Sayin Turhan Tisinli bey,
My response is in purple, below yours (in black).
SayÄ±n Polat Kaya bey
"I will tell you: because they did not have a language of their own to start with. They were all speaking the very ancient language of Turkish. When they wanted to separate themselves from Turkish,..."
This situation, that is, having no langauge of one's own, is very common if not universal among humans... When I was born I did not have a language of my own either. I had to learn the TÃ¼rkmenEli Turkmen dialect of my parents, relatives and the people around us....:) I was able to achieve this feat, because, thank heavens, unlike our kitten, I was endowed with "Language Faculty", just like other normal humans...
Polat Kaya: Your analogy is irrelevant. We are not talking about new born babies. Of course, all babies learn their language from their parents first - but we are not talking about new-born babies or language faculties. We are talking about how words of some languages were made up from another language - did you not understand what I wrote? And by the way, humans are not the only ones who have a "Language Faculty" of their own. So do 'kittens" in their own way.
Before attempting to have a linguistics theory of one's own, one must have some knowledge about related things, such as the language faculty humans are endowed with.
Polat Kaya: Again we are not talking about "language faculty", we are talking about "manufacturing words for one language" from the words and phrases of another language. Babies don't manufacture words - adults do. So your analogy is off-topic and a distraction. Please do not confuse apples with oranges. Attempting to take the discussion to an irrelevant area will not work with me. By the way, recently, I posted a paper in Turkish responding to Kamil Kartal's article entitled "Bilmek". In that article I presented a lengthy essay about the "human head". When you have time, please do read that.
Having language faculty implies that if some 100 babies were separated from the population and raised in a natural but speechless environment, they would eventually create a language of their own as they grow up.
Polat Kaya: Again we are not talking about 100 babies being separated from their parents and then seeing what might happen to them in an isolated and hypothetical environment. We are talking about grownup people that take words and phrases from the Turkish language, convert them into different formats and then call them IE words. In other words, stealing from the Turkish language.
And for the record, those 100 babies of your analogy may develop a language of their own in isolation, but as soon as they are in contact with a dominating language in the outside world, they will eventually lose that language - because they are now immersed in a much larger pool of people with their own aspirations.
There is no doubt that this new language would be primitive in the beginning, but given some thousands of years of evolution, it would be no less sophisticated than other languages of the world. This has actually happened once when scores of deaf children were left alone, and they created a sign language, and yes, of their own...
Polat Kaya: All species have a way of communicating with each other. It is likely that humans also had the same common communicating instinct among themselves at the beginning. It is also likely that this initial instinct turned into a dominating language for all, ruling over any local variations.
And for your information, "Sign language" is not a "word language" where distinct sounds are identified and vocalized with meanings attached to them. Also they are spoken by the "mouth" rather than by "hand" movements. Finally, I must remind you again that I was not talking about sign language! I was talking about words of certain languages having been made up from words and phrases of Turkish. Why are you ignoring my examples?
This "language faculty" is hard wired by evolution into the human brain. Whether it is part of the general perception faculty of the human brain or separate from it is immaterial for our purposes. The conclusion is: No human population that has no language is possible, and if , for the sake of argument, there were such a population today, individuals of this population would not be able to learn any language, leave alone becoming a priest, and a linguist on top that!
Polat Kaya: So they say. Similarly, the desire of men to dominate other men and species also seems to be hard wired into the human brain. So, in time one such motivated group of men could overcome the speech of all others and create a world-wide condition where they all talk one language, even though they may not all be the same people.
Presently there are many languages people talk, however, it was not necessarily the same in ancient times. For example read the following from GENESIS 11:
Genesis:11:1 says: 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
Genesis 11:6 and 7 says: 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
Those who confused that one language which the whole world spoke did not confuse their own language that they may have spoken. They confused the "one language that was spoken world-wide". Evidently those who confused that one-language also knew how to speak that one language, although they were not necessarily Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. In other words, Turanians did not confuse their own language. That would be illogical and stupid for them. The confusers were from different groups - i.e., non-Turanians. They did not have to be all Turks even though they spoke some form of Turkish. Presently millions of people speak English, but they are not all English.
By the way, the word GENESIS meaning "creation" has embedded in it the Turkish word "GÜNEŞ" meaning "sun and its light and heat" which is the source of "creation on earth", "GONUŞ" meaning "speak" which is the creation of words and language in the "mouth" (AGUZ), and "GANIŞ" meaning "understanding" which is the source of knowledge in the "human brain". So, I say, even the word GENESIS is made-up from Turkish. Think about it very carefully.
It would be meaningless to say that "these linguist-priests did not have a language of their own but spoke Turkish", because given the constraints mentioned above, the only way this staement can make any sense, if at all, it must mean that they were nothing but Turks themselves just like you and I...
Polat Kaya: When one discovers (as I have) that many words of their present day languages (e.g., Greek, Latin, English, etc.) are made up from Turkish, then it makes a lot of sense.
Additionally, it does not mean what you say. It means that they were non-Turks (non-Turanians) and were groups using "priesthood" notions to reach the top levels of the community in which they were living. In that activity, they used a lot of meaningless babble talk that the general public did not understand. Hence, coming up with a secretive language that was different from the language spoken by the common people and spoken only by the priesthood was to their advantage.
