Re: [hrl_2] Re: gol kol lake

Hi, David,


You wrote:

"Thank you for correcting me.
 
So we have established that Turkish GÖL > Lac (Latin) through transposition. But –us is a common Latin grammatical suffix, and so I don't think it could come from Turkish `su' "water"."

Poat Kaya: Yes we have noted the linguistic relation between Turkish GÖL and the Latin LAC and LACUS and English LAKE by way of restructuring and disguising the Turkish source text.  "Transposing" is just a small aspect of anagrammatizing a given text.    

You said:

"(A transposition is defined as a flipping of the letter which preserves the same order but in the opposite direction, such as AB > BA, or ABCD > DCBA; so for instance ABC > ACB is not a transposition, but ABC > CBA is a transposition)."

Polat Kaya: In view of your definition of "transposition", transposition is not the right description of what has taken place in "changing" Turkish words and phrases into other languages.  The transposition you define above is only one very simple form, and a very limited form of alteration that may be applied to a given text to change it into another form.  It is one way of altering the source text - but there are many other ways.  With this limited transposition method, the "language-maker" would set noticeable trends and therefore could not achieve much without being noticed. Yet his goal is to generate a totally different looking and sounding language from the source model language - without being noticed.  For that reason, he would not limit himself with rules of transposition or with any other rules for that matter.  For him, the best rule is "no rules". Then he would have infinite freedom to do anything he pleases - without running the risk of setting noticeable patterns.  This enables the "linguist" who is doing the "language-engineering" to steal anything he wants from the source language and in any way he wishes.  

Let me give you an example:  The Turkish word OKUL means 'school'.  When you transpose it as you defined, it becomes "LUKO". and it could be a word with the meaning of "school".  However it is obvious that this kind of transformation would soon be detected because of the fact that it has a direct relationship with the Turkish word OKUL, that is, when you read it from right-to-left.  In other words, this is not a very smart way to steal words and phrases from another language such as Turkish.

But , if the alteration is done in a sophisticated manner - such as English word "SCHOOL", then, it is much more difficult to spot its relationship with Turkish OKUL.   In this case, one has to do much more alteration plus linguistic wrapping and camouflaging. For example:   

Step 1: Turkish  OKUL  is changed into   "OCOL" where the original "K" is changed to "C" and the "U" is changed to "O".  This achieves visual disconnection.  

Step 2:   "OCOL" is rearranged into  "COOL" which is a further distortion of OKUL.  

Step 3:    Now some linguistic wrapping is added to it , say, in the form of "COOL + S +H", and rearranged as  "SCHOOL".  This  makes the resultant word much more alienated from the original Turkish OKUL.  This is a much sneakier way to usurp words from another language because chances are the relation will not be detected.

The letter "H"  is  a soundless consonant and therefore can be used freely in disguising as well as in replacing a vowel and even consonants.  In the Greek alphabet, this symbol is called "I'ta" which is read as "I" - yet its symbol is "H" in capital form and a special "n-like" symbol in lower case.  This is intentionally designed to camouflage unwanted symbols of a source text.

As you can see, all of these alterations I talked about in English SCHOOL are not transpositions as you defined, but rather free alteration of the source text at the will of the "linguist" who is doing the usurping from the Turkish language.  Of course a word other than SCHOOL could also have been produced with the same meaning - such as French ECOLE or German SCHULE or Greek SKHOLEIO, etc.  How convenient!

Additionally, is it not peculiar to you that in this English word SCHOOL three consonants are bunched together, and then followed by two OO vowels. One wonders what might be the reason for it?

So, you see that your "transposition" suggestion does not take us very far, but it leads us to a linguistic dead-end in manufacturing new words from a model language. I do agree with you that there might be some words in Latin or Greek or other Indo-European languages that might have been made up by simple "transposition" from Turkish. But that would very limited and unable to explain other very complex looking words.  I am going to give you a list of words that have been "transposed" from Turkish in a second posting.  

Additionally, in my last letter, I gave you the Latin word LACUS meaning: "1. lake;  2. water-trough;  3. any large tank",[Cassell's Compact Latin-English, English - Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 141].  I explained to you the three given meanings and how it was made from Turkish expressions to come up with those meanings. You seem to have ignored this word and its implications. Instead you just hold on to its "lake" meaning and presented the situation as if it was a simple "transposition" - which it was not.  The other meanings of the word are just as important and I showed that their source was also Turkish.

