Re: [hrl_2] Kaya's Temporal
Paradox: about "Phonology"
Dear Shanti Light and Ari Akkermans,
My response is
inline with your posting.
In dialog with
Shanti Light, Ari Akkermans wrote:
Arri Akkermans: "I am anxiously waiting for phonologicalproof (historically, that is) that the words came fromModern Turkish into Ancient Greek and not the otherway around.
Polat Kaya:
a) Ari Akkermans is
either intentionally distorting or does not understand what I say. I
never said that "the words came from Modern Turkish into Ancient
Greek". Such a twist of my words is misperception or deliberate
misrepresentation, and in either case it is not scholarly on his part.
b) Ari Akkermans
insisting on the "phonological" proof as if he knows the true
nature of the word "phonology" other than it being defined as "the science of the speech sounds" is again nothing but the muddying up of
the waters. Phonology in this context is mostly the study and understanding of
the formation of mouth in order to produce different sounds.
The voice or sound
generating mouth is a naturally built "wind instrument"(wind pipe
system) that can generate sounds such as the "vowels" and consonants
used in speech, and also musical tones used in singing , etc.. One of the most
important features of this sound system is "blowing" the inhaled air
through this pipe, just like blowing air into a flute or any other "wind
instruments" (nefesli sazlar) to produce sound. Sound (Turkish
"SES"), when modulated in the mouth cavity, becomes the
"words" (Turkish "SÖZ"), and when it is sung then it
becomes singing, that is, Turkish "SAZ". The blowing of air
through the mouth is expressed by the word "ÜFLEMEK" in Turkish.
For example, the air can be blown through the lips in such a manner that the
produced sound is a "whistle" (Turkish "ISLIK" (ISLIH)) or
in a such way that it becomes any one of the endless number of words.
Incidently, even
the English word "WHISTLE" in which the bogus letter W really = UU
(thus making the word "UUHISTLE"), when rearranged
letter-by-letter as "ESLIHTU-U", reveals itself as the restructured
and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ISLIHTU U" (ISLIKTI O) meaning "it is
whistle". Therefore this is another stolen word from Turkish.
Sound production by
the mouth is more culture dependent than anything else. If a Greek born
child goes to school say in a Turkish speaking community, he/she learns to
speak Turkish perfectly well. Similarly if he/she goes to a Greek school where
Greek speaking teachers do the teaching, then he/she speaks that language very
well and readily. But in the latter case, for example, all the Turkish
"Sh" sounds are converted to "S". Thus he/she speaks
Greek the way that it is taught to him/her.
The artists who
play all kinds of stage personalities in plays are taught to speak a given
language in various ways as the requirements of the play may be. It all depends
how one forms his mouth cavity to say any word in anyway one wants to. Eliza
Dolittle the London street flower girl in My Fair Lady speaks in the
"cockney" dialect of English as spoken in the streets of London.
However, after going through vigourous training she becomes a perfect speaker
of English and becomes an acceptable society girl. Thus "phonology"
cannot be a dependable criteria because it is culture based. Many people get
along well with a given language even if they speak the language with an
accent. Particularly, if the communication is on paper, then one does not
care about the "phonology".
Thus the so-called
"phonological changes" is nothing but skillful "artistry",
i.e., a pretention that becomes a base for a language. Thus phonology depends
on how one forms his/her mouth cavity to say any word anyway one wants. Such
culturally motivated training is the main factor in phonology. Hence
"phonology" cannot be a reliable "critera" in comparisons
of languages. Hence Ari Akkermans requirement of "phonological
evidence" is nothing but hot air criteria based on deceptive and/or false
reasoning on his part. I do not need to provide anything of the kind to serve
his falsehood.
Here it must also
be said that neither Ari Akkermans or Shanti Light or Neda can have their cake
and eat it too. When they try to relate the so-called "Indo-European"
languages to each other they go after the "words" themselves, but no
"phonology of words", etc. is required, but when I show a different
path indicating the true nature of what has taken place, then the rules of the
games are suddenly changed and phonological evidence is required. It is like
asking for an audio or video casette recording of the Greek words from ancient
Greek times. It seems that the sophistry played by Ari Akkermans and his
co-defendants have no boundary. Evidently sophistry is an effective way
used to con the peoples of the world on any subject.