They wanted to control the people, the state and the wealth of the state with a language that was very different from the one that the world spoke. That way their secretive con job could be carried out easier. Additionally, a language that only the groups of priesthood knew makes the priesthood a special group in the eyes of the community - meaning that they and their helpers become specially treated.
When the opportunities came to open up new horizons for themselves by spreading new cultic "religions", they used that specially formulated language to spread it. At the same time it was vital to expand the vocabulary of that manufactured language by creating new words from the widely spoken language of Turkish. They imposed on people their views with the artificial language that they created. This way they stole the people from their original identity by altering their language, their names and their religion. After all, this is exactly what happens when missionaries convert people to their religion. Suddenly the names of those Turks who were converted become "Michael" or "David" or "Paul" or "George" etc. In a short time, the converted people will not even recognize their own brothers - who were not converted. And suddenly the people who generated the new religion have amassed an army of converts - and become a "nation". Of course, it must be understood that none of this has anything to do with God or religion!
The religious groups have always dominated and thus managed and manipulated the public. With their artificially manufactured languages, wherever they go, they extinguish the native language.
Even the modern world is this way. They wanted to create their own domination of the world, but with a language that was different from the older and world-wide spoken language of Turkish.
Furthermore, I did not say that they did not know how to speak a language. Please don't attribute such words to me. Of course they knew how to speak a language. In fact they were experts at it and they even knew how to manipulate it for their own advantage. Even if they had a specific language of their own, it was overshadowed by the Turkish language that was spoken world-wide.
When the world speaks an organized language for general communication, it does not mean that they were all the same people and coming from the same family tree. As I said above, Presently millions of people speak English, but they are not all English.
If they were Turks, why steal from their own language, create new words and sell back to themselves?!
Polat Kaya: Now you are using even more sophistry. I never said that Turks stole from their own language and created new words which were then sold back to Turks. Those who stole the Turkish language were Turkish speakers - but they were not Turks. Whenever they decided to not speak Turkish anymore, they could very easily steal from Turkish to manufacture a new language - or enrich whatever they had as their own. It must be understood that manufacturing a new language from an existing model language - such as Turkish - is far easier than creating a language from scratch. Furthermore, having your own language is power. Those who want to obtain that power can use all kinds of politics to reach that goal. When they anagrammatize Turkish words and phrases to come up with words for a language for themselves, no one will know what is happening. It all happens behind closed doors. Also stealing words is not like stealing a physical object. When a physical object is stolen, its absence is quickly detected but when a word is stolen, no one will notice.
It does not make any sense at all. Why should a Turk create new languages based on his own and why hide this fact by making it without rules that can be found by any one?
Polat Kaya: Evidently you have fallen into a trap of your own creation and hence, you yourself do not make any sense at all. You are attributing your wrong assumptions on to me - either innocently or intentionally. Please read my above paragraph once more.
People can change the appearance of words in their languages to fit their needs without being accused of steeling or usurping.
Polat Kaya: Yes words can be altered to fit the language being spoken - but if they use the words and phrases of one language to create words for something else - without identifying the source, then that is stealing. Not only that, it is also detrimental for the survivability of the original language. Particularly, when they impose the newly created language on the native people (such as the newly manufactured "Latin" being imposed on the ancient native Turanians of ancient Italy and Europe), then, they have not only stolen from the original language, but they have also stolen the people and their civilization. Once Turkish was a world language but it is not anymore. For example, breaking away the Eastern Anatolian Turks from Turks and calling them Kurts (name "Kurt" is from name "Turk") with a manufactured language attributed to them - is a good example of what happens. You think about it carefully and you will see!
When someone takes the Turkish expression, say, "KIRKIN ON KATI" or "ONUN KIRK KATI" meaning "four hundred" and changes it into QUADRINGENTI, then, that is stealing. Why are you closing your eyes to these correspondences that I have been pointing out?
If they where Turks, spoke Turkish, and supposedly used a set of Turkish words to generate other sets of words (and I presume sets of grammatical rules to go with them),
Polat Kaya: First of all, these are your own false assumptions that you are trying to attribute to me. Secondly, the generated words are not in accordance with the rules of the Turkish language. They are totally different looking formats that are designed to appear different from Turkish. When Turks say "ONUN KIRK KATI" (which is another way of saying "four hundred", that is, DÖRT YÜZ in Turkish), it is Turkish. But, when you alter this saying and come up with a word like QUADRINGENTI - meaning "Four-Hundred", then that is not Turkish at all - even though it is made up from Turkish. Thus the word QUADRINGENTI linguistically is a stolen merchandise. It is similar to when someone takes a paragraph of your essay and rearranges it into a different looking paragraph that essentially says the same thing as your original paragraph, and then passes it off as his or her own creation. This is called "plagiarism" which is another way of saying "stealing knowledge". In other words - stealing. That is where the stealing (usurping) comes from. You can figure that out for yourself if you try to understand what is going on.
Even the so-called IE word PLAGIARISM is plagiarized from the Turkish words BIL meaning "knowledge", OGRU (OGRULAMAK) meaning "stealing" and ISMI meaning "its name". All three Turkish words are embedded in the word PLAGIARISM.
then where does this idea of stealing, being wicked and conniving come from? Do you know anyone who steals from him/her own self?!
