Re: [hrl_2] I would like to
see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words
Dear Petr,
I read your response and to my amazement I found that the quality of your
writing went from bad to worse. So I was not wrong in spotting sophistry in
your writings early on. I found only one small segment of your response worth
dwelling upon. My response will be in blue.
Petr Hrubis wrote:
Dear Polat,
Thank you for your response. Mine will be green this time, if you don't mind
Before you read further, I would like to summarize my current position in a few points:
1. I admit I misunderstood, but that was, unfortunately, also your fault, as you had misused some the terms (e.g. encryption and decryption), or understood them in a way quite different from mine. Let's agree on, say, SHUFFLING and UNSHUFFLING(alternatively reshuffling), if you don't mind. Then, of course, all the algorithm stuff is irrelevant - I admit and stress that.
Polat Kaya: I did not
misuse any terms! You were at fault by misunderstanding all along and now
you are trying to blame me for your shortcomings. Every time I write, I
explain things in clear and simple terms which can be readily understood by
all. When I used the terms encryption and decryption, I also used explanatory
terms like manufactured, anagrammatized, concocted, rearranged, restructured,
disguised, camouflaged, etc.. I never needed a fixed
"algorithm" for deciphering the IE words. I only needed the
meanings of the words. You wrongly assumed that I needed an algorithm.
2. As I began to get more insight in your theses, I - of course - deleted the repetitive points on en/decryption vs. un/shuffling, as they became obsolete.
3. I have learnt that you do not deny the existence of spontaneous language changes. That's great, because from the little I had known about your hypotheses I had feared you'd have dismissed the great lot of undisputable work linguists had done.
Polat Kaya:
"spontaneous language changes"? Languages are not like
radioactive material that spontaneously "changes" into something
else. Languages are man made verbology which are changed by man alone.
They do not spontaneously "change" as you wrongly state. Some
changes do occur from place to place in the pronounciation of consonants and
vowels creating "dialects" of the same language, however, this does
not change the language itself. But, if the words and phrases of a
language are intentionally altered and restructured or reshuffled to create new
words of another fictional and manufactured language, then, that cannot be
called "spontaneous change". It would be much more
correct to call it "deliberate change". And when that
"deliberate change" is kept secret, it is called "stealing".
This is what the secret manufacturers of the so-called
"European" languages have done and cleverly covered up. Countless
words listed in dictionaries are evidence to that fact.
As for this "great lot of undisputable work linguists had done", I
don't know what you are referring to. What I have seen so far does not impress
me at all.
4. As for the term Turanian, I don't mind using it at all. It's just another name, a little different convention. As far as I know, Turanian is sometimes used for the hypothetical Ural-Altaic macrofamily (please, let me know if your understanding of the term is different, so that we avoid further confusion). My personal opinion (from what I have read so far, and from the comparisons I've made) is that the Ural-Altaic grouping is a typological rather than genealogical grouping (a macro-areal), in which typological features (such as agglutination) are shared.
Polat Kaya: TURANIAN is
not just another term or name as you put it. It is the name of a very
ancient people that civilized the world. You cannot just reduce it to a mere
"term" now. The wanderers of ancient times such as the ancient
Greeks, Romans and Semites deliberately destroyed anything and everything that
the name TURANIAN stood for by their covert activities and war-like behaviour.
Of course after destroying Turanian civilizations, they stole everything
Turanian and claimed it as their own under different names. Now everyone
is falsely led to believe that it was the ancient Greeks, Romans and Semites
that started civilization - when in reality it was the Turanians. Therefore TURANIAN is
not just another name - although it has been deliberately removed from
circulation.
Besides, your conventions are not accurate. Your conventions are just
assumptions, formulated by not-knowing or half-knowing linguists, to classify
presently existing languages into some "order". In doing that,
they go by what they see on the surface but do not touch how those languages
were made at the base. In the process, their hidden political agendas are not
mentioned either. Even the language-family name "TURANIAN" was
replaced with "URAL-ALTAIC" - but for no good reason.
I keep finding many IE
words with Turkish expressions at their source. This indicates that these
"European" languages are all sitting on the shoulder of the much earlier
Turkish language. Yet linguists keep marketing the IE languages as coming from
a so-called "proto-IE language". Nobody is saying how these
"European" languages have been "engineered" from Turanian
Turkish. Linguistics, with its gobbledegook jargon and verbology, has
conned and exploited the whole world with the artificial impression that
"European" languages are the most developed languages of a civilized
world while the rest are barbarian, underdeveloped, ignorant, etc.. Now
we are seeing that the real picture is totally different.
I also tend to think that the Uralic family is somewhat closer to the Indo-European one, which is probably something you will disagree with, as that's, perhaps, against your ideas.
If the "Uralic" language family is close to the so-called
"Indo-European" languages, it is because of the common
"religion". Religions, with much greater political ambitions
than worshipping alone, are the source of all the alteration and confusion of
languages. Whereever religions have gone, they have been the source and
cause of assimilating, altering and eliminating everything owned by the invaded
natives. The present so-called Uralic language
family, having a resemblance to the IE languages, is the result of the presence
of Christianity among the so-called "Uralic" peoples.
As Hungarian is beyond reasonable doubt a Uralic language, I disagree with some people's idea that it would be any closer to Turkish than, say, to Finnish or Estonian.
Polat Kaya: Many
Hungarians do not think that their language is Uralic in spite of the fact that
the Hungarian language has also been altered by the Christian religious people
and likened to the IE languages. Many Hungarians think that they are
Turanian people and that their language at its source was a Turanian language.
This is very contrary to what you think.
On the other hand, there are apparent loans of Turkic origin in Hungarian, which points to the early Hungarians' contacts with some Turkic speakers.