You said that:

But –us is a common Latin grammatical suffix, and so I don't think it could come from Turkish `su' "water"."

Polat Kaya:  I am afraid you are wrong on this point as well because, Latin "-us" is not a real suffix but rather a special aspect of the rearrangement designed to give the impression of being a "suffix".  Let me give you another similar "Latin" word where you will see that not only your simple "transposition" idea is invalid for all alterations, but also the "-us" suffix concept is invalid.  

The Latin word LACTEUS means "milky; full of milk; milk-white", [Cassell's Compact Latin-English, English - Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 141].

This innocent "Latin" looking word also has been made up from a Turkish expression. Additionally, it has the Turkish "GUL", "GOL", "GÜL" in it but it does not mean "lake" nor "rose" nor "laugh" as these Turkish words would imply.  

When this Latin word LACTEUS is deciphered (rearranged) letter-by-letter as "AC-SUTLE", we see that it is a distortion of Turkish "AK SÜTLÜ" (AK SÜT ILE) meaning "with white milk" or "milky".  Thus, the first and the third meanings of the Latin word are fully met in Turkish.  The concept of "milk-white" is from the Turkish "AK SÜT" meaning "white milk".

Turkish AK means "white", SÜT means "milk" and "-LÜ" (ILE) is a verbal suffix meaning "with". As you can see the Turkish expression "AK SÜT" meaning "white-milk" or "SÜT-AK" meaning "milk-white"  is already embedded in it.  The natural milk is always "white" (AK).

Additionally, when LACTEUS  is deciphered letter-by-letter as "SUTLEC-A", it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SÜTLÜK O" meaning "it is place where there is milk", "it is place where milk is stored",hence where "it is full of milk".   Thus it is clear that the so-called Latin "common suffix" -US is coming from the Turkish word "SÜT" this time. This invalidates your view that "-us" is a common Latin suffix.  The source of this "suffix" is coming from the source material.  In other words, it is a pseudo-suffix - just like many other so-called IE suffixes.

As it is seen, extensive and random alteration operations have been done to manufacture this "Latin" word from Turkish. There is no simple "transposition" used here - which is why the relationship to the Turkish source is not obvious. LatinLACTEUS simply does not look like Turkish "AK SÜTLÜ".


Furthermore you say:

"You mentioned how `okul' corresponds to `school', and I can see that, as it relates to the Ancient Hebrew word for "scholar" QWLT* (Hebrew QHLT). Once we prove Ancient Hebrew w* > h Classical/Modern Hebrew, then I can show at least one more correspondence to Turkish, and I can show other correspondences."

Polat Kaya: "I do not see why W* should turn into an "H" (or vice versa) unless somebody is intentionally changing it. The symbol W, as it is identified by its name, is a symbol which represents two letters of U or V or Y or two-by-two combinations of U, V and Y. There is no reason that it shoud be an H.  If it ever changes into "H" then it is an intentional change.

The Turkish word OKUL comes from the Turkish word "OKU" which is the root of the verb "okumak" meaning "to read or write". Turkish  OKUL is a derivative of this Turkish verb.  Your so-called "Hebrew" QWLT  can be shown as  "QUULT" which is an altered form of the Turkish expression "OKULTU" meaning "it is school". The last suffix -TU is a Turkish suffix meaning "it is".  This is an indication that the so-called Hebrew" was in fact a form of Turkish.

Furthermore, the name "Hebrew" is actually from Turkish "BIR-O" meaning "only one" or "AGA-BIR-O" meaning "only one Lord" - which was the name of the Turkish Sky-God and"Hebrew" was the general name of the Masarians, Cannanites, Phoenicians and the Philistines who were Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. Even the Masarian so-called Pharoahs were called PER-O - from Turkish BIR-O.  In view of this, it is normal that the Turkish OKU should also be in their language. Even the South American country PERU of the INCA people comes from the Turkish BIR-O.   Even the so-called biblical Patriarch EBER comes from Turkish BIR-O.  The Jews, who presently consider themselves to be the modern Hebrews, are actually Semites and are a totally different people than those ancient Hebrews.  Religiously, the Jews believed in the Wind God or Storm God - known by the Sumerian name ENLIL or Turkish HAN-YEL (YEL-HAN) meaning WIND-LORD while the ancient BIR-O's (Hebrews) believed in the Sky-God, Sun-God and Moon-God trinity.  