Polat Kaya: You will find plenty of people who steal from themselves (i.e., their own companies) in the present day commercial world if you look closely. But it is still an irrelevant question with deliberate sophistry. It is a distraction on your part. From all the explanations that I have given, you can see very clearly where the "stealing and the being wicked and conniving" come from.
"You cannot expect me to give generous credit to those who intentionally usurped from the
Turkish language - and after restructuring it, sold it back to the Turks"
I did not ask you to give credit to those linguist-priests for stealing and selling back (your newest revelations imply that there is no would-be stealing involved, see above arguments). The credit was for "being non-Turk, having created no language due to lack of language faculty (now you say they did speak Turkish) and yet miraculously being smart enough to create not only new everyday languages but also technical and cultural concepts and their corresponding terms Turkish lacked and was obliged to borrow later on.
Polat Kaya: No this is not what you said. The following is what you said and I responded to it: "Will you at least give those non-Turk linguist-priests generous credit for inventing the "concept" of "worldâ€�consuming holocaust", let alone concocting the term "apocalypse" to name it. I said non-Turk linguist-priests, because if they had been Turks they would have created one (both the concept and it name) for Turkish too:"
which is very different from what you said above. Why are you changing your position now? Additionally, they are your arguments not mine. Do not try to deceive me by turning the tables around. You give the impression that you are intentionally twisting them to make an argument. Do not rearrange words to try and attribute things to me that I did not say. Read my above responses and original writings.
If the term "sublimation" was created by these "thieves", where is the Turkish term for sublimation that the Turkish linguist-priests were supposed to have created? (If there was one, what would "sublimasyon" be doing in Turkish dictionaries?) (ironically, water ice does not sublimate, it melts and becomes water before evaporating)
Polat Kaya: Excuse me but were you awake when you were reading my postings? You seem to conveniently ignore what I am saying. I gave you the Turkish expression "SU OLMADAN BUZ OLMA" that was used to make up the IE word "sublimation". The definition of the word, my analysis of it and other related information were all in my writing which you should have been able to see readily if you had read it carefully. If Turkish dictionaries have the term "sublimasyon" in them, it is because they don't know what they are doing - and they don't know how the IE words are made up. I am trying to bring clarity to what has taken place regarding the structural make up of so many words, yet you don't even want to consider it.
You claim that "kiyamet" is a Turkish word. But neither "kiy-im" leads to "kiyamet" according rules of word derivation in Turkish, nor "mass killing" has anything to do with "resurrection" = "rising from the dead", which Arabic qiya:me(t) means. And why "kiyamet" is supposed to have been derived from "kiyim" through regular derivation and not anagrammatized (as usual) from some Turkish phrase?
Polat Kaya: There is no regular derivation in anagrammatizing. When it comes to anagrammatization of words and phrases into new formats, the rule is "no rule". So when you use the Turkish "KIYIM ET" meaning "cut them all up" or "mince them", it readily becomes "KIYAMET" supposedly meaning "end of the world". When people are killed, that is the end of the world, i.e., "kiyamet" for them and also for their families, that is, if any is left behind. So what is your problem? Thinking that there is some "regular word derivation" is an illusion on your part.
Neither apocalypse nor qiya:me(t) has anything to do with "holocaust" if defined as "humans committing mass killing" which you discuss in detail, but they are related to "end of life on earth as we know it", followed by resurrection by a divine decree. Whether "kiyamet" is a myth or not, it is a part of an elaborate belief system which was utilized to conquer either physically or ideologically or both, vast expanses of the world, subjugating and altering inhabitants minds and that of their offspring's for endless generations, to render them harmless or even totally assimilate them.
Polat Kaya: Apocalypse and qiyamet have a lot to do with holocaust. Death is final. Death is death and it does not make any difference by whatever means it is done. Death extinguishes the life. Mass killing is a "kiyamet" or a "holocaust" or "genocide" or "tyrannicida" or whatever you like to call it, for those who were killed. When you say that this is "followed by resurrection by a divine decree", that is baseless gobbledegook. No one came back from the other side to tell us that! You yourself explained above that it was a good con job. Language is a very powerful tool by means of which people are manipulated to believe any invented "religious faith".
Today Turks, Persians, etc. are happy they were Islamized and others are happy they were Christianized, Jews are happy for being Judaized ... Once one is in one of these sides, there is no changing, otherwise one goes to Cehennem (Hell): Another concept and another name in the war of ideas ... The rest: not lying, not killing, helping each other, being compassionate... are "distilled" human experiences over thousands and thousands of years, and can be found in world "tÃ¶re"s.
Polat Kaya: Believing something and being happy with it does not necessarily mean that what one believes is nothing but the truth. The Sun and the Moon deities with an all creating Father Sky-God concept of the ancient Turanians was the most believable for a religion. At least the Sun and the Moon were visible to all peoples at all times and Sun was the source of life, light and heat. To this the ancestors of Turks believed as their God for thousands of years. But Judeo-Christianity killed that ancient religious concept and replaced it with a cultic faith supported with new verbology. The tenets of these new "religions" were taken from that ancient Sun-worshipping Turanian religion but they never explained truthfully what the new deities were. It was all mystified and wrapped in secrecy. Yet they took every aspect of that ancient Turanian religion and gave it to the one that they made up and called their own. For example, the name TORAH is nothing but the Turkish word "TÖRE" (TORA) meaning "law", "tradition" and " order".