Polat Kaya: You
are painting a false picture here trying to give the impression that early
Hungarians were very different from Turkic people. The early Hungarians were
Turanian Tur/Turk people, the HUN Turks and others. They eventually got
separated from the other Turks (just like the Turkic Bulgarians and others) and
were converted to Christianity whereupon their Turanic language, religion and
identity were all changed (i.e., Romanized). Everyone must understand
that entering into a new religion should not mean that one loses his/her
original identity or ethnicity. Entering into a religion is like entering
a political party. For example, if a Turk of the Republican party decides
to leave his party and enter the Democratic party, he is still a Turk.
Similarly, if a Turk believing in his ancient Turanian Sky-God / Sun-God
/ Moon God religion accepts Christianity, he is still a Turk. Politicians
and religious people with their "linguist" helpers would like us to
believe that when a Turk enters Christianity or Judaism, he changes into some
ethnicity totally different from what he was before. This is a total con
game of people theft and identity theft. A person's religious belief is
totally different from his ethnic identity. A person's religious belief
can change - but his ethnic identity does not change! For example, when
some Hazar Turks believing in the Sky-God religion accepted Judaism as their
religion, their Turkish identity did not become a "Jewish" identity.
In other words, they were still Turks but believing in the religion of
Judaism only. It is just like Turks believing in Islam. They are
still Turks and Islam does not change their Turkic ethnicity and identity.
I do agree that the individual Turkic languages are relatively close to each other. I wonder then, whether you've read the Etymological Dictionary of Altaic languages by Mudrak/Dybo/Starostin. If not, I will gladly send you the introductory part, in which the regular correspondences are analyzed and listed. Also, the Proto-Altaic morphology is discussed in the book, so you can compare your views with theirs, if you like.
Polat Kaya: No
I have not seen the dictionary you are talking about. Thanks for your
offer anyway. The so-called "Turkic languages" are
dialects of the main language of TURKÇE / TÜRKSHE / TURKISH /TURKIÇ. They are
not different languages but rather dialects of TURKISH. The Soviets
concocted one different alphabet for each Turkish group whose Turkish dialect
was somewhat different. This was designed to tear apart Turanian Tur
/Turk /Oguz peoples in order to divide and conquer them. It had nothing
to do with science and everything to do with politics - and
"linguists" helped those politicians to achieve their assimilation
and elimination policies.
Anyway, I do think that - at a much deeper time-depth - the Uralic and Altaic languages are related, but that would, perhaps, be on the, still controversial, Nostratic level. Anyway, in the end, Hungarian and Turkish would be related in this respect.
As far as the Altaic family is concerned, I think there are three core-Altaic branches (Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic-Manchurian) and two peripheral branches (Japonic with various Japanese dialects and Koreic, quite similarly)
Polat Kaya: The
term NOSTRATIC is a bogus term invented to hide what linguists did to the
Turkish language in the areas invaded by Romans and the Christian religion.
The "PANTHEON" in ROMA was the creation of the Turanian
Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples in ITALIA - so called PAGANS. The name ITALIA is
a disguised form of the Turkish word "ALTAI-ÖY" meaning"ALTAY
HOME", and
similarly the name "LATIN" is
a distorted and Romanized name for the ALTAI Tur/Turk
peoples who lived in ITALIA far earlier than when the wandering Europeans
arrived there. Unfortunately, the tolerance and civility of those ALTAI
Tur/Turk peoples in ITALIA also resulted in their demise by being the target of
"tyrannicide" killing and forceful assimilation by the invading
Romans and Christianity.
Hungarian and Turkish were the same before the religion of the Hungarians was
changed. Hungarians were Turkic peoples and this is unquestionable.
At a much deeper time-depth when there was no Christianity, the Uralic
and Altaic languages must have been related and most likely were the dialects
of the same language, which was Turkish! After the arrival of
Christianity in the Uralic lands and other parts of Eurasia, the artificial
changes started to take place continuously. Thus each group ended up having a
different language. Now linguists are classifying those presently spoken
languages without referring to what existed at their foundation. This is pure
misrepresentation according to the whims of linguists.
Now, see below, please. But be prepared, I haven’t got rid of irony and sarcasm, yet. They’re a part of my mental patterns. Also, my comments are filled with open disagreement and critique of your methods, thoughts and conclusions, so do not get discouraged. I have slightly different beliefs. And for that, I’m not going to apologize.
Polat Kaya: I
do not appreciate nor subscribe to your sarcasm or irony methods. What
you are saying is that you want to be as obnoxious as you please, and that I
should tolerate your hooligan behaviour and not be discouraged. I think
you are being sarcastic because you know I am correct in what I am
saying. But this is not a welcome situation for you and the
establishment you
are part of. The "establishment" seems to have trained many in the
way that you behave, that is, present an intimidating front with putdowns,
sarcasm and ridiculing so that the other side is hopefully intimidated or
terrorized into backing off. So basically you try to win the
"argument" for free by being a bully and making lots of noisy insults
instead of using amicable language and presenting logical
arguments. Then you try to cover up your inexcusable behaviour with lame
excuses like "that is the way I am" or "they are part of my
mental patterns" or "that I haven't got rid of yet". This
is a con artists trick. It is not honest or scholarly debating. Your
war-mongering style is designed to distract attention away from the IE
words that I correctly analyze
as having been plagiarized from Turkish. This kind
of ill-mannered tactics may be agreeable to your "mental patterns"
but it is against my upbringing. I do not behave this way to others and I will
not tolerate it being done to me. You must change your crude "mental
patterns" and talk about the words that I show being manufactured from
Turkish. Otherwise I am not going to allow you to play your dishonest games of
sophistry.
Polat Kaya: I use the term "so-called Indo-European" because initially there was no such family of languages. There was only the one language the world spoke as pointed out in Genesis 11 - which I am saying was Turkish. I am also saying that Turkish was the progenitor language - at least for the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages and probably others. Additionally I am saying that these "IE" languages were artificially manufactured from Turkish. The words that I decipher from the dictionaries of the IE languages are evidence of this.