Since OKU is a Turkish word meaning "to read and write" and since Turkish OKUL is a derivation from OKU, the implication is that reading and writing was developed by the ancient Tur / Turk / Oguz people.  The Turco-Sumerians had the most developed writing and reading school system and today's modern schooling system is based on that.  It is important to note that the Turco-Sumerian language was also a mono-syllabic language - which naturally led to the development of the syllabic and alphabetic writing systems.

***

In my last posting, I gave you an explanation of  the term TRANSPOSITION which you have ignored altogether. Let us look at it once more:

English "TRANSPOSITION" versus Turkish "ÜSTÜNDEN AŞIRIP":  You can see that the Turkish expression "ÜSTÜNDEN AŞIRIP" cannot be converted to English  "TRANSPOSITION" by way of "transposition" - as given by your definition.  But there are alterations such as D to T, Ş to S, Ü to O and a shifting in the positions of letters, almost randomly, to different positions. Thus your definition of "transposition" would not be of much help to the "linguist" that is generating words for Latin.

Additionally, two Turkish composite words, "ÜSTÜNDEN" and "AŞIRIP", have been combined to make one English word. This further disguises the source material. We just cannot ignore these facts and then, push forward the simple form of "transposition". It is clear that changes have been done as in my example of ABCD to BDCA type of restructuring.  

I also indicated that the so-called prefix of "TRANS" was the front part of the newly structured English word TRANSPOSITION. This way, TRANS gains the status of a "word" or "prefix", yet it is not. a real prefix. Actually, the term TRANS gets its meaning from the anagrammatized source material from Turkish.

Let me give you some other complex looking Latin words and show you how "TRANS" is not a real word.

.
A.    Latin word TRANSVERSARIUS meaning "lying across, transverse", [Cassell's Compact Latin-English Dictionary, 1962, p. 256].

TRANSVERSARIUS, rearranged as "VSSERINA-TRS-UAR", (where V / U, SS / Z),  is from Turkish "ÜZERINE  TeRS UYUR" meaning "sleeps crosswise on top of" or "lies crosswise on top of".

Turkish ÜZERI means "top of", ÜZERINE means "to the top of", TERS means "across, against, the wrongway, crosswise" and UYU means "sleep, lie", UYUR means "he/she/it sleeps" or "he/she/it lies".

B.    Latin word TRANSVOLO meaning "to fly over or across; to hasten over, across; to fly trhough or to; to fly past", [Cassell's Compact Latin-English Dictionary, 1962, p. 256].

TRANSVOLO, rearranged as  "VL-OSANTOR", (where V/U, S/C/Ç),  is from Turkish "ULU UÇANTUR" meaning "it is high flier", that is, "it is bird".  A bird is a high flier and it flies swiftly over, above and across other objects.  So the prefix "TRANS" is just a rearrangement of what is in this Turkish source expression.  

Turkish ULU means "high, great", Uç means "fly", UÇAN means "that which flies", UÇANTUR means "it is that which flies" (i.e., a bird), -AN and -TUR are verbal sufixes.  

C.    Latin word TRANSCURRO meaning "to hasten over, to pass over, to hasten through". This definition is just dancing around the concepts of "to run" and "pass".

TRANSCURRO, rearranged as "COSAN-RTUR-R", (where C/K),  is from  Turkish "KOŞAN eRTUR" meaning "he is man who is running".  By definition such a person is in a hurry who hastens over,  passes over, or hastens through.  

Turkish word KOŞ means "run", KOŞAN means "he who runs", ER means "man" and ERTUR means "he is man".  

Many more examples can be given.  But these should suffice to illustrate my point. From these, you can see how the monosyllabic Turkish words and suffixes are interwoven to make up composite words in Turkish and those composite words and phrases are rearranged and altered to manufacture the words of IE languages.  


You said:

"You may be able to prove anagrammatizing without transpositional evidence, but I do not know the statistical analysis that would be required for that."

Polat Kaya:  I am not just proving the fact that anagrammatization has taken place - that I have already demonstrated many times over,  I also proved that the Turkish language was the progenitor language and that its words and phrases were stolen to make up words for new languages.  Transpositional anagrammatizing is only a small part of the complete alteration process.


You said:

"To prove your theory you would have to prove that there are more than a few examples, because otherwise it may be said that there were only a few words borrowed, or that it is a chance resemblance."