To finish, I want to say that it is not important whether you believe the validity of what I am saying or not. Time itself will show that I am correct. However, what is important is that my writings should not be distorted from their original form and context. It is up to you to read my writings, understand them and make up your own mind. Don't forget that I am not selling a "religion" here - which is what priest missionaries do. I am pointing out a fact of linguistics.
Iyilikler dilegi ile,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Polat Kaya" <tntr@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: "APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY", "ALLEGORIKOS" and "ALLEGORIKON"
Sayin Turhan Tisinli bey,
Greetings. Thank you for your response to my posting entitled, "Words
under the lens: "APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY", "ALLEGORIKOS"
SayÄ±n Polat Kaya bey
Will you at least give those non-Turk linguist-priests generous credit for inventing the "concept" of "worldâ€�consuming holocaust", let alone concocting the term "apocalypse" to name it. I said non-Turk linguist-priests, because if they had been Turks they would have created one (both the concept and it name) for Turkish too: To the best of my knowledge, the concept of apocalypse and its name, "kiyamet", in Turkish are "loan"s from Arabic, even if you claim that Arabic was manufactured from Turkish, which you do. This is because Turkish does not produce new words by anagrammatizing, therefore, for example "allegory" or "kiyamet" cannot be considered Turkish words.
I am afraid I don't see things the same way you do. You cannot expect me
to give generous credit to those who intentionally usurped from the
Turkish language - and after restructuring it, sold it back to the Turks
and the world as their own language without ever remembering the name
Turkish. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose someone stole your car
and after re-painting it and altering some visible aspects etc., made it
unrecognizable to you. After this fantastic embellishment, he took it
to the market and somehow sold it to you as his car. You as the original
owner did not recognize it as your own car nor did you suspect it was
your car. However, after a while, you somehow discovered that it was
indeed your car. Now, in view of this discovery, would you be praising
and giving "generous credit" to the seller for doing such a good job of
stealing your car and reconditioning it so well that you did not even
recognize your own car while it was being sold back to you? I think
not. Additionally, I must note that the usurper had neither invented
nor built this stolen and embellished car. Everybody must understand
that the repainting and embellishment of a stolen car is much easier to
do than building that car from scratch.
Manufacturing words that are the restructured and altered forms of
Turkish words and phrases is very much the same thing. After discovering
this fact, you cannot expect me to be googly-eyed about IE words like
"apocalypse" or "apocalyptic" just because Turkish does not have such
words. I would also think that you would not be so generous in giving
credit to those who not only usurped from the Turkish language for their
own benefit but also confused the one language that the world spoke - so
that the speakers of that language would not understand each other.
After having said this, I must also point out that from the point of
view of their own benefits, they have done a fantastic job in
manufacturing so many similar but yet different languages from Turkish.
By doing that, they furthered their own cause and survivability at the
expense of the Turanians. I have recognized their illegal achievements
and mentioned in a number of my previous papers but in spite of my
recognition, the result is unchanged. That is to say, historically, the
Turkish language was usurped and together with it, the ancient Turanian
religion, civilization and even the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples were
taken over by deception.
In this process, if anyone should be given "generous credit", it should
be the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples who developed a peerless
language with mathematical precision - called "Turkish" (TÃ¼rkÃ§e) more
than ten thousand years ago - and that language has been the world
language for a long time before new "languages" were generated from it.
In that process, the monosyllabic resources of Turkish were used as
"source material" for all IE and Semitic languages and others.
You say that it was those non-Turk linguist-priests who invented the
"concept" of "worldâ€�consuming holocaust", and the term "apocalypse" for
which they should be given generous credit". To this I say, I wish they
had neither "killed" so many human beings, nor had they "invented" the
so-called concept of "holocaust" and the word for it. It can also be
said that the term "holocaust" is a recent one. Most likely, it was
neither new nor was the concept "invented" for the first time.
The term "holocaust" essentially describes an event of "mass-killing" of
people. In "Latin", there are also some words like this. For example,
there is the word "TYRANNICIDA" supposedly meaning to " kill a tyrant"
- but in actuality this is a bogus definition in order to cover up the
mass-killings of the native Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples of "Europe"
and elsewhere - that took place during the spread of Christianity in
Europe and elsewhere.
When the word "TYRANNICIDA" is rearranged in the form of "TYRANNI-CIDA",
we find the Turkish expression "TURANNI KIYDI" (TURANLI KIYDI, TURANLIA
KIYDI) meaning "mass killed the Turanians". The Turkish word "KIYIM"
means "cutting or chopping into small pieces" - as in the case of
"chopped meat", that is, Turkish "KIYMA". "KIYIM" also refers to the
"mass-killing" of people. A similar word is Turkish "KIRIM" which also
describes "mass-killing" - and the word TURANNI (TURANLI) meaning
"people from Turan". Thus, the source of this so-called "Latin" word
was from Turkish. Evidently, "TYRANNICIDA was 'invented' by some
"linguist-wordlifters" - to describe in a secretive way what happened to
the ancient Turanians of Europe.