Petr:
They are far from that. They only prove how imaginative you can be on one hand, and , on the other hand, how blind you are a the same time.
Latin Italian Spanish French
nocte notte noche nuit ‘night’
octo otto ocho huit ‘eight’
lacte latte leche lait ‘milk’
factu fatto hecho fait ‘done’
tectu tetto techo toit ‘roof’
Polat, if you look at the table above, you will see the regular sound correspondences. Now, did the shuffling happen before or after these languages arose from Latin? Similarly, Latin and Greek also display regular correspondences. They even correspond regularly with other ancient languages like Sanksrit, Avestan, Tocharian, etc. Even Hittite shows regular correspondences with them. Did the shuffling happen before or after these languages split from their proto-tongue?
Polat Kaya: This
is the only decent part of your response. Now we can talk about the makeup of
these words rather than get bombarded with your abrasive verbosity.
First of all the regular sound correspondences that you see are misleading.
They are artificially made up like that. I will prove that to your
satisfaction. The shuffling or restructuring of the Turkish source text
happened as they were artificially creating these "IE" words. The
apparent regularity is not the most important thing, it is the aspect that made
them look regular that is most important. The confusion started when the words
for the so-called Latin and Greek languages were being manufactured by the
restructuring of Turkish words and phrases. Latin and Greek display
regular correspondences because both of them are artificially made up languages
and those who manufactured them held hands not only in stealing but also in
organizing the similarity. I have demonstrated with ample examples that
Turkish was the source language for both Latin and Greek.
Now let us turn to your list of words. There are a number of things in
the list above that need to be brought to the surface. Those who manufactured
these words from Turkish were much more clever and far seeing than many
linguists today - but they were also dishonest.. All the words under Latin,
Italian and French headings plus the first two words under English are
ending in a syllable in the form of "-TE, -TO, -TU,
-HT" which
are disguised forms of the Turkish suffix that appears as "-ti,
tu, tü, di, du, dü, tir, tur, tür, dir, dur, dür" meaning
"it is". Thus, this Turkish suffix has been used in a clever
way to make the new words appear similar or show sound similarity and
regularity to each other. At the same time, this Turkish suffix embedded
in these new words is used to describe the concept that the word represents.
So, at the very least, the endings of these words are Turkish. Surely
you (and other linguists) did not know this.
1. NOCTE NOTTE NOCHE
NUIT meaning "NIGHT"
These are restructured (shuffled) and disguised words made up
from Turkish. They have a number of things in common in addition to
what is being seen on the surface. The words NOCTE,
NOCHE and NIGHT are one group while NOTTE and NUIT are
another.
Conceptually, DAY and NIGHT are
the opposite of each other. Day is
light and Night is
dark. Similarly, the dawn (sun rise) is
the start of the day while dusk (sun set) is
the end of the day and the beginning of night. In Turkish GÜN
(GUN) is
"day" and GECE is "night".
Turkish TAN is
"dawn".
When we examine these three words NOCTE, NOCHE and NIGHT
as NOC-TE,
NOC-HE and NIG-HT, we
find that the Turkish word GUN, in reverse format,
has been embedded in them, that is, in the form of NOC
(NOK), NOC (NOK) andNIG respectively.
Since, Turkish GUN is day, its opposite (i.e.,
backward) form NUG
(NUK, NIG, NIK) would represent the opposite of GUN (DAY) which is
the "night". It
must be noted that these three words NOCTE, NOCHE and NIGHTare
made up with a word which is opposite of Turkish GUN (GÜN) - plus the Turkish
suffix. You will note that these words and the Turkish word
"GÜNTÜ" / "KÜNDÜ" meaning "it is day" have the same
lettering but different only in the root word GUN versus NUG, NOK, NIG.
This may be claimed as "coincidence", but I do not think
so. The manufacturers of these words have cleverly used the opposite of
Turkish GUN for describing night along with some "wrapping". If
you look closely, you will see what I mean.
Now let us add to your list the "Greek" word NUKTA meaning
"night". This too looks similar to the other so-called
"European" words, however the similarity is artificial because the
Greek "NUK-TA" is also the opposite of
the Turkish word "KUN-TU"meaning "it is
day" where Turkish KUN (GUN)
has been reversed.
So you see that all of these Latin, Greek, Spanish and English words
meaning "night" are cleverly usurped, restructured and
disguised words of Turkish origin.
In the case of the Italian NOTTE and
the French NUIT,
the source is the Turkish word "TAN" (dawn)
the reverse of
which is "NAT"
(NOT, NUT). The
Italian word NOT-TE has
been restructured from Turkish "TAN-TI"
meaning "it is dawn" - by reversing TAN. In the
restructured form, it is NATTI meaning "opposite of dawn" which is
the "dusk" or "night". Thus, Italian"NOTTE" and
French "NUIT" are
made up from Turkish "TAN" but
in reverse form.
As a result, they too have their source in Turkish.
It is further interesting to note that even the English word "DAWN",
when rearranged in the form "DAN-W" is
the disguised Turkish expression "TAN O" meaning "It
is dawn". So it too has been usurped from Turkish and
then disguised.
The Greeks have done the word for "dawn' differently. The Greek
version of "dawn" is given as "KSEMERWNW", [
1, p. 79]. When the Greek word KSEMERWNW, where
W is UU and UY, is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KUN YER-USUME",
we find the Turkish expression "KUN YER-IShIMA"
(GÜN YERI AGARMA) meaning "the sun place is
lighting" (east is lighting up) which is again another exact
definition in Turkish of the concept of DAWN.
Turkish GÜN means "sun", YER means "place", KÜN YER means
"the place where sun is born" (i.e., "east"), IShIMA
means "lighting" and AGARMA means, "becoming white with
sunlight".