Without the words
themselves, phonological studies amount to nothing. Only after knowing
the structure of the word, and knowing the syllabic pronounciation of the
alphabetic letters, that is , "a-be-ce-de", etc., can one say
something about its sound system. Therefore "phonological
changes" cannot be regarded as "criteria" for the identification
of an ancient language. Particularly, if the words are presented only by their
consonants alone, as is the case in the so-called "Semitic
languages", then one can pronounce the word anyway they want. Of
course this way of representation of the words is also part of the
"confusion" trick that has been used since ancient times.
Since Ari Akkermans
cannot accept the fact that all of these languages are artificially made up
from Turkish, he is trying the easy way out, that is, to deflect away
from this fact that shines like a star.
After having said
this, I want to dwell on the subject of "phonology" further. Thus let
us now go further into the depths of the Greek terms that supposedly form the
basis for the term "phonology" and other related words.
PHONOLOGY is defined
as "1. phonetics, phonemics, or both together. 2. The phonetic and
phonemic system or the body of phonetic and phonemic facts of a language."(Random House Dictionary, p. 1083) . Science of speech
sounds, including especially the history and theory of sound changes".
By another source PHONOLOGY is defined as "a. the science of speech sounds, including especially
the history and theory of sound changes. b. That
part of the grammar of a language which describes its sounds and sound
changes; also the sound system of a language". [Webester's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947,
p. 747].
Again by another
Webster's Dictionary: "1. The science of
speech sounds including especially the history of sound changes in a language
or in two or more related languages. 2: the phonetics and phonemics of a
language at a particular time." Supposedly
the word "phonology" was first introduced in the year "1799". [Webester's ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,
1991, p. 884.]
Thus, according to
the third reference, the concept of "phonology" was first introduced
in year 1799, which is a recent phenomena as compared to the times of the
"classical" times of the ancient Greeks. Therefore to ask
for any "phonological evidence" is as ridicuolus as asking for the
recording of the plays of Aeschylus in the stages of Athens. To ask for
"phonological evidence" is a deceitful rhetoric on the part of Ari Akkermans
and his collaborators. The identity of words are defined by their
spelling. How they are voiced is the artistry of the "linguistic
game". Evidently this game is being played as an additional blanket
in order to either cover up the fact that the Indo-European and the Semitic
languages were usurped from Turkish at all ages of their development, or, they
don't know the truth about the makeup of the IE languages.
The Greek word PHWNOLOGIKOS is said to be the word
corresponding to English word "phonologic, phonologically"
[Divry's Dict. p. 235].
The word PHWNOLOGIKOS, where the bogus letter W really = UU in this
case and the PH is an "F" sound, when rearranged
letter-by-letter as "O-OGUS-UPHLONIK" and read as in Turkish, reveals itself as the restructured
and disguised form of the Turkish expression "O AGUZ
UFLAMAK" (O AGUZ ÜFLEMEK) meaning "it is to
blow out a word" or "it is to blow out of the mouth" or "it
is to blow air through the mouth to make sounds" all of which describe the
production of sounds via the mouth by way of blowing air through it.
It must be noted
that there has been an M to N al phabeticshift in the formation of this
Greek word which is an alteration and disguising trick that is used frequently
in the anagrammatizing of Turkish into IE languages. In fact "N" is a
double agent letter in many of the Greek words that start with
"PHWNO-" prefix. This Turkish expression "AGIZ UFLAMAK" is like the Turkish saying "NEY ÜFLEMEK" (kaval üflemek) meaning
"blowing the flute". From the root of this Turkish verb "ÜFLEMEK" comes the old
Turkish word "ÜFÜ" (nefes alip verme, ses etme)
meaning "blowing, breathing, sound making".