Let me also point out that there is the Latin word TYRANNIS meaning
"tyranny" which is very much the Turkish word "TURANNI" meaning "he who
is from Turan". Etruscans in ancient "Italia" were also called
"TYRRHENI", [Cassell's Compact Dictionary, p. 259], indicating that they
were Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. It is curious that they do not
exist anymore in European geography. Etruscans were both assimilated
and annihilated - and their civilization was usurped (transferred) to
Furthermore, during the spread of Christianity in Europe, it is known
that millions of men and women were burned to death in Europe by the
guidance of the Church leaders under the pretext that they were
practicing "witchcraft". Most likely, they were the native peoples of
Europe, that is, people who were ancient Turanians practicing their very
ancient Sun, Moon and Sky-God (TANRI) believing religion. Those who
were being burned to death were not the Christianity believing men or
This word "TYRANNICIDA" is like the following words:
a) GENOCIDE meaning "mass killing". When GENOCIDE is rearranged in
the form of "GENE-CIDO", we find the Turkish expression "CANA KIYDU"
(CANA KIYDI) meaning "killed men women, killed living beings".
b) SUICIDE, meaning "killing oneself". When SUICIDE is rearranged in
the form of "USE-CIDI", we find the Turkish expression "Ã–ZE KIYDI"
(KENDINE KIYDI, CANINA KIYDI) meaning "killed himself/herself". In
"Latin", the letter "C" is voiced as "K".
Other examples can be given. So you can see that all of these
"sophisticated" words are all made up from Turkish expressions that were
taken without permission.
That Latin word "TYRANNICIDA" was a word coined to secretly express the
destruction of the Turanians - but with a deceptive meaning assigned to
it - i.e., supposedly meaning to kill a tyrant.
Now let us turn back to the term HOLOCAUST. I will show you that it is
not an IE invention but rather the alteration and restructuring of an
Let us rearrange the term HOLOCAUST letter by letter as "OLO-CASTH-U",
where the letter "C" is the disguised letter "K", and the voiceless
letter "H" is not only an "H" but is also a disguised Greek "I". When
we replace these letters in the word, we end up with the deciphered
expression of "OLO-KASTI-U". You, yourself being one who knows
Turkish, will recognize that this expression is a distorted form of the
Turkish expression "ULU KESTI O" meaning "it is the great cutting" , "it
is the great slaughter", "it is the great massacre". So this word
HOLOCAUST is also sourced from a Turkish expression.
Now let us turn to your example of the "Arabic" word KIYAMET used in
Turkish because supposedly Turkish did not have such a word and had to
import one from "Arabic".
The term KIYAMET means "1. Resurrection of the dead; last judgment;
doomsday. 2. Great disaster, tumult, disturbance," [Redhouse
Turkish-English Dictionary, p. 660].
First of all, none of these concepts belong to "Arabic". They are all
from the ancient "Masarian" (falsely so called "Egyptian") religion.
The ancient Masarians were neither Arab, nor Semitic nor Gypsy nor
Indo-European. They were ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and the
civilization that they created around the river Nile was a Turanian
civilization. I hope you read my last two revealing Masarian papers
Furthermore, the word KIYAMET has the Turkish word KIYIM (mass killing),
KIYMA (killing, chopping, mince making), TAM KIYI (complete killing)
and KIYIM ET or KIYIM ETME (doing mass killing) expressions in it.
This is not a coincidence. It looks like someone used the Turkish
language as a source to come up with the word KIYAMET. Incidentally, the
so-called "doomsday" or "kiyamet" takes place for any person when he/she
dies - whether peacefully or by violence. For the dead person, death is
his or her doomsday. Any attempt to theorize a future "doomsday" for
all humanity is nothing more than "witchcraft".
When you say that
"for example "allegory" or "kiyamet" cannot be considered Turkish words."
I say "yes", because that is stating the obvious. But I did not say
that "allegory" or "kiyamet" was Turkish. I said "allegory" and its
supposedly mother source, that is, the Greek "allegorikos" or
"allegorikon" were made up from a Turkish source. This makes the
Turkish language as the "model" and the "source" language and puts it
ahead of the other newly generated ones. So let us not distort and/or
confuse my words.
I can also turn your concerns about Turkish around by saying: if
Turkish was such a "primitive" language, and those who "invented" the
words "apocalypse", "apocalyptic", "holocaust", "allegory" or the
"kiyamet" were such inventive linguists, why did they use the "simple"
Turkish words in the make-up of these "sophisticated" looking words?
Why didn't they use their own words?
I will tell you: because they did not have a language of their own to
start with. They were all speaking the very ancient language of
Turkish. When they wanted to separate themselves from Turkish, they used
the anagrammatizing technique to come up with a variety of languages
for which Turkish was used as the source. They used Turkish as an
endless treasury of words and expressions ready to be used for building
new words by linguist-priests who were the leading people of their
wandering groups. It seems that their hands are still dipping into that
Turkish "cookie jar" - picking up linguistic material as needed to
manufacture new and sophisticated looking words. They also know that by
doing this, nothing will appear to be visibly missing from the Turkish
language. If nothing appears to be missing, then nobody will know the
difference and nobody will be suspicious. It's almost the perfect
crime. Except that they got caught.
Now I would like to point out that although Turkish does not have words
like "APOCALYPSE or APOCALYTIC or HOLOCAUST or KIYAMET, as the
progenitor language, it has many expressions describing these concepts
and events. For example, read the following Turkish expressions:
"ulu kiyim, bÃ¼yÃ¼k kiyim, ulu kirim, ulu kesim, aga kirim, kÃ¶kÃ¼nÃ¼ kazima,
kÃ¶kÃ¼nÃ¼ kurutma, tas tas Ã¼stÃ¼nde birakmama, ocagini sÃ¶ndÃ¼rme, neslini
kurutma, soyunu yoketme, etc.."
