelley cannot be due to coincidence.
When the term "DEMIOURGOI" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "DEMIRGI-OUO", it is found to be a restructured form of the Turkish expression "DEMIRGI OYU" (DEMIRGI ÖYÜ) meaning "home of ironsmith" or the "shop of ironsmith", i.e., a place where the DEMIRGI works. Note here that the Turkish word ÖYÜ has been simply used as "linguistic wrapping" to hide the Turkish word DEMIR and DEMIRGI - meaning "iron" and "ironsmith" respectively. These words, which are older than three thousand years, are still the same in Turkish today.
The name HEPHAESTUS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "HEP-SHE-USTA" where the P is also an "R" in the Greek alphabet, reveals the Turkish expression "HEP SEYE USTA" or "HER SEYE USTA" meaning "mastercraftsman of all things". Indeed in Greek mythology, he is known as the master craftsman for all things. Even here, the name HEPHAESTUShas preserved these Turkish words "HEP" (all), "HER" ("every"), "ShEYE" ("to things"), and "USTA" ("master", "craftsman" or "smith) which were older than 3000 years old.
Mythologically, Aphrodite was the wife of Hephaestus. The name "APHRODITE", when rearranged letter-by-letter as"APHROD-ITE" or "APHROT-IDE", reveals the Turkish expression "AVRAT IDI" meaning she was the wife", "she was the woman", "she was the lover woman". This is what Aphrodite is known to be. This exact Turkish correspondence with a name that appears in the writings of Homer cannot be attributed to coincidence. What it means is that Turkish was the world language at the time of Homer and that the Turkish words AVRAT and IDI were older than 3,000 years old. They are still the same today.
So all of these are not coincidences but are evidences of the presence of Turkish throughout the so-called ancient "Greek" world. You must note that these three thousand plus year old Turkish words have not changed a bit during these many years. Thus saying that languages change automatically in time is a falsehood and is a cover up to do some artificial altering by some clever linguists. The linguists have to take note of these evidences and accordingly clean up their own linguistic shops. I can give you many more Turkish words existing in the ancient "Greek" mythological stories but for the time being these should be enough to demonstrate what I am saying. These revelations make it quite clear that some very cunning minds with fast-working hands and deceptive tongues have "taken" the ancient Turanian civilization simply by altering the forms of ancient Turkish words and phrases into non-recognizable "Indo-European" and "Semitic" formats which they then claimed as their own.
The words of the Greek language were
manufactured from Turkish words and expressions and are historical
evidences for the Greek emulations and adoptations.
Ari Akkermans: Where is the concrete
universal-to-particular and universal-to-general
phonological evidence of your claims?
Polat Kaya: I am doing better than that.
I am providing exact correspondences between Greek words and Turkish
words/phrases that have been usurped and altered to form those
"Greek" words. You see, the Greek words are encryptions of the
Turkish source data. I am simply decrypting them and coming up with
perfect Turkish correspondences. Did you expect me to provide you with an
audio/video recording of the ancient Greek speech as it was performed on the
stages of ancient Athens? Maybe it can be ordered from a mythological
recording company in Greece, but I am afraid you will be waiting a long time. I
do not believe your "phonological evidence" requirement as being that
important a criteria, however I will touch this subject once again in another
response of mine to you and Shanti Light.
On the other hand what I say is based on
linguistic evidences which reader Ari Akkermans cannot even comprehend let
alone try to disprove.
Ari Akkermans: I think it is somebody else who fails
to enlighten us with a sufficiently linguistic
background. I do recognize not being a Turkish
speaker, but I do have a thorough knowledge of
Classical Greek gained through several years of
classical scholarship and as any respectable linguist
I am trained in descriptive linguistics. Please do
post the linguistic evidence in a linguistic fashion
so that we all may be able to benefit from the
insightful theory you are postulating.
Polat Kaya: Please do not forget that I am
the one who has been giving you insight information and teaching you about the
makeup of the words belonging to Greek, Latin and other Indo-European
languages. In this regard you have given us nothing so far. In fact you
have conveniently played the "not-hearing" and the
"not-seeing" game as if you never heard one word of what I said.
Instead you have gone into verbose mode where you speak many words but
say little or nothing. Of course, the purpose of your verbosity is the
traditional diversion and confusion tactic used by weak debaters in order to
avoid discussing the real issue.