Alternatively, when
the word PHWNOLOGIKOS is rearranged letter-by-letter
as "UPHUNOK-OLGUSI" or "UPHUKON-OLGUSI", it reveals itself to be made up from Turkish "UFUNUK OLGUSU" or "ÜFÜKAN OLGUSU" (SES OLGUSU)respectively meaning "making of sound",
"formation of sound" which again explains the meaning of the Greek
word. It must be noted that these Turkish words (i.e., "UFUNUK" and "ÜFÜKAN") are like the widely used Turkish words OLANAK and
OLAKAN (OLAGAN).
Similarly the
English word PHONOLOGY, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "YPHLOGON-O", where the bogus letter Y is
really a U, it reveals itself to be a form of the Turkish expression "UFLAGAN O" (ÜFLEYEN O) meaning "it is that which
blows", "it is the breathing mouth" - which again describes the
concept of PHONOLOGY.
Similarly if the
word is rearranged letter-by-letter as "YPHLONOG-O", with an M to N shift, it reveals
itself to be a form of the Turkish expression "UFLAMAK
O" (ÜFLEMEK O) meaning "it is blowing
from mouth".
Also the Greek word PHWNETIKOS is given as meaning
"phonetic", and PHWNOLOGIKWS meaning "phonetically".
[Divry's p. 235], hence they are also related to Turkish verb
"üflemek". This we can see below.
The word PHWNETIKOS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "UPHUKEN-OSTI", reveals
itself as a form of the Turkish expression "ÜFUKEN
AGUSTI" (ÜFÜGEN / ÜFLEYEN
AGUZTI) meaning "it is sound making
mouth".
Similarly the word PHWNOLOGIKWS, meaning "phonetically", when
rearranged letter-by-letter as "UPHULOKIN-OGUS
U", is the restructured form of the Turkish
expression "ÜFÜLEGEN AGUZ O" (ÜFLEYEN AGUZ O) meaning "it is air-blowing
mouth" or "it is sound producing mouth".
The Greek word PHWNOLOGIKWS meaning
"phonological", can also be deciphered letter-by-letter as "UPHUKIN-OLGUSU-O", where it reveals itself as the
restructured form of the Turkish expression "ÜFÜKEN
OLGUSU O" (SES OLGUSU O) meaning "it is the
formation of sounds".
Thus the source for
both the Greek and the English words are unquestionably Turkish in origin
although they have been skillfully altered. No sophistry of "air
blowing" by anyone will change this fact. Evidently somehow someone
stole these Turkish words at some time and converted them into
"Greek" and "English" words as they did with a countless
number of other Turkish words and phrases.
In order to show
you and all that I am not conning anyone, let me give you another Greek word
for the verification of the fact that the Greek language has manufactured most
of its words from Turkish words and expressions.
There is the Greek
word PHWNIENTOLIKTOS meaning "ending in a
vowel". [Divry's Greek-English Dictionary, p. 735]. It is curious
that they should have such a word for such a concept because the so-called
Greek word sounds more like a sentence than a word.
When this word PHWNIENTOLIKTOS is rearranged letter-by letter
as "UNLITH-PITEN-OKUS-O" where the bogus letter H is an
E in this case, it reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form
of the Turkish expression "ÜNLITE
PITEN AGUZ O" ("ÜNLIDE BITEN AGUZ O", "ÜNLIDE BITEN SÖZ
O") meaning "it is the word that ends
with a vowel". Surprize surprize! In this Greek usurpation of
a Turkish expression, "ÜNLI" means "vowel", "-TE" is the dative suffix, "BITEN" means "that which
ends", "AGUZ" means "word" and "O" means "it is".
Any linguist of integrity and honesty will see that there is no way that one
could get this kind of correspondence unless this Greek word was made up from
Turkish. And of course no sophistry and/or verbosity by any
"linguist" will change that fact.
For the time being
and for the purpose of responding to Ari Akkermans and his co-workers, this
will be sufficient. With all this, I have shown to all that the actual source
of the Greek words starting with PHWNO- and supposedly forming the basis for
the English word "phonology" - are all sourced from Turkish.
There is no need to give a "date" attachement to these words as
it is not a requirement for the sound producing aspect of the mouth.
After having noted
this fact about the concept of "phonology", we can now turn to some
of your other comments.