I am sure you can add some more Turkish expressions like these to this
list. So, the Turkish language is not lacking such concepts, but rather
it expresses them all in "definition" formats natural to its own
linguistic character. For that reason, it does not have to invent bogus
words that do not fit into the structure of the Turkish language. You
must also note that any one of these Turkish expressions can be broken
up and then restructured into many new word formats that are not
Turkish. Yet they would be expressing these concepts with Turkish
meanings attributed to them. Such a wealth of Turkish expressions
provides an endless resource for the "word manufacturers" or "language
"It has been many thousands of years since "apocalypse" came to be, and inspite of this Turkish still doesn't have a term for apocalypse of its own ("kapÄ±" and " aÃ§" are simple words no language lacks)."
In answer to your statement, I just explained above why Turkish does not
have or needs not to have words like your "apocalypse". Because it has
them all in formats suitable to its own linguistic nature. Secondly,
words are names given to concepts to identify and separate them from
other concepts, just like the names of people. It does not make any
difference whether they are short or "simple" as you call it, or
"long". They have all the same mission in life: to identify a
"concept". In that regard, Turkish words "KAPI" and "AÃ‡" cannot be
regarded as simple as you call them. And for the record, the "KAPI
AÃ‡ILIPTI" expression is no more simplistic or "primitive" then the word
"APOCALYPSE" or "APOCALYPTIC". Furthermore, "KAPI AÃ‡ILIPTI" is
authentic Turkish, but the words "APOCALYPSE" or "APOCALYPTIC" are based
on stolen and restructured Turkish expressions. In other words somebody
stole your car, and after altering it and disguising it with
embellishments, sold it back to you as his car - and now you are
From your statements above, you seem to be one of those who belittle
Turkish because of the shortness of its words. Please read the
following Turkish sentence:
"TÃ¼rkÃ§eyi sÃ¶zcÃ¼klerinin kÃ¼Ã§Ã¼klÃ¼gÃ¼nden dolayi kÃ¼Ã§Ã¼mser gÃ¶rÃ¼nenlerdensiniz".
Is there anything simple about the words of this Turkish sentence?
As I noted in my writing, Turkish is a monosyllabic and agglutinative
language. You can see this from my above given example. Therefore, its
short syllabic words are the basic building blocks of not only the
Turkish language, but also other languages. As we all know, bricks are
small in size but huge buildings are built with them. Similarly, with
the short but effective words and suffixes of Turkish, one can make
volumes of writing with extremely expressive and subtle expressions.
For that reason, one does not need to make words that do not fit into
the mathematically organized Turkish language. After all, atoms are also
invisibly small particles, but the universe is made up with them.
As a matter of fact, from the data you have been presenting about this "Turkish" and for so long, there is not even one single word that tells me that these Turks' language contained any sophisticated (cultural, philosophical, scientific) words of the caliber of "apocalypse", "eschatology", "allegory", etc. "
Turkish is an honest language and its every aspect is visible. I have
presented Turkish for so long and explained in many of my papers that
the language manufacturers have used Turkish phrases because long
phrases are easier to alter and disguise. They could not do effective
disguising if they used ordinary words of Turkish. But with Turkish
expressions using a number of ordinary Turkish words in defining
concepts, it is a totally different ball game. They can join together
the words of those expressions and manipulate the resulting long words
in any way they want to - without limitations. In my decipherments of
the IE words, I identify the individual Turkish words in a
concept-defining Turkish expression that is used as source for the make
of each IE word. So, that is why my decipherments come up with smaller
Turkish words which you call "simple". Turkish expressions are perfectly
suitable for being transformed into alien words.
Although they thought that the deception would never be detected, they
forgot that the original information still existed in the newly
restructured words. Thus, the original Turkic identity was saved in
those encrypted and "sophisticated" looking words that were generated
from Turkish. From these invisible fingerprints left in those so many
sample IE words, I discovered a very cleverly disguised linguistic
deception that others have not been able to see for so long. Even those
who knew what was done have not admitted that fact.
You too seem to be deeply influenced by the IE words and their apparent
"sophistication". Words such as: sophisticated, cultural, philosophical,
scientific, etc., and other words of 'caliber' such as "apocalypse",
"eschatology", "scatology", "allegory", etc. have created an artificial
dazzling effect on many people. Somehow, you too do not seem to be
interested in what lies at their root - which I explained so clearly
with so many examples in my writings.
For your benefit and also for the benefit of all those who doubt the
"proto-language" status of Turkish, I will decipher the following words.
1) The word "SOPHISTICATE" [supposedly from M.Latin "sophisticatus"],
is defined "to deprive of genuineness, naturalness, or simplicity; to
disillusion; to make wordly-wise", [ Webster's , 1947, p. 949]. In
other words, to make something artificial, concocted, not genuine. Thus,
the words that you admire as "sophisticated" are actually artificial,
that is, "sahte" in Turkish". This we can see when we rearrange the
Latin word SOPHISTICATUS letter-by-letter as "SAHTI-UOPISST- C" , where
U = Y =V, SS is for Turkish Å� and Z, and read as in Turkish, we find
that it is the Turkish expression "SAHTE YAPIÅ�TI" meaning 'it is being
made artificial" - which is another way of saying "to deprive of
2) The term CULTURAL supposedly is from Latin "CULTURA" meaning
"culture, cultivation; agriculture; mental culture", [Cassell's Compact
Latin- English Dictionary, 1962, p. 66].