Polat Kaya: David  please read my above response. I have already proven my theory by giving hundreds of words (which you will find my papers in my library) and you have been receiving them for years.  I am not going to repeat again thousands of pages of writing.  If anyone calls my analyses of so many different and varying words in Greek, Latin, English, Italian, etc, as"chance resemblance", then, I assure you that that person does not know what he/she is talking about.  Such a person would only demonstrate his/her lack of understanding what I am talking about. I cannot deal with obstinate people whose only purpose in such discussions would be centered on denial of the truth and/or vilification of a new discovery.  

Incidently, for your information, the words of your expression  "chance resemblance" are also made up from Turkish. Follow me please:

1.    CHANCE is from Turkish word "ŞANS" (SHANS) meaning the same.

2.    The second word RESEMBLANCE is also from Turkish.  When it is rearranged (deciphered) letter-by-letter as "BENSER-ELMAC", it reveals itself as the Turkish expression "BENZER OLMAK" meaning "being similar".  Thus, finding this exact correspondence conclusively makes the English word RESEMBLANCE an anagrammatized, restructured, disguised and Anglicised form of the Turkish expression "BENZER-OLMAK".  Any linguist can see that there is no "chance resemblance" between English RESEMBLANCE and the embedded Turkish expression "BENZER-OLMAK".  Note that they both have the same meaning which is the most important criteria in deciphering the Turkish correspondences of the anagrammatized IE words. Just like thousands of other words in the English language and other IE and Semitic languages, this English word has also been burglarized from Turkish.  Note that RESEMBLANCE is not a borrowed word from Turkish.  If it was, it would have maintained its original form of BENZER-OLMAK.  Borrowed words do not change their original form in the borrower language.

It is said that the word RESEMBLE is the root for RESEMBLANCE but this is totally misleading because it is RESEMBLE that comes from RESEMBLANCE - by chopping off its tail end.  In the etymological dictionaries, RESEMBLANCE is not even mentioned.  They misleadingly present RESEMBLE as the root - which is untrue.  Linguists should take note of all this.


You said:

"The word `see' is interesting, I think this is going to lead to a further discovery."

Polat Kaya:  I am glad that you recognized this fact.  I have been saying all along that the English word SEA is an altered form of Turkish SU - meaning water.  Now I have also brought to the readers' attention the fact that German SEE (meaning "lake") is also from Turkish SU.  Yes, it is another discovery of mine - on top of the thousands of other words that I have analysed and identified as being taken from Turkish and disguised.

I can understand the problems readers are facing.  First, because most of them do not know Turkish - which may be a handicap in following my explanations.  Secondly, since what I am saying goes against everything readers have been taught so far about the makeup of languages, they may have a mental block in accepting what I am saying - thinking that this could not have happened.  But it has happened.

Above I gave you many examples of Latin and English words that have been manufactured from Turkish words and expressions by way of  anagrammatizing the Turkish source text. Evidently there has been a lot of secret hand-holding in stealing the Turkish language. Now, please read very carefully and patiently all the things that I have said in this writing above.  They are not to be taken lightly!


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

28/02/2008


David L wrote:

Thank you for correcting me.
So we have established that Turkish GÖL > Lac (Latin) through transposition. But –us is a common Latin grammatical suffix, and so I don't think it could come from Turkish `su' "water".
But my question is: are there other examples like this? The other material you gave did not prove any other relations to Latin.
You mentioned how `okul' corresponds to `school', and I can see that, as it relates to the Ancient Hebrew word for "scholar" QWLT* (Hebrew QHLT). Once we prove Ancient Hebrew w* > h Classical/Modern Hebrew, then I can show at least one more correspondence to Turkish, and I can show other correspondences.
But again I need to see other evidence of transposition (not the derivation of the word transposition).
The word `see' is interesting, I think this is going to lead to a further discovery.
I am trying to assist with the nature of proof. I believe what you should do is present a list of transpositions between two languages, Latin and Turkish, or Greek and Turkish, or Sanskrit and Turkish; only two languages to start with, and try to show transpositions. (A transposition is defined as a flipping of the letter which preserves the same order but in the opposite direction, such as AB > BA, or ABCD > DCBA; so for instance ABC > ACB is not a transposition, but ABC > CBA is a transposition).
To prove your theory you would have to prove that there are more than a few examples, because otherwise it may be said that there were only a few words borrowed, or that it is a chance resemblance.
So I take GÖL > Lac as possible evidence. If you show 3 or more additional transpositions between two languages, then that is strong evidence. Then you may have a proof of transposition as a process. I think this will be very important in the history of language if you can show this. The other examples you gave do not show transposition.
You may be able to prove anagrammatizing without transpositional evidence, but I do not know the statistical analysis that would be required for that.
Dave
--- In historical_linguistics_2@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:

