Re: [bcn2004] Words under the lens: English word "PORTMANTEAU"
Turhan Tisinli bey,
You asked: "What is a "concept generating phrase?"
We use words for communication. All words are names for "concepts".
Without names, we cannot talk about people, things, objects, and ideas.
For example, we could talk about a bag or we could be more specific and talk
about a paper bag, a plastic bag, a hand bag, a back bag, a neck bag, a linen
bag, a silk bag, a horse bag, a traveling bag, or a horse riding bag, etc,
etc. These are all words or phrases that define a concept. I
call them "concept
defining phrases". From these "concept defining
phrases" or "concept
generating phrases", as I have mentioned in my writings, some
people have made single "words" as names for those concepts.
Similarly, Turkish "torba, bir torba, at torba, at torbasi, men at arpa
torbasi, torbayam, at torbasiyam, heybe, dagarcik, el torbasi, genis torba, dar
torba, küçük torba, büyük torba, ipek torba, kil torba, pamuk torba,
atlas torba, halidan torba, kilim torba, al torba, gök torba, çuval,
hurç, vs., vs." are all "concept
defining descriptions" outlining
some kind of "bag" in Turkish - which is a concept. We can
refer to each one of these items with specific names, or every time we may
describe them as I just illustrated here with what I call "expressions"
or "phrases" or a "word".
These expressions frequently become the "meaning" of
the word which represents that "concept".
For example, if every one calls the concept of a "bag" by the same
name, such as "torba", which is a Turkish name, than all those
supposedly separate languages would be using the Turkish word. If they
used Turkish words for every concept, then everyone would be speaking the
"Turkish" language. I have been writing and showing how the
ancient world was a Turkish speaking world. Evidently, some people did
not like that and they invented new languages from Turkish. They started
to alter the look and feel of the Turkish words and phrases to make new-looking
words. These new words looked very different from Turkish but they still
kept the original Turkish meaning - more or less. For example, those who
wanted to create a new word for a bag that was used on a horse could have used
source expressions such as: men
at torba, men at torbasiyam, men torbayam, menem torba, or plainly torba. It was simply a
matter of the anagrammatizer's choice. So you need to ask your question
to the original "word generator" who used the expression "men at
torba o" to create the word "PORTMANTEAU". We do not have
that luxury of asking him why he chose what he did because that person is not
with us any longer. Even if he was living at present, he would never reveal
himself as the generator of words - because he knows that he is stealing.
All he wanted from the exercise was to concoct a new word from a Turkish
expression which he could then claim as his own language. Once he
manufactures his desired word for a concept, he can then enlarge it or shorten
it as he pleases to make more words.
You said:
Concepts do not need to be generated, they are already there as "a bag that is used on horsebak" or found when we look deeper into things, like "electron", or " mathematics". The electron did not need to talk and say " hey, I am an electron" to be called "electron".
The last time you wrote, you were confused. Now you seem to be even more
confused. Of course an electron did not need to talk and say " hey,
I am an electron" to be called an "electron".
"Electron" is the name of a concept in physics. First you have
to envision that concept before giving it a name. If you come up with a
concept, then you have to generate one that describes the idea in your mind,
and you have to name it. Accordingly, you must describe the new concept
with other known concept names. You cannot describe a new concept with
unknown words.
If someone sees a Turkish "HEYBE" and says "hey that is a very
good idea. "I want to make bags based on the same concept but I want
to use a different name" - so that it will be known as belonging to his
"own" language. He decides to describe the concept based on
Turkish Heybe as "bag
used as a traveling bag on horseback". (I gave you this at
the very beginning of my first posting: {a traveling bag or case, originally one adopted for
use on horseback; now,
especially a suitcase." [Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 774]}. By the way, you keep removing my
writings from your responses. This erases the context of the
communication between us. Why do you do that?) And instead of
using Turkish HEYBE as the source for his idea, he decides to use the Turkish
expression "men at
torba o" - which
could have also been "men
at torbayam" or even "men at
torbasiyam", etc. He then anagrammatizes the
expression "men at
torba o" into "portmanteau".