CULTURA rearranged in the form "TURLACU" or "TARLUCU" is very much the
Turkish word "TARLACU" meaning "farmer" who does "cultivation of the
fields and agriculture". This correspondence cannot be due to
coincidence. So this Latin word unquestionably is from an altered
Turkish source and so are all other words that claim to be from this word.
Related to the term "agriculture" is the word "AGRICULTURAL". When this
word is rearranged letter-by-letter and viewed as "R-TARLACILUGU", we
find that it is the Turkish expression "ER TARLACILUGU" meaning
"agricultural occupation of man in the fields", "man farming the
fields", "it is man's working the fields." So this word is also made
up from a stolen Turkish expression.
Additionally, when the "Latin" word CULTURA is rearranged
letter-by-letter and viewed as "TURACUL", we find that it is the Turkish
word "TÃ–RECIL"(tÃ¶re sahibi, kÃ¼ltÃ¼r sahibi, adet ve anane sahibi)
meaning "he who has culture, traditions, laws and orders, etc.." Thus,
this is the second meaning of the word "CULTURA". Again we find that
its source is Turkish.
3) The word "PHILOSOPHICAL" means "love of wisdom", [Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 746]. When this word is rearranged
letter-by-letter and viewed as "PIL-SAPHICOLOH", where PH = F => V, we
find that it is the altered and restructured Turkish expression "BIL
SEVICILIK" (BILGI SEVICILIK) meaning "it is love of knowledge", "it is
love of science". You will agree that this is not coincidence either.
Thus, the linguistic material needed for the make up of this word has
also been stolen from Turkish.
4) The word SCIENTIFIC, rearranged letter-by-letter and viewed as
"CC-FEN-ISITI", where CC is KK, is found as the altered and restructured
Turkish expression "KÃ–K FEN IÅ�IDI" meaning "it is the root science
work" which is what the word "scientific" means. Turkish words KÃ–K
means "root", FEN means "science", and IÅ�IDI means "it is the work".
Thus, the linguistic source material for this word is also from Turkish.
For the rest of your "caliber" words, that is, "apocalypse" or
"apocalyptic", "eschatology", "scatology" and "allegory", I already
explained them in my last posting to which you responded.
As can be seen from all of these decipherments, all of these so-called
scientific "Greek" or "Latin" or "English", etc. words are all made up
from the resources of one language - which is Turkish. The technique
used for this usurpation is simple yet very effective. With such a
simple technique, those who work with it have realized that anything
and everything can be stolen from others without being detected. With
this technique, they give the impression that they are super "beings"
who can generate such 'dazzling' words, yet the "Turks" cannot go beyond
simple terms as you also say and believe.
As you can see, I have confidently demonstrated that you are wrong in
the way you think about the Turkish language. After all these
explanations, I cannot be so google-eyed about these so-called
"Indo-European" words. (If I may use my Turkish here to say effectively:
"Bana Ã¶yle geliyor ki biz TÃ¼rkler Avrupa dÃ¼nyasina hep Å�AÅ�I gÃ¶zlerle
bakiyoruz. Baska bir degimle, adesenin "bÃ¼yÃ¼tec" tarafiyla onlara ve
"kÃ¼Ã§Ã¼lteÃ§" tarafiyla da kendimize bakiyoruz. Bu yÃ¼zden de onlari hep
bÃ¼yÃ¼k ve kendimizi de kÃ¼Ã§Ã¼k gÃ¶rÃ¼yoruz.)
If these priests where Turks, where is what they created for Turkish, if they were non-Turks, how did they get so smart knowing that they had no language of their own.?! Gurus of "Turkoliji" and "Turkiyat" in Turkish Universities are afraid to invent, never mind inventing, using an existing Turkic word that has been dropped from usage in favor of a "beloved" foreign word, like that of "uÃ§mak" (heaven) instead of Arabic "cennet" (garden, paradise); afraid of being ridiculed by the centuries long linguistically challenged public who loves to use anything invented abroad, even if it is the term "mouse", or "Bakara" (cow). If the foreign word is not used why not translate it using an established loan like that of Arabic "fare" (mouse)!. Poor sÄ±Ã§an! (Is there any other language on the whole Earth that has borrowed the word for mouse from another language other than Turkish?! What a shame for allegedly mother-of-all-languages Turkish!!)
Those "linguistic priests" were not "Turks" and neither were they that
"smart" - as you think they were. A simple technique of language
alteration enabled them to get away with endless usurpation of not only
words of a language, but also the civilization, culture, people and
countries of ancient Turanians - without being detected. Those
"linguistic priests" were deceptive and destructive players, so much so
that they could take a world-wide spoken language and after changing it,
sell it back to world as if it was their own genuine creation.
On the other hand, those Turk "priests", that is, most likely were
shamans (e.g., "kam" in Turkish) who were working honestly and also as
intelligently, left to all Turks and the world a most systematic and
magnificent language ever developed by human beings. No one is in a
position to deny that fact.