Another Greek word is KSEMERWNEI meaning "it
is dawning". [1, p. 609]. When the Greek word KSEMERWNEI,where
W is UU and UY, is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KUN
YER-ISEME", again we find the Turkish expression "KUN
YERi IShIMA" meaning "the sun place is
lighting".
So you see that Turkish words and phrases have been plagiarized by some
"linguists" in manufacturing these words from Turkish to be used as
words of some concocted "languages", namely Latin, Greek,
Italian, Spanish, French and English.Hence, as you must admit, these words in
your list and the ones that I added all have their origin in Turkish.
This may be against your beliefs, but nevertheless, it is fact!
2. OCTO
OTTO OCHO
HUIT meaning "EIGHT"
The Latin word OCTO having
the meaning of "eight" is an artificial word which I will prove now.
We have the Latin word OCTUSSIS meaning "eight
asses", [2, p. 171]. When OCTUSSIS is
rearranged as "SICUSS-OT"where
the C in this case is a "K" and SS is a replacement for Turkish Z, we
find the Turkish expression "SEKUZ AT" (SEKIZ
AT) meaning "eight
horses". Turkish SEKIZ (SEKUZ) means "eight" and AT means "horse". Thus
I have shown you that the so-called Latin word OCTUSSIS is indeed a bogus,
usurped, restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SEKIZ
AT" meaning "eight horses". So the anagrammatisers have even
changed meaning between horse and ass(which
is itself from Tr. ESSEK => ESS-EK => ASS) thus adding
further confusion and camouflage. The important thing here though is that
we find Turkish "SEKIZ" meaning "EIGHT" in
this Latin word OCTUSSIS. The
part "OCTO",
artificially portrayed as meaning "eight", is
just the front end of this restructured word OCTUSSIS. Hence
conveniently, cunningly and with dishonesty, an artificial "Latin"
word was constructed from the stolen Turkish expression.
I also want to show you that even the letter T is a double faced letter in the
word OCTO. Let
me show you:
We have the so-called "Latin" word "OCTUPLICATUS" meaning "increased
eight times", [2, p. 171]. When
the word"OCTUPLICATUS" is rearranged as "SICUT-CAT-OLUP" where
C is realy a "K" and T is a replacement for Turkish S and Z by way of
Caesar encryption, we find the Turkish expression "SEKUS
KAT OLUP" (SEKIZ KAT OLUP) meaning "it
became eight fold". The Turkish word SEKIZ
(SEKUZ) means "eight", KAT means "fold" and
OLUP mean"became". Thus
here again we find that this so-called "Latin" word was NOT Latin
before it was artficially made "Latin". It is actually a
usurped, shuffled, restructured, and camouflaged form of a Turkish expression.
After it was restructured, it retained the meaning of the Turkish source
text, where it gets its meaning of "eight" from
Turkish word SEKIZ, its
meaning of "fold" or "times" from
Turkish KAT,
and Turkish OLUP explains
the transformation that it went through. Of
course when one makes a number "eight fold", the resultant number
"increases eight times". We must note that in the
restructuring of the Turkish source text, the Turkish letter Z was
intentionally changed to letter S and then alphabetically up-shifted into the
letter "T". Thus, not only is the particle OCTO the
"cut-off" front and of the restructured word"OCTUPLICATUS",
but the letter "T" in it is a "double-agent" spy letter
that changes its identity as required. And it disguises the Turkish
source extremely well. So much so that nobody can tell the difference - except
Polat Kaya.
We also have the "Latin" word "OCTAVUS" meaning
"the eight", [2, p. 171]. When the word "OCTAVUS" is
rearranged as "SACUT-O-V" where
the letter "T" is actually letter "Z" as I described above,
we find the Turkish expression "SEKUZ O" (O
SEKIZ) meaning "it
is eight".
With these three examples, I have proven that the so-called "Latin"
word OCTO is
an "imposter", and is actually the front end of other longer words
that have been manufactured from Turkish.
The remaining words OTTO,
OCHO, HUIT have gone through
further alterations in order to give a different but related appearance to
these Italian, Spanish and French language words respectively. It is a
well known fact that English, Italian, Spanish and French were manufactured
languages from the so called "Vulgar Latin". In
other words, these languages were artificially concocted. The
manufacturers of these languages are the ones who knew exactly what alterations
they inflicted on the so-called "Latin" word OCTO" meaning
"eight" to come up with OTTO, OCHO and HUIT.
Now let us consider the Greek form of the word. In the Greek numbering
system, we are given the word "OKTW" as
meaning "eight". This "Greek" word is also artificial
and bogus just like the "Latin" word OCTO was.
We have the Greek word "OKTAGWNOS" meaning
"octagonal" or "octagon", [1, p. 613]. in this word
"OKTAGWNOS", the letter "T" is an up-shift from letter
"S", and letter G, that is the Greek "gamma" is read as a G
but also read as "Y" [1, p.10], and letter W is a bogus letter having
a multitude of identities with UU, VV, YY, or any two letter combination of
letters U, V, and Y. Thus now, when the word "OKTAGWNOS" is
rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOKUT-GAN O" or "SOKUZ
YAN O", we find the Turkish expression "SAKUZ
YAN O" (SEKIZ YAN O) meaning "it is eight
sided" which is exactly what an "octagon" is. So here too,
our "illustrious" ancient Greeks conned the whole world together with
their wanderer Roma brothers by stealing a Turkish expression describing an
eight sided geometrical figure, restructuring it into a gobbledegook format,
and then selling it to the world as Greek or Hellenic. The bottom line is
that the source of OCTAGON is neither Greek nor English but
rather Turkish.
We have another "Greek" word in the form of "OKTAPLASIAZW" meaning "I
increase eight fold", [1, p. 614]. When this word "OKTAPLASIAZW", (where
W is UY in this case, thus making the word as "OKTAPLASIAZUY"),
is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SAKIZ-YAT-OLUP-A"
or "SAYIZ-KAT-OLUP-A", we find the Turkish
expression "SEKIZ
KAT OLUP O" meaning "it became eight-fold"
which is just another way of saying "I increase eight fold".