 Hi David L.,
Turkish words GÖL or KÖL or KÜL meaning "LAKE" are dialects of the 

same 

language. That means that they are just versions of the same 

word. You 

know very well that the sound of letters "K" and "G" are readily 

changed 

into each other in dialects of the same language. The source of GÖL 

or 

KÖL or KÜL is the Turkish language which includes the Turkish 

dialects 

spoken in Turkey, Azerbaycan, Kazak, Uzbek, Uigur, Tatar, Türkmen, 

and 

others.
And Turkish words GÖL or KÖL or KÜL are not transpositions of the English word "LAKE" as you put it. On the contrary, it is the 

other way 

around. The Turkish word GÖL or KÖL or KÜL has been anagrammatized 

and 

disguised into English "LAKE" and French "LAC" and 

Italian "LAGO". 

You said:
"It may have originally been 'kol'."
What is your reasoning for saying so? This statement of yours is 

very 

loose and misleading. Using this kind of thinking, one could also 

say 

that "it may have originally been "GÖL" and he would not have been 

wrong 

for saying so. Please note that the vowel in GÖL or KÖL is not a straight "O" but rather an "Ö" which is a back vowel in Turkish. You said:
"This is the transposition of 'lake'. So are there other examples 

of 

this kind of transposition of basic vocabulary items? kol > lak ?
kl > lk?"
You are not expressing it correctly David. LAKE is an 

anagrammatized 

form of Turkish GÖL or KÖL. It was intentionally formulated in the 

form 

that it is in to make sure that there is no visual connection. 

That is 

why it does not look like these Turkish words. Below I will give 

you 

other examples which have no relation to "LAKE". European 

languages are 

artificially manufactured languages and they have used the 

monosyllabic 

Turkish language as their source. Turkish words and expressions describing concepts have been anagrammatized to come up with "inflectional words" that make up these languages.
Additionally, your KL or LK is not a word. It is just two 

consonants 

side-by-side from which many words can be generated by filling in 

the 

gaps with all kinds of vowels. These kinds of "linguistic" 

definitions 

(such as *LK, *KL, etc) are misleading and most likely designed to confuse people. It is an easy way of covering a lot of territory without technically being "wrong". It is just like putting a stake 

out 

in the wilderness with your name on it - saying that "this is my 

zone, 

don't trespass on it!". It is a very vague definition without boundaries which leads to dishonesty and confusion. That is why 

the "one 

language that the world spoke in ancient times" has been confused 

with 

so many gobbledegook definitions. So let us not turn the tables 

around 

by way of mis-definitions as has been done up to now.
Let me give you some other Turkish words that are K+L or L+K based examples but have no relation with each other nor with "lake".
KAL means "stay",
KALE means "castle"
KULE means "tower",
KUL means "servant", "prisoner",
KOL means "arm",
KÜL means "ashes",
OKUL means "school",
AKIL means "mind",
KIL means "hair",
GÜL means "rose", and "laugh",
GEL (KEL) means "come", and many more.
-LAK, -LUK, -LIK are Turkish suffixes meaning "with", as in 

ORMANLIK 

meaning "place with forest", DAGLIK meaning "place with 

mountains", 

"ÇIÇEKLIK" meaning "place with flowers" , etc.
As you can see, these words have no relation to "LAKE" or "LAC", 

but it 

can be misleadingly said that they are from "KL" or "LK" which has 

no 

validity at all.
Below I will give you another example for the sake of clarity. 1) The latin word LACUS is given with the meaning of: "1. 

lake; 2. 

water-trough; 3. any large tank", [Cassell's Compact Latin-

English, 

English - Latin dictionary, 1962, p. 141]. Let us now decipher 

this 

Latin word:
a) LACUS deciphered as "CUL-SA" from Turkish "KÖL SU" (GÖL SU) 

meaning 

"lake water" in which "GÖL has been "wrapped" with the additional Turkish word "SU" meaning "water" in order to disguise its source. 

This 

is unquestionably one way of defining the concept of "LAKE" in 

Turkish 

which satisfies the number 1 meaning of the word.
Please also note that the German word for "LAKE" is given 

as "SEE". 