What you say about the "gurus of Turkology" have merits. I also think
that they should be much more knowledgeable about the roots of the
Turkish language, develop self confidence and be bold about their
subject. I believe their timidity comes from the fact that they have
been surrounded, bombarded and guided by an established "linguistic
world" that promotes, since ancient times, the artificially made up IE
and Semitic languages above everything else. Thus, those "gurus of
Turkology", not knowing what truly lies under so many established and
widely spoken languages, are intimidated into regarding them as if they
were independently developed and authentic languages. This way they are
forced to walk with the crowd and accept what has been placed on top of
the table and ignore what has taken place behind closed doors in the
I agree with you about the fact that even at present as was done in the
past many Turkish words have been dropped and/or replaced by 'foreign'
words. This is unfortunate for Turkish because, as soon as a Turkish
word is dropped, it will be picked up by others and claimed as their
own. At the end of the day, Turkish will be depleted. Turkish words
should never be discarded from dictionaries, because they are the spoken
and written evidences for the ancientness of the Turkish civilization.
In concluding, you said: "what a shame for allegedly mother -of-all
I disagree with you on this last statement of yours. Firstly, your use
of the term "allegedly" is evidence of your not believing in Turkish
being the "mother of all languages". If you had read all my writings
that I shared with my readers on this subject for so long, you would
have been bolder than this. Secondly, I have been the one who has been
saying this and proving with many examples that indeed Turkish is the
mother/father for many languages if not all. I have conclusively shown
that "Turkish is the source for Indo-European and Semitic languages. And
this is the "fact" - not an "allegation" as you say. It will take time
to accept that fact.
Finally, the term "shame" cannot be attributed to the Turkish language.
which has the capacity to generate all kinds of expressive terminology
defining concepts. Those ancient Turkish linguists left a peerless
language to the Turkish world. From that language many others have been
made up. If you want to shame anyone at all, shame those speakers of
Turkish who do not know or appreciate the real value of their language
and frequently replace their own Turkish words with "sophisticated"
looking words of other languages that they admire.
Best wishes to you and to all,
Turhan Tisinli wrote:
>SayÄ±n Polat Kaya bey<tntr@...><firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com>
>Will you at least give those non-Turk linguist-priests generous credit for inventing the "concept" of "worldâ€�consuming holocaust", let alone concocting the term "apocalypse" to name it. I said non-Turk linguist-priests, because if they had been Turks they would have created one (both the concept and it name) for Turkish too: To the best of my knowledge, the concept of apocalypse and its name, "kiyamet", in Turkish are "loan"s from Arabic, even if you claim that Arabic was manufactured from Turkish, which you do. This is because Turkish does not produce new words by anagrammatizing, therefore, for example "allegory" or "kiyamet" cannot be considered Turkish words.
>It has been many thousands of years since "apocalypse" came to be, and inspite of this Turkish still doesn't have a term for apocalypse of its own ("kapÄ±" and " aÃ§" are simple words no language lacks). As a matter of fact, from the data you have been presenting about this "Turkish" and for so long, there is not even one single word that tells me that these Turks' language contained any sophisticated (cultural, philosophical, scientific) words of the caliber of "apocalypse", "eschatology", "allegory", etc.
>If these priests where Turks, where is what they created for Turkish, if they were non-Turks, how did they get so smart knowing that they had no language of their own.?! Gurus of "Turkoliji" and "Turkiyat" in Turkish Universities are afraid to invent, never mind inventing, using an existing Turkic word that has been dropped from usage in favor of a "beloved" foreign word, like that of "uÃ§mak" (heaven) instead of Arabic "cennet" (garden, paradise); afraid of being ridiculed by the centuries long linguistically challenged public who loves to use anything invented abroad, even if it is the term "mouse", or "Bakara" (cow). If the foreign word is not used why not translate it using an established loan like that of Arabic "fare" (mouse)!. Poor sÄ±Ã§an! (Is there any other language on the whole Earth that has borrowed the word for mouse from another language other than Turkish?! What a shame for allegedly mother-of-all-languages Turkish!!)
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Polat Kaya"
>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:03 PM
>Subject: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: "APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY", "ALLEGORIKOS" and "ALLEGORIKON"
>> Dear Friends,
>>In this posting, I will discuss the Indo-European (IE) words "
>>APOCALYPTIC", "ESCHATOLOGY", "SCATOLOGY", "ALLEGORIKOS" and
>>"ALLEGORIKON". We have the following definitions for the first three:
>>>From http://www.answers.com/topic/apocalyptic<http://www.answers.com/library/Literary%20Dictionary-cid-3723> apocalyptic
>>"apocalyptic, revealing the secrets of the future through prophecy; or
>>having the character of an apocalypse or worldâ€�consuming holocaust.
>>Apocalyptic writing is usually concerned with the coming end of the
>>world, seen in terms of a visionary scheme of history, as in Yeats's
>>poem â€˜The Second Comingâ€™. See also eschatology
>>"eschatology , the theological study or artistic representation of the
>>end of the world. Eschatological writing is found chiefly in religious
>>allegories <http://www.answers.com/topic/allegory>, but also in some
>>science fiction <http://www.answers.com/topic/science-fiction>. The term
>>should not be confused with scatology
>><http://www.answers.com/topic/scatology>, which is the scientific or
>>humorous consideration of excrement." See also anagogical