In this arrangement, Turkish SAKIZ (SEKIZ) means
"eight", KAT means "fold" and OLUP means
"became" and O means "it".
Thus, this "Greek" word "OKTAPLASIAZW" and
the "Latin" word "OCTUPLICATUS" are
exactly the same, except that they were structured in slightly different
formats just to con the world - particularly those who regard themselves as
"all knowing linguists". In both these words, we see apparent
sound similarities and construction similarities yet these similarities are not
due to an "Indo-European" sourcing but rather to a Turkish sourcing.
Thus, both the Latin and the Greek dishonest word manufacturers have
made "children" out of us all! Surely this is the zenith of
stealing. A fantastic linguistic fraud executed with admirable cleverness
by the the ficticious "civilization givers" - the Greeks and
Romans!!!
I have shown that the "Greek" word "OKTW" meaning
"eight" is bogus, artificial and not truthful. It is an
artficially made up word for an artificial language called "Greek"
which has been manufactured from restructuring of the words and phrases of the
model language of TURKISH!
3. LACTE
LATTE LECHE LAIT meaning 'MILK'
These so called IE words are also made up from Turkish.
Let me show you:
We have the following so-called "Latin" words:
"LACTEOLUS" meaning "milk-white";
"LACTEUS" meaning "milky;
full of milk; milk-white; the milky-way"; and
"LACTO" meaning "to give milk" [2,
p. 141]
Now, when the word "LACTEOLUS" meaning
"milk-white", is rearranged as "AC-SUTLE-O-L" ,
where C is K, we find the Turkish expression "AK
SUTLU O" meaning "it is milky
white" or "with
white milk". Turkish "SÜT" means
"milk","SÜTLÜ" means
"milky" "AK" means
"white". So, it is clear that this so-called "Latin"
word "LACTEOLUS" has
been restructured (shuffled), Romanized, disguised and stolen from the Turkish
expression "AK
SÜTLÜ O". This
is an exact correspondence that cannot be denied. It is not a
"chance coincidence"! As you can see, the Latin word "LACTE" is
just the front-end of this Romanized Turkish expression which has been
artificially called "milk" coming from the original Turkish word "SÜT".
Furthermore the English word MILK is
an Anglicised form of the Turkish word "EMLIK" (as
in Tr. "emlik
kuzu") meaning"milk sucking baby or lamb".
As you can see, this Turkish word EMLIK has
been conveniently restructured into"MILK".
When the "Latin" word "LACTEUS",
meaning "milky", is rearranged as "AC-SUTLE", we
find the Turkish word "SÜTLÜ"meaning "with
milk" or "milky".
Additionally we find the Turkish expression "AK SÜTLÜ" meaning "with
white milk"which is the same as "milk-white". As
it is known, milk is
a white substance. Again we find that even the Latin word"LACTEUS" has
been restructured from a Turkish expression. The word LACTE is
just the cut-off front-end of the restructured Turkish expression. As can be
seen, the Italian, Spanish and French words are just the front ends of
different formations of the main Turkish expression. So
this is not coincidence or my imagination but rather the fact indicating that
the so-called "Roman Languages" were all manufactured from stolen
Turkish.
The Italian word LATTE is also a bogus word.
There are many Italian words that LATTE is part of. However, the meaning
"milk" does not come from the word LATTE but rather from the Turkish
word SÜT which
has been disguised into the so-called "Italian" words related to
"milk". For example, we have the Italian word LATTEO meaning
"milky". In this word one of the T's
is an upshift from letter S which
is hidden in the word by clever manipulation. When the Italian word LATTEO is
rearranged as "TOT-ELA" where
the first T is
an S, we
find the modified Turkish expression "SUT ILA" (SÜT
ILE)meaning "with milk" which is exactly the same as
"milky".
We have the Italian word LATTICINOSO again
meaning "milky" regarding
"plants that produce milk when broken", [3, p. 223].
When the "Italian" word LATTICINOSO is
rearranged letter-by-letter as "SOTLI-OT-CANI",
we find the Turkish expression "SÜTLÜ OT CANI" meaning
a "milky
plant-life", that is, "milk producing
plant". This exact correspondence tells us that the Italians
also stole the Turkish words and expressions in manufacturing words for an
artificially manufactured language so-called "Italian".
We have the "Greek" word "AMELGW" meaning
"I milk". [1, p. 408]. As it is seen, this is a riddle definition.
What kind of word says "I milk"? Also given is the Greek
word GALA
or GALAKTOS meaning
"milk".
The Greek word "AMELGW",
when rearranged as "EMLAK-W", we
find the Turkish expression "EMLIK O" meaning
"it is milk suckling baby".
When the Greek word GALAKTOS is rearranged as "AK-SOTLA-G", we
find the Turkish expression "AK SÜTLÜ" meaning"with
white milk". Again we find that even this so-called
"Greek" word has been stolen from the Turkish expression "AK
SÜT" or "AK
SÜTLÜ". You must note that the Greek word "GALA"
is just the front part of the word GALAKTOS which
has been made up from Turkish "AK SÜTLÜ".
The Latin word "LACTEOLUS" (LACTEUS) meaning "milky-way",
when rearranged as "AC-SUT-LOLE", we find the
Turkish expression "AK SÜT YOLU" meaning "white
milk way" which refers to a pathway that is whitened by
spilled milk. The "milky way" "galaxy", to
which our solar system belongs to, appears as a long white pathway in space.
The Turkish name for the "Milky Way" is "SAMAN
YOLU" meaning
the "a
path spilled with cut-straw" where the "cut-straw" is
white in color. The Roman anagrammatizers of the Turkish language used milk in
place of straw for
this fabricated "Latin" word. Now you must note that both the "Milky
Way" and "Saman
Yolu" have
the concept of "way" (yol) in it. Why are we seeing these close
correspondences if Latin and Turkish were independently developed languages?
