Part-1: Response to Aslam Rasoolpuri "Re: [hrl_2] gol kol lake"

Dear Aslam Rasoolpuri,


Thank you for your interest.  I am glad you are interested in my  explanation of the makeup of modern languages.  Sorry for taking so long to respond to you. 

I can understand your having some reservations about my bold and revealing explanations as what I say is new and against established thinking regarding the makeup of languages.  Some twenty years ago I would have also had reservations had I heard someone saying what I am saying now. But over time, our understanding evolves and we start to see things in new ways that our earlier preconditioning prevented us from seeing before.  

Starting with this posting, I will write and share with you a number of subjects that I hope will give more insight about the presence of Turkish peoples in different parts of the world.  Please read my previous writings as well.  


1.    TURKISH AS SOURCE FOR GREEK

I have found that words and names in Greek and also in Latin are very riddle-like in nature and have been made up from Turkish. My first encounter with one such name was when I was reading Homer's Iliad where one character namedTHERSITES was being described as an adverse person who brushed everyone the wrong way with his harsh tongue (including kings such as AGAMEMNON). He was being described in such a way that the Turkish expression "TERS IT" would perfectly describe his behaviour and character.  Evidently, Homer's THERSITES title for the adverse character of his epic story was a disguised form of the Turkish expression "TERS IT" literally meaning "ill-tempered 'dog'" or  "mad 'dog'" but figuratively referring to someone that behaves like a mad dog barking at everybody he meets.   Turkish TERS means "terse" and IT means "dog".  This is exactly the way that THERSITES character was behaving in the story.

Iliad's  THERSITES was an Achaen commoner who railed aginst the kings and he was put down by Odysseus.  More can be found about him on the internet.   For example, see url  http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Thersites.html where it says:
 

"Thersites in GROUPS

This is the man universally known and remembered for carrying an ugly soul inside an ugly body. Thersites conspired against Oeneus 2, taking the kingdom of Calydon from him and giving it to his father. However, he had later to escape from Diomedes 2's revenge, and came to Peloponnesus. Thersites was of measureless speech and lame in one foot. And having laughed atAchilles' love for Penthesilia after her death, he brought Achilles' wrath upon himself, and was killed by him."
 

And even the name ACHILLEUS (AKHILLEUS) in Iliad, in one meaning, represented the Turkish expression "AKILLI AUS" (AKILLI AGUZ, AKILLI SÖZ, AKILLI US) meaning "wise mouth, wise speech, wise wisdom, wise knowledge". Wisdom and knowledge are always superior over ignorance and empty talk. Turkish AKIL means "mind, wisdom", AKILLI means "with wisdom", US means "wisdom" and/or "knowledge", AGUZ means "mouth, language, speech", SÖZ means "word, speech, what is said".  ACHILLEUS (AKHILLEUS) in Iliad also represents "WAR" (i.e., fighting).  The Trojan wars end when ACHILLEUS is killed by PARIS.

The time frame of the epic story Iliad was about 800 BC,  yet the TrojanWars had taken place around 1300 BC.  Thus these Turkish words were appearing in a language being spoken around 1300 BC, that is, the second millennium B. C.  

The name AGAMEMNON, who was the leader of the Greek expedition forces  in the Trojan war, is not a Greek name.  First of all, the name AGA is a pure Turkish word meaning "Lord" - which he was.  Additionally,  the name AGAMEMNON, rearranged in the form of "MEN-AGANOM", is the disguised Turkish expression "MEN AGANUM" meaning "I am your Lord". With this Turkish expression, two personalities are meant: a) it refers to the Sky-God who is the LORD to all believers, and all believers refer to him as "My Lord", "My God"; b)  it refers to AGAMEMNON who was the lord of the Greek forces. In that position, the Turkish name identifies him as "I am your lord". 

Another  important name of the Trojan wars was PARIS who is a timid and fragile personality in the epic story. The namePARIS is a distortion of the Turkish name "BARIŞ" meaning "peace".  Hence PARIS was a personification of the "peace" in the story. He was the first one wanting to terminate the Trojan war before any fighting started, by offering a peaceful solution to the war.  He offered to have a one-on-one fight with MENELAUS (the husband of HELEN) where the winner takes Helen and the rest. This was a "peaceful" solution to the war but fighting took place anyways despite his peaceful proposal. However, the Trojan wars ended when PARIS killed the "Greek" war hero ACHILLEUS.  Again we see that PARIS represents the Turkish name "BARIŞ" (peace).  "Peace" comes when "war" ends. Thus we see that the plot of Iliad was composed in Turkish words.

HELEN, the bride of Menelaus and the most beautiful girl in the world, had accepted to elope with PARIS.  This caused the ten-year long Trojan war.  But the name HELEN is nothing but the altered Turkish word "GELEN" (GELIN) meaning"bride"  - and brides are the most beautifuls girls of the world.  