You say "I do have a thorough knowledge of Classical Greek gained through several years of classical scholarship and as any respectable linguist I am trained in descriptive linguistics." I am glad to hear that, and I can believe you in what you say. But however, this does not mean that while you were getting your training in Classical Greek, someone would tell you that Greek was made up from Turkish and give you a certificate to that fact. Please do not forget that I am the one who told you these secret aspects of the Greek, Latin and the other IE languages in the first place. Most likely your teacher did not know that Greek was made up from Turkish. Even if he/she did, he/she probably would not enlighten you as I have been enlightening you. This is the first time that you and all other readers are hearing from Polat Kaya that Greek, Latin and the rest of the European languages and the Semitic languages have been manufactured from Turkish. Of course you are stunned and do not find it "believable". But that is ok. You will eventually believe in what I am saying, that is, if you are a truth searching linguist. All the exact correspondences that I have shown here will haunt you unless you face them directly and accept what I am saying. Evidently, your not knowing "Turkish" gives you a great handicap which limits you from any comparison and also from comprehending what is being compared and said in this forum.
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
Ari Akkermans: Two points to be made. 1) I disagree on
your reading on the stelle. Please refer yourself to
the readings of the same stelle as published online at
the website of the Department of Linguistics of the
University of California at Chapel Hill. 2) On your
statements regarding the origin of the Proto-Greeks I
couldn't disagree more. Please refer yourself to an
article aclaimed by unanimity between scholars as
probably one of the best insights in Mycenean and
Aegean linguistic history; "From Achaywa to Achaioi",
by Prof. Margalit Finkelberg, Head of the Classics
Department at Tel Aviv University. You can also check
her last book published by the OUP in December 2004.
Polat Kaya: How can you tell that what they have
done is the correct reading but my reading is not correct? If you have not
worked on the inscription of the Lemnos Island stelle, then you are in no
position to tell me that you disagre with my reading? How do you know?
I believe you said that you do not know Turkish. This is a huge handicap
for you. Could it be that your disbelief or disagreement is due to your lacking
the proper background and even to your prejudices against anythng Turkish or
Besides, you can disagree with me all you want but it does not change the fact. Just because you do not believe what I am saying does not mean that it is the end of the world. Please do not give yourself so much undue credence. You are probably not even a drop in the endless field of knowledge. If you do not believe my insights, I am not going to lose any sleep over it! Additionally, are you the custodian of the votes cast on the validity of different subjects presented by "scholars"? How did you know that there was a "unanimity between scholars" on this subject? Or are you just making up a tall tale in order to artificially strengthen your weak argument? What do you think are the meanings of the names "ACHAYWA" and"ACHAIOI"? Please enlighten us. I get the feeling that even these names are stolen from Turkish.
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.
Ari Akkermans: I am anxiously waiting for phonological
proof (historically, that is) that the words came from
Modern Turkish into Ancient Greek and not the other
way around. Hasn't the Turkish language evolved at all
ever since the so-called Turko-Sumerian? If that's so,
then I wonder how those "artifically made up"
languages did evolve. Is there maybe a theological
insight you would like to share with us as far as this
goes? I won't even comment on your assumed
understanding of the semantic meaning of theory and
Polat Kaya: If I may say so, you are in a deep sleep. You do not know how badly you have been conned in linguistics. Whether you agree or disagree, there is no question about Turkish being the "BIRATA" language ("meaning "one father" language) to Greek and many others - and not the other way around. The Turkish word "bir ata" has been conveniently distorted and hidden into the form of "proto". Incidently "fathers" are "proto", that is, the "model" for their children. Please take note of this fact. Evidently some people have done a far better "salesmanship" in conning the world. Somehow Turks are not good salesmen.
"As for your question: "I wonder how those "artifically made up" languages did evolve", I say t.hose speakers of the artificially made up languages keep updating their languages as usual, that is, Turkish being an unending source for their needs. Once one knows what to do and how to do it, the rest is childs play. No problem whatsoever!