The answer is that the source was Turkish.
4. Now let us examine the words FACTO
FATTO HECHO FAIT meaning ‘DONE’. These
are again made from Turkish. Let me show you:
First of all the so-called French word "FAIT" meaning
"done" is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish word"ATIF"
(EDIF, EDIP) meaning "done". Thus,
you see this so-called "French" word is a restructured and disguised
form of the stolen Turkish word "EDIP".
The Latin word "FACTU" is
related to the Latin words "FACTUM" meaning
"to make" and "FACTIO" meaning
"making, doing", [2, p. 98].
When the word "FACTUM" is
rearranged as "UFMACT",
where U is YU or YA, we
find the Turkish expression"YAFMAKTU"(YAPMAKTU) meaning
"it is making", "it is doing". In the Azeri dialect
of Turkish you will find the Turkish words ending with the Turkish
"-IP" suffix such as in EDIP and YAPIP or YAP, being pronounced
as EDIF, YAPIF, YAF. In other words, the letter P is turned into
"F".
Similarly, when the word "FACTIO" is
rearranged as "IAFTOC", we
find the Turkish expression "YAFTOK" (YAPTUK,
YAPTIK) meaning "we
did it" which is the same as "done" again.
The Italian and the Spanish forms of the so-called "Latin" word have
gone through further anagrammatizing thus they are much less obvious although
their origins are also in the Turkish verb "YAPMAK" meaning
"to make, to do".
5. The words TECTU TETTO TECHO TOIT meaning 'ROOF' are also Turkish based. Let
me explain:
The Latin word TECTUM means
"roof, shelter, dwelling" and TECTUS means
"covered", [2, p. 249].
When the word "TECTUM" is
rearranged as "CETU-TM", we
find the Turkish expression "ÇATU aTiM" meaning "my
name is roof".
or "CETUM-T from
Turkish "ÇATIYUM" meaning "I
am roof".
Similarly, when the Latin word TECTUS is
rearranged as "ST-CETU", we
find the Turkish expression "ÜST ÇATI"meaning "the
top roof". This is a Turkish expression used
frequently, when the house has several levels of roofing. The Italian TETTO is
just a variation of the "Latin" word "TECTU" which
is from Turkish. The Spanish TECHO, when
rearranged as "CHETO" or "CHOTE"
reveals itself as the disguised form of the Turkish word "CHATI" meaning
"roof".
To this list we can add the "English" word "THATCH" meaning "roof
with straw". It is said to be from the Anglo-Sakson"THOEC" meaning
"covering for a roof, grain stack, etc., made of straw, rushes, reeds, or
leaves." [4, p. 1033"].
When the word THATCH
is rearranged as "HT-CATH", where H is I, making
the word "IT-CATI", we find the Turkish word"OT
ÇATI" meaning
"roof made
of straw, rushes, reeds, or leaves." Turkish word OT means "plant,
grass, straw, hay, etc" and "ÇATI" means
"roof".
The Greek word "STEGASMA" or "STEGASMATOS" [1,
p. 682] means "roof;
shelter". When the word "STEGASMA" is
rearranged, as "STE-ASMAG", we find the
Turkish expression "ÇATI ASMAK" meaning "hanging
a roof", "putting up a roof". Turkish ÇATI means
"roof" and ASMAK means "to
hang", "to put up". Thus this so-called
"Greek" word is also taken from Turkish.
Similarly, the Greek word "STEGASMATOS",
when rearranged letter-by-letter as "SSATE-(A)SMAGTO" where
SS is a replacement for Turkish Sh sound, we find the Turkish expression "ShATI
ASMAKTU" (ÇATI ASMAKTU) meaning "it
is hanging a roof", "it is putting up a roof". We
must note that in this form of the "Greek" word, the Turkish suffix
TU was added to the source Turkish text. Hence it was possible to further
alienate the Turkish source from its Turkish identity.
Again all of these show that your list of words TECTU TETTO TECHO TOIT meaning 'ROOF' were also usurped from
Turkish and restructured as words for the manufactured languages of
"Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and Greek".
With all of these explanations, I have demonstrated that both the
"Latin" and "Greek" languages are concocted languages
artificially manufactured from one worldwide spoken language of Turkish in the
very ancient world that we have been made to forget. The words that I
discussed above are unquestionable proof that what I say is correct. Of course
all of those later so-called "European" languages, which are said to
be made up from Latin and Greek, are also the product of the same kind of
usurpation and restructuring activities of the European language makers. These
so-called "Indo-European" languages have been well disguised by the
language "usurpers" who had all the time in the world in their
comfortable quarters to create new languages from Turkish for
the new religions of the world. So, you see Petr, with all of these
correspondences that I showed above, you are
"checkmated". The match is over!
Clearly the linguistic system that you are heroically defending has failed you.
They did not tell you the truth. They lied endlessly to con
everybody. They conned the world. They did not tell us that the world was
speaking one language named "Turkish" before it was confused by the
wanderers of the world. They only told us that the world was speaking one
language without identifying that "one father" language. If it was
their own language that the world spoke back then, you can be sure that they
would have flooded the world with its name by now as they did with their
ficticious and manufactured languages. They just kept quietly stealing
from the Turkish linguistic data bank. The ordinary people
had no alternative but to believe what they were told. After all, this
kind of stealing is not like stealing someone's car where the victim
immediately realizes his car is missing. This kind of stealing is very
subtle and invisible.
In spite of your ignorance, I want to thank you for your participation in this
discussion. I am glad that you provided the list of words of your choice
and gave me the opportunity to prove that you are totally in the dark! With
that list of yours, you contributed to further understanding of the most
amazing fraud in the history of civilization committed by secretive groups. Now
we know where everybody stands in the spectrum of civilization.