So here I was finding Turkish words (in some distorted forms) as names of main characters in a supposedly "Greek" epic story which took place some 3500 years ago - supposedly long before the emergence of Turks in history - according to historians.  Evidently some people have been lying about the existence of Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples in history and the Turkish language. Lies and mythologies have been written as history and the people of the world have been conned like children. Otherwise all of these correspondences could not be due to coincidence. 

G. S. KIRK, an Emeritus Professor of Greek at Cambridge, in his book entitled, "The Nature of GREEK MYTHS", [Penguin Books, 1990, p. 95-96], writes the following: 

"The Greek literature is dominated by Homer, a crucial if ambiguous figure in transmission of the myths.  He stands at the beginning of western literary history (apart from the fragments from Mesopotamia and Egypt), and as a person we know very little about him;  but then neither did the classical Greeks themselves .  He lived across the Aegean, somewhere in IONIA, in one of the Greek colonies on the seaboard what is now western Turkey, probably during the middle and later part of the eight century B.C. He was the man primarily responsible for the Iliad, a poem in over sixteen thousand hexameter verses abouth the wrath of Achilles and the fighting before Troy in the tenth year of the Trojan War. . . ."

Of course, the name HOMER is essentially nothing but the Turkish name OMER (OMAR) and hence, is not Greek at all and neither is it "western".  The very fact that "Ionia" (on the western coast of Turkey) was a Greek colony, means that that part of the geography was not Greek at all, that is, Greeks were there as occupiers and economic exploiters.  The name IONIA,rearranged as "I-ON-IA", is the Turkish expression "AY HAN ÖYÜ" meaning "Home of AY-HAN".  AY HAN means "Moon Lord". Moon was one of the ancient sky deities that ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples worshipped.  AYHAN is also a very widely used Turkish name for men, but can also be used by women.  AYHANS (IONS) were the native Pelasgians by their own admission and were not Greek - contrary to the continuous disinformation claiming that they were Greeks.  

Homer called TROY and its environment, that is, so-called "Greek" IONIA, as ILIUM which in the form of "ILIM-U", is the altered version of the Turkish expression "ILIM U" (ILIM O) meaning "it is my country". This also verifies the fact that the area known as IONIA, to which Prof. G. S. Kirk refers to as "what is now western Turkey", was in fact inhabited by the "Turkish speaking "TUR" peoples as the name TROY clearly demonstrates.  Contrary to all disinformation,  this part  of "Turkey" even during those ancient times was the land of Turkish speaking Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. The name TROY is nothing but the Turkish name "TUR ÖY" meaning "Home of TUR" peoples.  Thus the Turkic history of  ancient Anatolia has been intentionally obliterated by Greeks and the lovers of Greeks by way of altering and Hellenizing the Turkish names, words and expressions at that time.  Hence we are face to face with intentional "history alterations" used against the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.  In other words, this is obliteration of the Turks from that era of history and that area of world geography.  It is stealing Turkish history and claiming it all as Greek and western.


Prof. G. S. KIRK  also wrote:

"Homer came near the end of a long oral tradition.  He made something spectacularly new out of the poetry assimilated from his predecessors, yet the fact remains that much of his material, including much of its mythical content, goes back long before the eighth century B. C. , some of it to close to the time of the Trojan War itself, and odd details to long before that.  The war seems to have taken place in the middle or later part of the thirteenth century, and was one of the last great ventures of the Achaean Greeks - those that lived in the Late Bronze Age palaces and fortresses of Mycenae, Triyns, Lacedaemon, Pylos, Corinth, Thebes, Orchomenus, Athens, Calydon,  Iolcus.  Much of the content of the Iliad and Odyssey is a political and imaginative development of those times.  Whether Agamemnon and Menelaus, Achilles, Diomedes and Odysseus, Paris, Andromache and Hector were in origin actual people is infinitely debatable. . . . "


This reference tells us that all of those so-called "Greek" mythological names and mythologies were not Greek at all. They belonged to the native peoples - who were not Greek.  These mythological names were Turkish expressions defining and personifying certain important concepts affecting the people of the times which were then altered and presented as Greek names of personalities in the epic story. What I am saying is that the origin of Iliad and Odysseus as being Greek is very much in doubt as Prof. G. S. Kirk also points out. I do not hesitate to declare that it was Turkish in origin.  Actually, the "Greek" mythological writings are a way of covering up what was taken from the native Turanian peoples.   The real stealing, most likely, was completed in the library of Alexandria, after the invasion of Anatolia, Iran and Egypt (Masar/Misir)  by Alexander the Great.  Afterwards, the Library of Alexanderia was intentionally burned down by some priest(s), most likely to remove all of the written evidence of the ancient Turanian civilization.  After that everything was conveniently declared as Greek and Semitic.  