Ingenious stealing isn't it? No one would spot that "portmanteau" was
made from a Turkish expression containing the words "at",
"torba" and "men". I clearly showed
this concept in my original writing as I have done in hundreds of others.
Now you come along and start disputing this as if you knew better. The
fact is that you (or anybody else) did not know any of this before Polat Kaya
explained it to you.
Let me give you an example in Latin. There is the Latin word "CAEMENTUM",
[Cassell's Dictionary, 1962, p. 34], that has the meaning in English as "rough stone from the
quarry". Now if you understand the concept defined by this
meaning given in English, then, as a speaker of Turkish, you should be able to
see that the word "CAEMENTUM" is made from a Turkish
expression, although it is spoken in a distorted and riddled form, that is,
"Latin".
I can see that "CAEMENTUM" is made from Turkish
expression "KAYA
MENDUM" (MEN KAYA IDIM) meaning
"I was the rock". Yes, a piece of rough stone cut from
a mother rock in a quarry was part of that rock before it was cut and therefore
it was the "rock" itself. You know very well that
"KAYA" (GAYA) means "rock" and MENDUM
(MENTUM) means "I
was". Thus the Turkish expression "kaya mendum" is a concept defining text that is
ready to be used as the source for a "name". And
the Romans did it. It was customary for the western "linguists"
to use this kind of technique in generating a new language from Turkish.
The Latin linguist, who evidently knew Turkish very well and used this Turkish
text as the source for his word CAEMENTUM.
Note how the Latin linguist changed KAYA into CAE to camouflage it. You couldn't
spot this. Also note that the Latin linguist used the Turkish word MEN as part of the concept defining
expression. Now, if you do not know what a "quarry"
is or what takes place at a quarry, and how the words of a language have been
made up, then, I can see your difficulty in understanding all this.
Simply memorizing words and their definitions, as many people do, is very
superficial. Believing the truthfulness of the given etymology in a
dictionary is also very naive. Incidentally, even the word "QUARRY"
is from Turkish expression "KAYA
YERI" (QAYA-YERI) meaning "place where big stones are
found". This is called "TAŞ OCAGI" in Turkish.
You said:
"Here is the deciphering of your alleged decipherings:
(1) Glancing at a series of English words in a dictionary, and suddenly "portmateau": "torba" grabs your attension because the first part of portmateau is basically "torb" in reverse order (with the exchange of p with b).
(2) You need an "a" to make it "torba", and you find it in the rest of the word.
(3) You omitt the letters of "torba" from "portmanteau" to get "mnteau"
(4) Luckily "mnteau" can be arranged as "menatu" and seperated into Turkic words like "men at o" (with the exchange of u with o.
(5) Adding these together you get "men at torba o" which is close to Azeri Turkic "men at torbasiyam"( litterally I horse bag he". )
(6) You have no chioce but assume that "objects talk like humans" and you call their speach by the fancy and scientific sounding name "concept generating phrase". Then you find it reasonable to use this "concept generating "men at torba o"(I horse bag he) instead of just a simple "torba."
(7) But for this nagging u, you can't find anything, except claiming
without any shred of proof whatsoever, that it was added to disguise the
assumed "ushurping". You could have simply assumed that the
"wrapping" u was added to the English word (the alleged
output) instead of adding it to the psudoTurkic sentence "men at
torba", and wouldn't look as ridiculous as " men at torba
o". In both cases it would be rejected as a proofless claim anyway..."
Your above writing is basically an admission that I have keen eyes in seeing
things that pass over many people - including you. Every time I introduce
the decipherment of a word, I say "when
it is rearranged as" or "rearranged
as". I say that because I have already deciphered the word
and the easiest way to present the decipherment is to show the rearranged word
so that the Turkish source hidden in the word becomes clear. So what is
new? What do you think people who decipher encrypted messages
do? They have to rearrange the received text to try and make some sense
of it. The words of the IE languages are encrypted words. I
am decoding them because I can see what others cannot see. Where
have you been all these years when I was writing my decipherments of many
words? Instead of concentrating on where I got the word
"portmanteau" and how I deciphered it, you should be more concerned
with why we are having these correspondences between these IE words and their
Turkish counterpart expressions. You should concentrate on my revelations
and conclusions in so many of my postings rather than belittling my findings.