Shanti says that:
"Shanti Light: "Written Turkish is not old enough to have generated the influence you claim on all the indo-european and Semitic languages, and this is the strongest evidence against you... "
Polat Kaya:
On the contrary this is a misconception and disinformation that has been
perpetrated by the propagandists of the groups whose aim in life has been
"anti-Oguz" (Anti-Turk) since ancient times. It should be remembered
that, after the military expedition of Alexander the Great, there was at least thirteen
Greek kings in history that used the title of"ANTIOCHUS" meaning "anti Oguz", "Anti
Tur", "Anti Turk". The word "ANTIOCHUS", when rearranged
letter-by-letter as "OCUSH-ITAN" where the bogus letter C is a K and H is
an I, reveals itself as the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish
expression "OGUZI ITAN" (OGUZU ITEN) meaning "he who rejects
OGUZ". To this list of titles, one can add others with similar
titles such as "ANTIGONUS" which is simply restructured
from Turkish "GÜNESI ITEN" meaning "he who rejects the
Sun". All of these titles express an ongoing antagonism against the
ancient Turanian SUN religion. It is amazing that these ancient Greeks
in one hand rejected OGUZ but in the other, they adopted this name in the name
"ORTODOXUS". One wonders why there was so much anti-Turk and
anti-Turanian sentiment among the Aryans and Semitic groups? Clearly the reason
must be that it was the Turanians that gave the world a universal religon
thousands of years before the Greeks and Semites ever attempted. In view
of what has taken place in the past against the ancient Turanians, the present
propaganda against the Tur/Turk peoples is not a new phenomena!
Contrary to what
you may know which is pumped by the propaganda medium, the Turkish language is
older than other languages both in "oral" form and also in
"written" form. In fact one can go into the "written"
form of a language only if the language is phonetically straight and
agglutinative like Turkish. No "inflected" language would have
been suitable for the invention of "writing". When you do not
ignore the fact that Sumerian and ancient Masarian were forms of Turkish, then
your claim that "Turkish is young" becomes false by itself.
When there was "Turko-Sumerian there was no "Semitic".
As I have said before, even the word "Semite" comes from
Turkish word "ESMETI" meaning "it is blowing of wind".
Similarly, the word "SEMITIC" is from "ESMECITI" meaning
"it is pertaining to the wind" or "it is the practicer of
wind-believing". These ancient Semitic people have taken this restructured
Turkic word as an ethnic name for themselves because they were
"wind-god" believers.
In the ancient
world, tribes took on the name of the deity they believed in. For example the
name HELLENE - as an ethnic identifier for the Greeks, when rearranged
letter-by-letter as "ELLE-HEN", reveals itself as the restructured
form of the Turkish expression "YELLI HAN" or "YEL-HAN"
meaning "Wind Lord" (which is very similar to Sumerian
"EN-LIL"- which is also from "YEL-HAN"). Greeks prefer to
be called HELLENE. The name IONIANS (AY-HAN, YUNAN)for the pre-Greek people in
that area, indicates that they were the "Moon Believers" . That is
why the name has in it Turkish AY, disguised as "I", meaning
"moon".
Note that both
Turkish AY and GUN (KUN/KÜN/HUN) meaning "moon" and "sun"
respectively are monosyllabic words coming to us from the very ancient past.
Even the ancient Mayans in Central America used the word "KIN" (KUN)
meaning "sun".
and"You take Modern Turkish words, change the order of the letters around until you get words that look like Modern Greek then you take these words and posit their manipulation from Modern Turkish into either Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic. Proto-Altaic would not have looked, or sounded ANYTHING like Turkish does today, therefore the manipulated word would not have beenmanipulated from Turkish at all... and it would not bear anysignificant correspondence with modern Turkish..
Polat Kaya: I have
already pointed out to both of you that I do not use "modern Turkish"
for my decipherment of Greek or any other Indo-European words. It is the Greek
and the other Indo-European words that give away their secrets as I examine
them. Of course, in analyzing these words I need to give the modern version of
the Turkish expressions for the benefit of my Turkish readers also.
Additionally "old Turkish" is not much different from modern Turkish.