 But even this word is an anagrammatized form of Turkish "SU" 

meaning 

"water". The same applies for English word "SEA" which is again 

from 

Turkish "SU" meaning "water". Even the Greek word "THALASSA" 

meaning 

"SEA" is from Turkish "DOLU-SU" or "DOLUCA-SU" meaning "plenty of 

water" 

- which a "SEA" is. In all of these examples of IE words, the Turkish words GÖL or KÖL 

or SU 

are embedded in them but they are very difficult to see because 

they are 

intentionally hidden (camouflaged) so that they are not visible. b) LACUS deciphered as "SU-ALC" or "S-ALUC", is the Turkish 

expression 

"SU OLUK" meaning "water-trough, water-pipe". Turkish "OLUK" is a "cavity, a channel, an eavestrough, a pipe, a river bed" that is 

used to 

carry water from one place to another. This is the definition of 

the 

second meaning attributed to this so-called "Latin" word.
c) LACUS deciphered as "SULAK" is from Turkish word "SULAK" 

which 

means "wet place, watery place" and "SULUK" which means "large container" (tank) where one keeps water in. It is a water 

reservoir, and 

similarly a GÖL is a water-reservoir . Additionally, "SULUK" means "place with water". A "lake" is such a place. Now it must be 

noted 

that we have these five Turkish words, namely SU, GÖL (KÖL), 

OLUK, 

SULAK and SULUK which are the names for different water related 

concepts 

in Turkish. On the other hand, the Latin LACUS is a word that has 

been 

composed and restructured from these different Turkish expressions. LACUS has been reformatted from these Turkish 

expressions 

into one composite word in the artificial language of "Latin" and 

in 

such a way that the original Turkish words that it was composed 

from are 

now camouflaged. So why do we have all these correspondences? Surely they are not 

due to 

coincidences. Surely the Turks of Central Asia did not go to the 

far 

away so-called "Latin" countries just to get words like LAKE or 

LACUS to 

generate these very old Turkish words by way of transposition.
You could say that the English "LAKE" and French "LAC" are from the Latin word "LACUS". Possibly, yes. But even under that 

circumstance, I 

just showed you that LACUS was usurped from the Turkish language a 

long 

time ago, most likely before English and French ever existed.
This should clear up any doubt you may have had about my well-

documented 

and illustrated theory that Indo-European languages are made up 

from the 

very ancient language of Turkish.
You used the term TRANSPOSITION in your above statement. Let me 

tell 

you how this word is made up.
When the word TRANSPOSITION is deciphered letter-by-letter as "OSTONTIN-ASIRP", I find the anagrammatized Turkish 

expression "ÜSTÜNDEN 

AS,IRIP" meaning "has passed from over the top of something", "has changed the position by going over". If we had a word in the form ABCD, one could transpose these 

letters, 

for example, as in BDCA in which A has jumped from the first 

position 

over the letters BCD, and D has jumped over C from the fourth 

position 

to become the second letter in the arrangement.
Turkish expression "ÜSTÜNDEN AS,IRIP" is exactly the same as TRANSPOSITION, except that in this anagrammatization from Turkish, 

the 

meaning of Turkish word AS,IRP has been given to the "TRANS" part 

of the 

newly structured English word. And in that form, TRANS is being 

used as 

a "prefix" in the European languages. Turkish AS,IRMAK means, "to pass over" (in addition to some other meanings). AS,IRIP, meaning "has passed over", is a conjugation 

form of 

this verb, and ÜSTÜNDEN means "from over the top of". ÜST 

means "the 

top, ÜN is the suffix meaning "of" and DEN is the suffix 

meaning "from". 

In the meantime, let me say that I appreciate your observation that Turkish word GÖL or KÖL and the English word "LAKE" have linguistic kinship. However, Turkish GÖL or KÖL are not transpositions of 

English 

LAKE as you said. Nor are they from KL or LK. I believe I had 

pointed 

this out in one of my earlier writings which is, at the very least, 

in 

my Polat Kaya Library.
Best wishes to you and all,
Polat Kaya
David L wrote:

The word for lake is 'gol' in Turkish, but it is 'kol' in Qazak, 

Uzbek, 

and Uyghur. It may have originally been 'kol'.
This is the transposition of 'lake'. So are there other examples 

of 

this kind of transposition of basic vocabulary items? kol > lak ?
kl > lk?
Dave