I have said it before and I will say it again. It is most likely that the reading of Sumerian was done with the help of Turkish and then presented in the way that it has been presented (i.e., where the Sumerian words are suspiciously close to Turkish yet presented in such a way that it does not look like Turkish). Let me give you a simple example of what I mean. For instance, the Sumerian word IA, meaning "oil"or "fat", is very much the same as Turkish YAg meaning "oil" or "fat", however, the visual correspondence appears weak because the Sumerologists have transliterated this Sumerian word as IA or just I alone. But the letter I is pronounced with a Y sound. In other words, the letter I implicitly contains a Y in it because we pronounce it with the Y sound. Such situations cause alienation between Sumerian IA and Turkish YA. The same situation happens in many other words. This is a great big con job.
Additionally, I have said that Turkish is a monosyllabic language in which the syllables have already been assigned meanings by the ancient Turanians. Since they are the building blocks of Turkish language, they would stay the same since their assignments. There is no more room to change words made up of V, CV, VC, CVC, VCV as was the case in Sumerian, (where V is vowel and C is consonant). The basic building blocks of a building do not change. Bricks are still being used in building of buildings since the time of Sumerians and Masarians (so-called ancient "Egyptians"). They do not change much.
There is no need for me to have a "theological" insight to tell you what I have been saying. I do not need to be a magician in order understand what has taken place in the field of European and Semitic linguistics. What I am saying is linguistically quite simple. The "Greek" and IE words are giving up their secrets. Under my close examination, they turn out to be Turkish words or phrases with "Greek" clothes. No theological insight here, just keen vision.
1) On your comments regarding the Hittites: True, Hittites comes from the Biblical Hebrew "Hitit",
which was the designation for a nationality and not
necessarily connected to the name "Heth", except in
the Midrashic Jewish tradition, which is known not to
have a serious logical understanding of their own
history and is based more on folk etymology than on
anything else. It seems you fail to recognize all the
serious linguistic evidence (bearing in mind you have
produced none) leads me and most students and scholars
to see Hittite as an IE language more than anything
Polat Kaya: With this statement of yours, you have introduced enough doubt into the identity of the "Hebrews" and their language so that what has been attributed to them is not believable. For example, Hebrews being Jews is not believeable - although it is claimed to be so. After you bring your own doubt into the name HETh and HITTITE, you suddenly jump to "my failing to recognize all the serious linguistic evidence". What evidence do you have in mind? Will you please show us some of those evidences? You are wrong! The claim that Hittite is an IE langauege is a totally false claim just like the claim that Greek and Latin languages are authentic and ancient from an ancient "Indo-European" source.
Indo-European languages are artificially manufactured languages and they had no roots in the past history. Although this is contrary to your beliefs, the evidence I present (i.e., the words) speak for themselves.
This can be argued, as Hittite can stand as a
linguistic group of its own or altogether with the
Cuneiform languages. My doubts were dissipated after I
came across the book "Hittite & the Indo-European
Verb". I no longer recall the name of the author, but
you can find him through the Linguistics Department at
Harvard or by searching the book at Eisenbaums. Not to
mention the Anatolian theory that even
glottochronology has reconfirmed, and that you openly
seem to deny.
Polat Kaya: Please note, Ari, that I do my own research and I have read a lot, I can assure you of that.
2) I am not really concerned on whether the
Babylonians in the Old Akkadian period were honest or
Polat Kaya: Why not? If the Semitic Akkadians were dishonest, would it not affect the accurate portrayal of history? Of course it would! Therefore you, as a linguist, should be concerned about it.
I am more concerned with their
linguistic history, those ethical issues I leave them
for the "Geistgeschichters", since a linguist is what
I am. Prof. Kramer did indicate kinship, but never
confirmed the Turko-Sumerian genetic and typologic
affinity. Where is your proof that TUR was replaced by
MAR? As far as I know our knowledge of the Sumerian
lexicon and grammar is as yet very limited. The
information provided by Prof. Kramer never yielded on
a linguistic ground. For confirmation please feel free
to contact any of the scholars at the Samuel Noah
Kramer Institute of Assyriology at Bar Ilan University
Polat Kaya: a) If I recall correctly in your initial posting, you denied any relation between Turkish and Sumerian. Now you are singing a different tune. Which one of your statements should I believe? In the past someone in this forum told me that "I should do my own homework and he was not going to do that for me". In other words, he would not be helpful when the study was about the Sumerian and Turkish kinship. In the same way, do you think that Prof. Kramer would tell us directly if Turkish and Sumerinan were one and the same? The best that he could do was a statement in the "double negative" saying that "Sumerian language was not unlike Turkish" - which, of course, is the same as saying "Sumerian language is like Turkish".