Since you cannot see what I can see with my knowledge, you are simply wandering
in the dark. In the word "portmanteau, the expression "men at torba u" is staring at you. So there is
no "pseudoTurkic" being added to it. If your cognizance is not
so good, I cannot help you with that. You have to improve yourself.
What is hard to understand is why you show such tireless effort to belittle my
discovery and my work. Why are you bothered with my work? When I
reveal with strong evidences that western languages have been made up from
Turkish words and phrases by way of anagrammatizing (which is a cleverly
laundered word for stealing from another language), that is, Turkish, is that a
problem for you? Your above account of my decipherment is simply
your imagination. In fact I heard the word "portmanteau" on TV. It caught
my eye and my curiosity so I analyzed it, cracked it and revealed its true
makeup under my "words
under the lens" postings.
You should study each word the way I present them so that you might see the
light.
Incidentally Azeri Turkish is another dialect of Turkish. So it is pure
Turkish just like the Kerkük Turkish is, just like the Anatolian Turkish is.
Therefore, it is not "Azeri Turkic" as you call it.
You said:
(7) But for this
nagging u, you can't find anything, except claiming without any shred of
proof whatsoever, that it was added to disguise the assumed
"ushurping". You could have simply assumed that the
"wrapping" u was added to the English word (the alleged
output) instead of adding it to the psudoTurkic sentence "men at
torba", and wouldn't look as ridiculous as " men at torba
o". In both cases it would be rejected as a proofless claim anyway..."
Not so fast! You seem to be confused and upset. You are saying
things that do not add up. Why is the word "u" nagging
you? "In anagram trickery, a "U" and "O"
are natural replacements for each other. Is that so difficult for you to
understand?
Secondly, what is your criteria for considering the expression "men at torba o" as being ridiculous? How can you
make such irrational judgment? According to your "argument"
then, why is the 3-vowel ending "eau" in the word
"portmanteau" not
"ridiculous" but "men
at torba o" is
ridiculous? You see how ridiculous your argument is?
Why can't you understand the fact that the anagrammatizing person made the
choice of the Turkish expression "men
at torba o" or "men
at torba u" to
manufacture the word "portmanteau"? He does not care whether the source
phrase he uses is "good" Turkish or "bad"
Turkish. Furthermore, you or any other Turkish speaker would never be
aware that the IE word "portmanteau" was made up from Turkish
expression "men at torba o" until I showed it to everyone. I
shined a light for you - yet you are complaining.
The important thing is that he used the Turkish words men, at and torba to make a composite word with
them. With these many words, it was easier for him to mix them up and
disguise them into a concocted format such as "portmanteau".
In addition he used the Turkish word "O"
(U) as a definition suffix as
they have done in countless numbers of their manufactured words. Is that
so difficult for you to understand? Irrespective of your baseless
objections, the word "portmanteau" is a word manufactured from a Turkish
expression - just like the English word "ridiculous" is a word manufactured from Turkish "GÜLDIRICI" (GÜLDÜRÜCÜ) meaning "that which makes one
laugh". I will not explain how by drawing a picture for
you. You figure it out - if you can. This should make you
think twice before you parrot cliche put-downs such as
"ridiculous".
Please note that those who do not know the proposed subject matter, such as
you, are not in a position to "reject" or "approve"
anything! My proof is damning evidence that "portmanteau"
was stolen from Turkish "men at torba" or "men
at torba u" - just as many other IE words are.