The rest of your comments do not contribute to the discussion. Rather,
they are an extreme case of polemic. A lot of noise showing how
experienced a hooligan you are. For that I will not congratulate you.
I have collected a sampling of your offensive comments just below to show
the readers how ill-mannered your "mental patterns" are.
Dear Polat, you're
forever prooving to me how little you actually know about (whether
"so-called" or real) Indoeuropean languages.
A pity that you don't
have this basic knowledge.
Dear Polat, your ignorance of
the facts is evident here, again.
Shuffle your cards again,
please.
If you really knew some Latin
(instead of stupid browsing through dictionaries, which every child can do)
Dear Polat, can’t you see the obvious fact?
If you really knew some Latin or Greek, you would hardly
claim anything like that.
Have you discovered
Dear Polat, no matter what
you think somebody knew, you evidently know little about Latin. Or am I wrong?
Prove to me that you’re divine – change my water into wine!
You’re confusing things
again. Never mind. The answer is because:
You would know that all if
you (a) read something on linguistics, (b) something on phonetics and
phonology, (c) knew something about the individual and intertwined histories of
various European countries and nations, (d) knew something about any science at
all. One more point – please, use some up-to-date literature, instead of the
decaying bibles of the forgotten pasts.
Don’t be silly,
No, the bogus is yours. You
should tidy up a bit. I seriously demanded an explanation, you gave me one
(decryption ain’t decryption, ‘cause encryption ain’t encryption either –
clarified once for all)
Finally a little correct
terminology. I'm pleased.
it is you who sells the goods
(actually bads, in my view).
Actually, even the Turkish
word is onomatopoeic...well, provided that you know what, on dear old Earth,
that means...
I won’t repeat the well-known
information for you here, as you can find it on the Net (unless you want me to
– I will gladly open your eyes, but let’s go on for now...)
Sorry, but it’s been your
fuzzy terminology that is constantly puzzling me. Vocalizing has its own meaning in phonetics and phonology. And you're
not using this term correctly, in my humble opinion of a humble student of
phonetics (among other things).
Oh, Polat, you don’t really know how the whole etymology
stuff works, do you? There are people called philologists (find
that word in your clever books), they read and analyze various texts, old and
new, analyze the language, describe their observations and publish them.
Specialists, called etymologists, on the basis of regular sound
correspondences and attested or documented materials (by whom? By the
philologists, of course), reconstruct the older stages...very briefly, of
course...
I'm quite sure they would
call you a fool – forgive me that word – to tell you the bitter truth, but I’ll
be better, more patient, I’ll take you out of the darkness and bring you to the
light. Anyway, they would call you like that not to harm you, but because it is
self-evident you’re lost and you’ve been caught in your erroneous beliefs,
perhaps of a nationalistic origin.
If you really are as clever
as you seem to consider yourself,
Are you clever enough?
Actually, you must be blind
if you cannot see what's obvious and crystal-clear.
It
is you who is hiding himself in the safety of his ideological conch like an
intellectual snail.
If you did your homework
You know virtually nothing
about linguistics.
I'm afraid you don't know the
history of your own mother tongue.
Wrong! Are you trying to lie
or what?
How come? :-) An Angel
whispered to you when you were sleeping?
No, it is your dishonesty.
Your faith in yourself is
really strong. I think you’ve got so far that you can even pray to yourself.
Nevertheless, I’m not sure if your prayers are ever heard of, since the saint
ears are deaf.
By the way, I never claimed
it was *ja, I claim it was *jar’. You can shout, you can hit the table with
your angry fists, but that won’t help you win the struggle...the ghosts are in
your mind, Polat.
I think it is YOUR wishful
thinking, but never mind, let's go on...
But not the idiotic way you’re used to
Your argumentation is childish, so to speak.
Again, your ignorance of
facts is apparent here.
(I wonder whether you know
what analogy – specifically – in linguistics means).
A stronger wish is still a
wish, not a fact, Polat. Have you ever read anything on historical linguistics?
Or are you just slinging mud at something you do not know at all? If you want
to criticize something, you need to learn something about it, first. You don't
actually know what you're criticizing, do you? No, you definitely don't. I
wonder whether you've read anything on linguistics at all...really...
You must be
dreaming...perhaps a night-mare...?
Aha, how do you know what
I’ve been taught, why, you know nothing about linguistics??? Where’s the
brilliant logic of yours?
Moreover, the rest of what
you claim is simply ignorant.
If
you want me to change my mind, you have to show me real evidence. Not a pile of
nonsensical claims that have no support in what I consider to be facts
It ain't, dude. :-)
You’re
wrong as usual.
What
do you know about Sanskrit, Polat???
By
no means, Polat. I'm as calm as a piece of ice
No, I think you simply don’t want me to destroy your
daydream.
Will you be so kind and “unshuffle” the Czech text for me?
Will you be my eye-opener, please? Will you be my enlightener? My messiah? My
savior?
Here we go. I reduced the text to only a few sentences, to
make your task easier.
Of
course, it is irrational, since your hypothesis and methods are stupid.
Do I really have to show you everything? Look here
Only an idiot with no knowledge of German would not see the
self-evident compound. Are you an idiot? (That’s a question).
but
is you who doesn’t seem to able to read between the lines...
Oh, you can be surprisingly clever...oh, sorry, you don’t
like irony, but I do
That was another - intentionally stupid - analogy to provoke
you to show me how you actually think.
You’re telling me no news.
Not
like your fantasies...
You
don’t know what you’re writing about.
Ha
ha ha, then you really know little about, biology, psychology and
linguistics.
You’re blind and deaf.
My opinions ARE humble
Think of yourself. Be ashamed a little.
as what you arrogantly assert to be evidence is a fart in a
tornado.
You haven’t been polite enough to learn something about
those you criticize. That’s the fraud.
Well, I know you know that I know you don’t know. You’ve been
caught.