b) Let us not overlook "ethical issues" because it is very much at the core of the present Indo-European and Semitic languages. Their formation is very closely related to this concept!.
c) TUR was definitely suppressed from the reading of Sumerian texts. Please see "A Sumerian Reading Book" by C. J. Gadd, M.A., Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1924, p. 49, Reading Passage Part III, where footnote No. 1 says: "TUR is read MAR in the name of this god." Thus the Sumerian text talking about a God is transliterated to us by the Sumerologists as:"dingir-Lugal-MAR-da-dingir-ra-ni-ir" instead of "dingir Lugal TUR-da -dingir-ra-ni-ir". What is going on here? Why is the original Sumerian TUR being read and portrayed to the world as MAR? TUR is one of the many names of the Ancient Turanian Sky-God and is the source for names such as TURAN, TUR, TURK, TURKISH, TURKMEN, TURUK, etc. Sppressing the name TUR is deliberate obliteration of the name TUR. Truth searching linguists should be very concerned about its disappearance. There is a high probability that similar suppressions must have occurred in other appearances of TUR also.
3) I am not "muddying up the clean waters". I am
simply trying to give this discussion a linguistic
basis, which it obviously lacks. We are discussing
historical linguistics, not exegetical history of
anyone's forlorn nationalism. I wonder if your critic
of the Aryan theory doesn't apply to your own theory
Polat Kaya: Instead of diverting the discussion onto bogus topics such as "nationalism" - which certainly do not apply in my case, you should be concentrating on the word evidences I provide. But you didn't because your aim is to avoid discussing those words and confuse the issue. No matter how much you avoid my evidences, they will not go away nor will they diminish in validity. I have many more of them and if necessary, I will share them all.
This discussion of mine already has a "linguistic" basis - the analysis of the words that I provide and the Turkish correspondences that I reveal provide that "linguistic" basis. My driving force is to dispose of the lies and uncover the truth and hence has nothing to do with nationalism. You do not seem to want to see the fact that Greek words and, similarly, words from other European languages, have been made up from Turkish words and phrases. Instead of discussing these correspondences, you are villifying me. That is the easy way out. What you say is not rational nor scientific.
4) Greek words: A bunch of examples from Modern Greek
- Modern Turkish unfortunately do not prove your
point. The rearrangement of the words is precisely
that, rearrangement. It yields no valuable linguistic
information. Not phonology-wise, not semantics-wise
and not morphology-wise plus it is not descriptive or
comparative of either language by any means.
Polat Kaya: Not so! Your injection of "modern Greek" and "modern Turkish" are just deceptions and does not hold water. Even if they did it for modern Greek from modern Turkish, it would mean that they were carrying on an ancient tradition of usurpation from Turkish. My Turkish correspondences are from a Turkish language that has continued from Turko-Sumerian times and prior. For you to admit that I am correct is quite a challenge and I can understand your position as someone that is part of the establishment. Evidently the admission of what I am saying as correct is not in the best political interest of those who are still part of the establishment. So giving me these kinds of excuses is just rhetoric on your part.
5) I understand your motivations in the search of the
truth and I share your contempt for the academic view,
but before I can join your army of discoveries please
do provide scientific information, that is all what I
am asking. And please withhold yourself from
questioning my appreciation and input as an scholar,
for there is no proof whatsoever of my intentions
being other than strictly academic. Kind regards
Polat Kaya: If the academic view of linguistics was truthful and straightforward, I would not have any contempt for it. And I am providing ample scientific information. You are simply in denial mode. It seems that you do not readily recall your attacks and accusations about my qualifications in your postings. In fact so much so that you did not even mention my name in your previous postings - as if you were talking to a wall. Only after I reminded you of your disrespectful writings did you start to collect yourself. Now you want to turn the tables around and stone me as if you were in the "right' and I was in the wrong". Where did you get this one sided privileged position from? If you are going to criticize my work, you must stick to what I am discussing and you must be civil about it. Only in this way can we have a mutual exchange of ideas. Additionally, don't ever think that I do not understand what you are writing.
Best wishes to you and to all,