You said:
You've never
explained why almost always you use long words. My explanation
is: if you didin't, your degrees of freedom will be nill, and you
would never reach a correspondance no matter how much you cook your
data. For example the English word "yes" has only three
anagrams : sey, eys, esy, none of which has any Turkish menaing. So where
did yes, and thousands of words like it "ushurped" from,
according to your theory (Remember that you theory claims that English
language, all of it, is ushurped from Turkish?!)
First of all I can assure you that "I
do not cook my data" and
I resent your malicious accusation. Evidently, your own ignorance has
caused you to lose your senses.
I do not just decipher long words. I have deciphered many short words and
long words. I do not favor deciphering long ones over short ones. You are
negative and you view things superficially. Shouldn't long words be
deciphered also? Are you not interested in learning how some of
those longer and impressive looking words are made up? I get the
impression that you are simply nitpicking. It seems you would prefer to
see Polat Kaya fall on his face rather than be seen as an enlightener.
Just for the record I will now give you some short word decipherments:
Latin "SI" meaning "if", is from Turkish word "ISE"
meaning "if";
Latin and Greek "EU" meaning "good" is from Turkish
"EYÜ" (IYI) meaning "good";
English name "EUGENE" meaning "well-born, noble; polite,
civil, courteous" is from Turkish "EYU CAN" meaning
"good being, noble person";
Latin "ET-SI" meaning "although, yet, if so", is
from Turkish "IDIYSE" (IDI ISE, ETTI ISE)
meaning "if it was done, if so" ;
Greek "ANTI" meaning "against" is from Turkish
"ITEN" meaning "that which pushes away, against,
rejecting";
Latin "ANTE " meaning "before" is from Turkish
"ÖNDE" meaning "before";
Latin "ANTECEDENS" meaning "preceeding" is from
Turkish "ÖNDE GIDEN" meaning "that which goes
before";
Latin "ANTECEDENTIS" meaning "preceeding" is from
Turkish "ÖNDE GIDENDI" meaning "it is that which goes
before", "it is he/she/it which goes in the front";
Latin "ANTECURSOR" meaning "one who runs before" is
from Turkish "ÖNDE KOSAR-eR" meaning "He who runs in the
front";
Latin "LIBO" meaning "to take away from" is from
Turkish "ALIB" meaning "has taken from";
Latin "CEDO" meaning "to go" is from Turkish "GID
O" (GIT O) meaning "it is go";
Greek "POLY" meaning "plenty" is from Turkish "BOL
O" meaning "it is plenty, it is abundant";
Greek "OXI" meaning "no" is from Turkish "YOK"
(hayir) meaning "no";
English "NO" is from the Turkish suffix "MA",
-ME" meaning "negative, no" - where M has been shifted to
N;
English "SPEAKER" is from Turkish "BIR AGUZ"
meaning "one mouth";
Greek "TAKTIKA" meaning "regular numbers, ordinals"
is from Turkish "TEKTEK" (SIRA ILE) meaning "one
by-one, one after the other, regular";
Greek "TETRAS" meaning "four" is from Turkish
"TÖRT" (DÖRT) meaning "four";
English "CURSE" is from Turkish "SÖGER" (SÖYER)
meaning "he curses";
English "WIN" is from Turkish "YEN" meaning
"win";
English "CAT" is from Turkish "KEDI" meaning
"cat";
English "WAR" is from Turkish "VUR" (KIR,
ÖLDÜR, YAK, YIK) meaning "hit, attack, beat";
English "NEW" from Turkish "YENI" meaning
"new" or "YENI O" meaning "it is new";
Latin "INDEX" (INDICES) meaning "list" is from
Turkish "IÇINDEKI" meaning "what is inside";
English "OILY" is from Turkish "YAgLI"
meaning "oily" (where the small g is just a soft and unpronounced g);
English "CUT" is from Turkish "KES" meaning
"cut" where the Turkish S was upshifted to a T;
English "LEAP" is from Turkish "HOPLA"
meaning "leap";
etc., etc., etc. ...............,
These examples should suffice to make you think twice about your rash
judgment. As you can see, these are short words and my decipherments are
bang on.