The claim that languages change over time is a false claim. A
language would only change if someone intentionally changes it. The
native peoples of the Americas spoke their language for thousands of years
until the European missionaries came and obliterated their languages.
Both Arri and I have made this point which I would like to bring together here for clarity because no matter how much you agree or disagree with our other points you have to address this paradox before ANYONE can accept your theory as valid. The paradox reworded simplistically, practically as a sound-bite: How can Modern Turkish data be manipulated into Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic? This seems like a fantastic little temporal paradox which must be addressed before you even start addressing all Arri's and my comments on your theory (if you notice, we do not at all come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguistics yet we come up with practically the same points in disproving your theory). Hey if you want to birth a theory you could start by naming this: the Kaya's Temporal Paradox.
Polat Kaya:
The only thing worth dwelling on in this paragraph of yours is the word
"paradox" which I have reponded to separately. In closing, it
is unfortunate that both of you are extremely shallow in science and scientific
matters. To overcome that deficiency, you seem to be efficient in verbosity.
However the latter talent of yours does not fill your deficiency.
Ps. Something I have been itching to say maybe Arri has too? You keep talking about us scientific linguists scratching the surface of languages whereas you have `delved deep into the languages':What you are doing is not digging anything, what you do is re-arrange the surface forms without giving any consideration at all of the underlying forms/UG/principles parameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing constraints/ anything at all! Fiddling with the orthography will not dig into the linguistic structures at any level at all... Shantixxx
Polat Kaya: Yes
indeed, linguists have been guided by the established norms. The
all-trusting students of linguistics are not in a position to challenge their
teachers or superiors. You were not aware of what I am saying until I
said it. What else could you have done except continue as you have been taught?
I have provided a
lot of new insight in my writings regarding linguistics and the make up of the
words of IE languages. These insights of mine do not appear by themselves.
They only come to the surface and into the daylight after I dig and
uncover them. I did it. You did not. Now you are opposing it.
That is how we stand.
I also told you
that even the term "ORTHOGRAPHY" was not IE in origin but rather in
Turkish. If you are a linguist, you cannot ignore all these and hope that
it will go away. You have to deal with them.
Best wishes to both
of you and all,
Polat Kaya
=============
Shanti wrote:
Arri Akkermans: "I am anxiously waiting for phonologicalproof (historically, that is) that the words came fromModern Turkish into Ancient Greek and not the otherway around. Hasn't the Turkish language evolved at allever since the so-called Turko-Sumerian? If that's so,then I wonder how those "artificially made up"languages did evolve."Shanti Light: "Written Turkish is not old enough to have generated the influence you claim on all the indo-european and Semitic languages, and this is the strongest evidence against you... and"You take Modern Turkish words, change the order of the letters around until you get words that look like Modern Greek then you take these words and posit their manipulation from Modern Turkish into either Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic. Proto-Altaic would not have looked, or sounded ANYTHING like Turkish does today, therefore the manipulated word would not have beenmanipulated from Turkish at all... and it would not bear anysignificant correspondence with modern Turkish..."Both Arri and I have made this point which I would like to bring together here for clarity because no matter how much you agree or disagree with our other points you have to address this paradox before ANYONE can accept your theory as valid. The paradox reworded simplistically, practically as a sound-bite: How can Modern Turkish data be manipulated into Ancient Greek or Proto-IndoEuropeanSemitic? This seems like a fantastic little temporal paradox which must be addressed before you even start addressing all Arri's and my comments on your theory (if you notice, we do not at all come from similar backgrounds either in life or linguistics yet we come up with practically the same points in disproving your theory). Hey if you want to birth a theory you could start by naming this: the Kaya's Temporal Paradox.Ps. Something I have been itching to say maybe Arri has too? You keep talking about us scientific linguists scratching the surface of languages whereas you have `delved deep into the languages':What you are doing is not digging anything, what you do is re-arrange the surface forms without giving any consideration at all of the underlying forms/UG/principles parameters/Cognitive Linguistic Interface/licensing constraints/ anything at all! Fiddling with the orthography will not dig into the linguistic structures at any level at all... Shantixxx