Re

Re: [hrl_2] Digest Number 198

Neda,

1. Hi. In your message to Kamil Kartal, you said:

"You are the first one, as far as I know, who considers lexical (and other)

loans as a 'theft'. This implies that the massive amount of lexical loans

from Persian, Arabic, French (a.o.) in modern Turkish are cases of thefts?"

Polat Kaya: No, it does not imply that or mean that! I am afraid you are confusing definitions of different concepts: a "theft" is not like a "loan". The item that has been thefted is disfigured (altered) from its original format and camouflaged so that it is not recognized in its original form anymore. After the disfiguration is done on the thefted item, the stealer claims what he has stolen as his own. The stolen item has been taken secretly and deceptively without the permision of the original owner in the first place. In the case of languages, the stolen words or phrases are not taken from "lexicons" as loaned words. Turkish dictionaries do not list Turkish phrases, but only the words they list. Therefore the Turkish expressions are not in the "lexicons".

On the other hand, the "loaned" item is taken with the knowledge of the original owner and after being used is returned to the original owner. In the case of words, names, expressions, the user after borrowing the item, does not change, alter, anagrammatize, encrypt, camouphlage what he has borrowed. Turks using what you call Arabic, Persian, French, Greek, etc.. words did not change them as the Indo-Europeans and others have done it to the Turkish words and expressions. So as you can see, these are two different concepts.

Thus when you speak as you have done, not only you must understand what is being discussed but also you must be sure of what you are talking about. It seems that in both of these cases you are lacking knowledge, or you understand what is being discussed, but you want to play the devils's advocate and confuse things. What you call "lexical loans from Persian, Arabic, French (a.o.) in modern Turkish" are not "thefts", on the contrary they are just "loans". If they were thefts, you would not be able to recognize them as it is so difficult to recognize the Turkish words and phrases thefted into Indo-European and Semitic languages that I have been demonstrating over and over again.

2. You said:

"No rules, so no falsification possible. A bit of scientist would know the

implications of a theory that cannot be falsified.

So, it seems that we agree upon the level of 'scientific-ness' of Mr

Kaya's 'theories'."

Polat Kaya: no matter which way you play on words in trying to make a point of distraction, what I am saying is beyond the point of "theory". Whether you like it or not, it is a "fact". When things are factual, there is no room for falsifing them.

3. You said to Kamil Kartal in your message number 198:

"[please stop the "my friend" kind of thing, it's very denigrating]."

Polat Kaya: Although Kamil Kartal ably responded to you in this regard, if I may, I would like to add few points.
The term "denigrating" means "to blacken, to defame, to put down, to see someone low". Please check its meaning in your dictionary if you wish. You as someone who is commenting on linguistic matters in this forum, I do not understand how you can interpret someone's calling you "my friend" as "denigrating". I am sure that when Kamil called you "my friend" he was very sincere about the term "my friend" as he comes from a culture that values very highly calling someone as 'my friend' or being called by someone as 'my friend'. Thus he did not mean to "denigrate" you at all. He was using it as he understood its meaning and its usage in Turksh.

Thus even in this regard, you seem to be confused very badly. If everyone understands the term "my friend" the way that you understand it, then people would be punching each other every day. I am sure you know the meaning of the term, but you just want to be contrary and/or ters about it. Again if I may say so, please relax and start seeing things in the right frame of meanings rather than in the negative.

Incidently the term "DENIGRATE" that you used, is also a thefted Turkish expression: Let me show you:
When the English term DENIGRATE is rearranged letter-by-letter as "GRA-ETENDI", it is found to be a restructured and camouflaged form of the Turkish expression "GARA ETENDI" (GARA EDENDI) meaning "it is that which blackens, it is that which puts down, it is that which defames". Turkish word "GARA" (KARA) means "black" and "EDENDI" means "that wich makes". Thus you can see that even this word is not an Indo-European word in origine. It has been usurped from Turkish.

Similar to this is the word "NEGRO" meaning "black". Even this word is from Turkish "NE-GARA" meaning "how black it is". For your information the name "MONTENEGRO" is "KARA DAG" in Turkish meaning "Black mountain". You will recognize that the name "MONTE-NEGRO" means "black mountain" and is an anagrammatized name usurped from Turkish. So you see that we are finding Turkish words and phrases in almost all Indo-European and Semitic languages. This fact should be noted and recognized by linguists, which includes you too Neda, in stead of deniying this fact.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

Frank Verhoft wrote:

Mr Kartal wrote:

As far as I understood from what has been described in detail by My. Polat Kaya and to the best of my knowledge from other scholars and scientific resources in the Internet,

Which scholars do you mean?

ANAGRAM has no specific rule to follow.

No rules, so no falsification possible. A bit of scientist would know the

implications of a theory that cannot be falsified.

So, it seems that we agree upon the level of 'scientific-ness' of Mr

Kaya's 'theories'.

Transposition of the letters and syllabels are only and solely at the will of the anagrammer. Although your numbering from 1 to 10 would help friends like Neda

[please stop the "my friend" kind of thing, it's very denigrating].

to get the hang of the anagram process, this will eventually not change the nature of it.

This nature, dear David, cannot host specific rules and codes of transposition where you can easily formulate and establish a right way back to the originals. The first reason and motion to this nature is theft, dear David, and the thief will not leave behind evidence that you can arrest the guilty.

This needs to be understood very clearly. Suppose I am stealing your language and culture and claiming it back as if my own, try to understand it this way.

You are the first one, as far as I know, who considers lexical (and other)

loans as a 'theft'. This implies that the massive amount of lexical loans

from Persian, Arabic, French (a.o.) in modern Turkish are cases of thefts?