Of course there are many words that I have not even looked at yet and there are
many that I have looked at but can not decipher at present. This is
natural and expected. I never said I could decipher all of the words of
the Greek or Latin and/or English languages. I am proving my view with
many examples randomly chosen from all available sources. That makes the
study even more valuable and valid. The number of examples I have given so far
are unquestionable proof that the so-called Indo-European languages are not
genuine and that they have been manufactured from Turkish. This fact was
not known until I revealed it. If this is hard for you to see and accept,
that is your problem and it is due to the fact that you have been well
conditioned by the establishment like countless others who believe and trust
the "truthfulness" of the existing system.
Regarding the word "YES", what you do not know is the way that they
could have arrived at the word "YES". The anagrammatizer who is
generating "a language" for a group who wants to be a
"nation", has unlimited choices to use at his/her hands. Have
you ever heard of the Caesar Cipher? [see Caesar Cipher at url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_cipher ] It is where a letter is
either upshifted or downshifted alphabetically. Sometimes the letter is
moved up or down one place in the alphabet. Other times it is moved
up/down two places - and even more. In the case of English YES, most
likely, the letter "Y" is a replacement for the letter "V"
and the letter "S" is a replacement for the letter "T" - by
way of Caesar Cipher. Replacing the Y with a V and the S with a T in YES
gives us "VET". From this, you should be able to figure out
that VET is just a distortion of Turkish word "EVET" meaning
"YES". In fact, they don't even need to use a Caesar
Cipher to get Y from V or get Y from U. These letters (i.e., Y, U, V, W)
are all replacements for each other. The Greek letter for V looks like a
U. The English call W as Double-U while the French call W as
Duble-V. This makes U and V equivalent and replacements for each other.
I am sure you did not know all this (even though I have written it so many
times) but you know it now.
You are not only being very negative in your attitude toward my discovery, but
you are also very irrational by dwelling on words that I have not shared with
you or I have not worked on yet. If you were sincere and positive
thinking, you would dwell on the words I have deciphered and shared. I
have already shared word decipherments that exceed at least a thousand in
number. This is more than enough to prove my point. The Greek
and Latin languages are said to be some three thousand years old but me finding
Greek and Latin words that are made up of Turkish words and phrases makes the
Turkish language even older. On top of this, English is a recently
manufactured language (with even greater alteration) from supposedly Greek and
Latin. You should at least be appreciative of the fact that I can
decipher so many of these words belonging to the so-called
"Indo-European" languages and show the intentionally hidden presence
of Turkish in them. That is an achievement that no one has ever done
before. By discovering this fact, I have conclusively shown that the
Turkish language was the "BIR ATA" (PROTO) language of them all since
very ancient times. I would think this would stimulate you to be very
excited about the ancientness of your own language. My findings
bring the intentionally darkened and hidden history of Turkish back to daylight
contrary to all of the intentional misinformation and denials about the
ancientness of the Turkish language, people and their civilization. My
discovery, as an independent researcher, that western languages have been
manufactured by plagiarizing words and phrases from Turkish - should not bother
anyone. Yet you seem to be very bothered.
You said:
"Tell me what
come
go
give
hand
three
six
there
use
electron
quark
photon
are anagrammatised
from. If
you fail to do this, or find an excuse not to do it, then you are indirectly
admitting failure of your theory."
Let me remind you that you should not be so demanding. You have not
demonstrated that you understand what I am talking about so please stop
pretending to be my peer. You are not in a position to put demands or
conditions on me. You can ask me if I know the answers to some of your
words rather than rudely ordering me "tell
me what . . . words . . . are anagrammatized
from". Only then might I answer you.
However, just for the record, I will answer some of the words you
mention. I do not have to know the answer for all the words of the known
languages. By asking such a question and demanding to know the answers,
you are demonstrating not only your irrationality but also your insincerity in
these discussions. If the Greek, Latin, English and many other so called
Indo-European languages have generated, say, at least ten-to-twenty words from
Turkish words and phrases by way of anagrammatizing, then, there is no reason
to think that they would stop there. In fact they would keep going because
it is the cheapest and easiest way of generating non-genuine languages.