Oh, indeed, folks! The poor guys thinks he’s found
Apparently, you wouldn’t be able to understand a single
Sumerian sentence.
It’s you who’s haunted by nightmares. Your brain doesn’t
have time enough to recover and suffers from illusions, I suppose...
Stop insulting me, please. I’m not an inquisitor. I wouldn't harm a
fly. I won't burn you, do not worry.
What
you claim is an obvious lie.
Aha,
so now all languages are man-made. Congratulations. You’ve stolen that
privilege from God...from nature...from whatever and whoever you consider to be
the Creator.
No, you have given a pile of bold claims, very skillful and
creative tongue-equilibristic.
Only
you are one of the lazy ones, perhaps – too lazy to follow them, too lazy to
read the links I’ve provided, too lazy to think...or afraid?
Hm, I have an
hypothesis: You are so used to your claims, you’ve got so used to the raster of
seeing, that you fear “what on Earth would life be without my never-ending
‘analyses’”?
I
DEMAND THAT YOU PROVE THAT
...everyone is a “wanderer”.
And you are a “sorcerer”, Polat.
I see, Polat. A book written for children in 1921 – another
ultramodern reference!
And? Invasions and conquests are just like that. There were
times for sure when Turks did the same.
And please, answer without
propagating the silly stuff of yours,
If you really knew some
inflectional IE languages, you’d see things in new light.
PERFECT??? And you tell me
that you’re HUMBLE? You nothing but a nationalist. By the way, .what other languages can you
speak? Do you know Sanskrit??? Tell me, in what respect is the Turkish grammar
“perfect”???
...please, stop using words
(syntax) you don’t understand. What’s perfect in Turkish syntax???
Clearly you cannot read
between the lines. He was sane not to include you unproven claims, just because his article would be deleted! That has
nothing to do with YOUR sanity (although I have some doubts as to whether your
thinking hasn’t been blurred somehow). Don't be touchy, please.
I have been doing YOU a great favor by patiently trying to understand your
delirious reasoning. Your “clear cut terms” have lead to nowhere, as they are
neither clear, nor actual terms, they’re only cut – cut off the reality.
I thought you wanted to prove
your case. Was I wrong? You haven’t proven anything yet and I insist on that.
Your ignorance is your concern,
Really? Then prove to me you
DO know an inflectional language.
No wonder you do not
understand linguists and linguistics. Without basic knowledge of phonetics, you
cannot read linguistic texts. Don’t be lazy, man, learn something.
However, I fear that you'll
write something like "I don't have time to explain you again what I have
already explained to you clearly." Am I right?
Or, do you fear that the results will show
you’ve been wrong all the time??? That the thousands of hours of thorough
reshuffling and comparing have been worthless?
...at
the detective who uncovered the biggest sum of information irrelevant to the
case...
Look, you’ve been as a
detective, who’s found the surnames of all the musicians on the victim’s CD’s.
Why would I? Neither do I
need the detective to find out for me, what’s on TV tomorrow.
I’ve given you much more
attention than you ever deserve. Be grateful, you thankless desperado. ;-)
But
I didn’t know that the great Messiah himself was going to enlighten me in his
postings.
You’re petulance is
unmatched and unbelievable.
That proves how intolerant you are. Clearly, I’m much more
tolerant than you, otherwise I wouldn’t ever have responded to your fantastic
messages.
I have no reason to be
ashamed. I'm being critical. Is critical thinking a crime? Moreover, having to
answer questions, we (and especially you) are improving our theories.
By the way, you might
have wanted to enlighten me, but what you were really doing was ‘endarkening’.
I have never turned around.
Please, don't tell me what to
do.
Well, isn't that special. I could respond very strongly to
each and every one of these comments of yours - but I don't have to. They speak
volumes about your "mental patterns". There isn't an iota of
scholarliness in the whole lot! It is all villification, sophistry and
intentional distraction which is a vivid example of
hooliganism. None of it is scholarly contribution to the debate. It is
known that in a debate, the losing side resorts to sophistry and villification
while the winning and correct side talks straight as an arrow. What is
obvious from your tantrum is that you are very bothered about my
world-awakening revelations. You are angry to learn from me that the
notion of an "Indo-European" language family is not so independent
and genuine. You are angry to hear from me that Turkish is the progenitor
language. None of this has anything to do with my
"nationalism". I am simply reporting the biggest fraud in the
history of civilization.
You also wrote:
Please, don't tell me what to
do.
You "don't consider them rude means of
communication?" The above large collection of your comments is certainly a
fine example of your rudeness though - and you know it. But you are
being dishonest by trying to legitimize your rudeness as some sort of
"Czech" culture of irony and sarcasm. This dishonesty of yours
is itself a disservice to your own countrymen. If I had used that kind of
gutter talk to you, you would have gone ballistic. Your pitiful
communication style is far below the quality standards of this forum. I
trust the moderator will do his part to rectify this situation.
And lastly, you wrote:
Oh,
that last sentence of yours is so sweet! :-) No I see you can strike back and I
like that. If you are not afraid of opposition, a little irony and sarcasm and
me, I’ll gladly crush your arguments to the dust in a one-to-one private chat
session on MSN, ICQ and Skype.
You keep inviting me to have a one-to-one chat session but
what you really want is to have a shouting contest. Obviously you are far
better at that, so I will gracefully decline your offer. As far as you
"crushing my arguments", I refer you back to my Checkmate comment
that I made above with your own IE word list. Let me say that again: You will
not be able to get out of it because I checkmated you! This match is over
Petr!
Best wishes to you and to everyone in the coming New Year,
Polat Kaya
REFERENCES:
1. Divry's Modern English - Greek and Greek - English
Desk Dictionary, New York, 1988.
2. Cassell's Compact Latin - English English - Latin Dictionary,
1962.
3. C. Graglia's New Pocket Dictionary of the Italian and
English Languages, london, New York, 1864.
4. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth edition, 1947,
Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.
23/12/2006