I will give you another example. There is the so-called "Greek" mythological name ARISTAEUS who is described as the legendary "introducer of bee-keeping", that is, someone who was the master-beekeeper, [Cassel's Compact Latin-English Dictionary, 1962, p. 22].  An internet site at url http://www.theoi.com/Georgikos/Aristaios.html  also describes him as:

"ARISTAIOS (or Aristaeus) was the rustic god of shepherds and cheese-making, bee-keeping, honey, honey-mead, olive growing, medicinal herbs and the Etesian winds which eased the scorching heat of midsummer. His name was derived from the Greek word aristos, "most excellent" or "most useful."

"ARISTAEUS (Aristaios), an ancient divinity worshipped in various parts of Greece, as in Thessaly, Ceos, and Boeotia, but especially in the islands of the Aegean, Ionian, and Adriatic seas, which had once been inhabited by Pelasgians." 

With these definitions, of course the name ARISTAEUS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "ARI-USTASE", was the Turkish expression "ARI USTASI" meaning "master bee-keeper".  Evidently, his name was not derived from the Greek word "ARISTO" as we are told but rather was derived from the Turkish defining expression "ARI-USTASI".  Turkish ARImeans "bee", USTA means "master", USTASI means "the master". Evidently, the so-called Greek word "aristos" was just a coverup for a big deception. 

The PELASGIANS were the native Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples of ancient "Greece", Balkans, the Mediterranean sea shores and Anatolia.  They were SAKA Turks.  Even Trojans were SAKA people.  The so-called "SKAEN GATE" in ancient Troy carries the Turkish name SAKA.  The so-called Minoans and the Lemnos Island peoples were SAKA Turks contrary to all the historical and mythological disinformation.  Please read my reading of the ancient inscription written on a stelae (grave stone) found on Lemnos Island, http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/lemstelea.html .

Even the Greek word ARISTOS (or ARISTON) meaning "best, excellent" [Divry's Mdern English-Greek Greek-English desk Dictionary, 1988, p. 438] was not Greek at all, but rather was a word that was made up from Turkish expressions: 

ARISTOS rearranged as "OST-AR-IS", is a Hellenized form of Turkish "ÜST ER" meaning "top man" (best man)  or"ÜST ERIZ" meaning "we are the top men".

Additionally, the name ARISTON rearranged as "AN-OST-IR", is a Hellenized form of Turkish "EN ÜST ER" meaning "the very top man" (the very best man, the master man, the most knowledgable man".  Alternatively, "AN OST IR" also refers to the "Sky Top Man" , that is, "God" who is regarded as"The Most-Top Man of the Heavens".  This we see even much more clearly when we rearrange the Greek word ARISTON as "TANRI-OS" which is the Turkish expression "TANRI OUS" (TANRI OGUZ) meaning "God Oguz".  So we see that all of these are Turkish in origin and we have all been mislead in knowledge regarding the ancient past.

Turkish AN means "sky", ÜST means "top", EN ÜST means "the very top" (the highest, the best, most excellent), ER means "man".  

Dear Aslam, this will demonstrate to you and to all my readers that the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and their Turkish language were present in what is presently called "Greece" much earlier than the so-called "Aryan" Greeks arrived there.  Of course, the Tur/Turk/Ogus peoples were present in ancient "Greece" and Anatolia while those newcomer Greeks were busy generating mythologies for themselves from ancient Turanian civilization. The ancient Greeks were wanderer peoples, just like the wanderers of Babylon, who first came in as guests of the native Turanan peoples of the area, and later they turned out to be the invaders and occupiers of the native host peoples.   They did not stop at occupying the lands of their hosts, but they stole everyting from the civilization of the host peoples. They stole the Turkish language and also the Turkish peoples by changing the names. And the monosyllabic Turkish language was the source language to Greek, and its restructured words and expressions are still dormantly embedded in the words of the Greek language.

I will post additional information as Part-2, Part-3, etc. in the coming days. 


Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

Will continue in Part-2

13/03/2008




Aslam Rasoolpuri wrote:
 

Dear Mr Polat Kaya

 

 

 I am interested in your laguage's theory but i have some reservations about it as i have said in my last mail .I wish to know how you say that indo-european languages are made up from  the very ancient Turkish language.If you have sometime 'kindly give me some examples 'and when this indo european family of languages was reached in present position

                                              Yours--------Aslam Rasoolpuri (Pakistan)

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 AŞIRIP" 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 AŞIRIP" is exactly the same as TRANSPOSITION, except that in this anagrammatization from Turkish, the meaning of Turkish word AŞIRP 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 AŞIRMAK means, "to pass over" (in addition to some other meanings). AŞIRIP, 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?