Plus that, it is almost the perfect crime because nobody suspects what has
taken place. Here are my decipherments for some of your words:
COME an L to M Caesar Cipher upshift makes it COLE which is
from Turkish "GEL" meaning "come";
GO is from Turkish GIT meaning "go".
Another example of this is the Latin word CEDO meaning "to go",
[Cassell's Latin Dictionary, 1962, p. 39], which is from Turkish
"GIT O" meaning "it is to go". Thus, English "GO is a
further anagrammatized form of CEDO and Turkish GIT O;
Give In order
to solve this word, we must think of the G as a soft form of a K. The K
sound can come from any of the letters C, K or Q. If we choose Q,
GIVE can be rewritten as QIVE (pronounced KIV). Now, Q is a Caesar Cipher
downshift from the letter R - which makes the word RIVE. Read it
backwards and you get VER which is the Turkish word meaning "give";
HAND
In order to solve the word HAND, we should look at the word HANDLE. This
word HANDLE is from Turkish ELINDE meaning "in your hand". To
handle something means it is in your hands and you are holding it - which is
what Turkish ELINDE means (Turkish EL means "hand"). What
the usurpers probably did was they created the word HANDLE first from Turkish
ELINDE. They then chopped off the last LE part of it to create the word
HAND. And lastly, they told the world that HAND is the root word and
HANDLE is derived from HAND by adding LE. Of course this is pure deception.
THREE From Greek "TREIS"
(TREIÇ) meaning "three" , [Divry's English - Greek and
Greek - English dictionary, 1988, p. 762]. The last "S" letter
of each Greek word is a specially formed "S" which is more like a
Turkish "Ç" or "Ş" letter.
Thus it is a bogus letter having more than one "S" identity. In
many Greek words it takes the value of "S,
Ç, Ş, and
Z." Thus, the Greek TREIS rearranged as "ESTIR"
is from Türkish "ÜÇTÜR"
(ÜÇTÜR) meaning "it
is three". French word TROIS meaning
"three", when rearranged as OSTIR is again from Turkish "ÜÇTÜR" (ÜÇTÜR)
meaning "it is
three".
SIX When we rewrite the letter X as KS, English
word SIX becomes "SIKS" which is from Turkish
"SEKIZ" meaning "eight". By taking the
name of numeral "eight" in Turkish and assigning it to the numeral
six, it is very well disguised.
THERE When we rearrange THERE as "ERETH", it is
an anagrammatized form of Turkish "ORADA" meaning "it is
there" or "over there".
WHERE is made from Turkish word "HARA" meaning
"where". The W in WHERE is simply linguistic wrapping. A
second decipherment of WHERE is to look at the Greek lower case H which looks
like the letter n with a long tail on the right. This is another
disguisement of the Greek alphabet - a most dishonest alphabet. Now we
can rewrite WHERE as NEREW. We also know that W can also be a U or
a V or a Y. In this case it is a Y making the word NEREY - which is from
Turkish word NEREYE meaning " to where?"
USE No comment at this time!
ELECTRON No comment at this time!
QUARK No comment at this time!
PHOTON I will give a decipherment for PHOTON
separately in another paper.
Finally, regarding your very last sentence, "If you fail to do
this, or find an excuse not to do it, then you are indirectly admitting failure
of your theory." I
say, you really have to be kidding. Kidding yourself - that is! My
theory is very solid, very convincing and very believable - contrary to your
own shortcomings. Do not try sophistry or tricky verbosity on me
because it will be in vain. I expected much better from you. If you
do not agree with me, so be it. I am not going to lose any sleep over
it. As I said a little further above, those who do not know the proposed
subject matter are not in a position to "reject" or
"approve" or "put
demands on it". You fall into that
category. I suggest you study all the words that I have
presented in my many writings before you write on the subject again.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
27/10/2008
Turhan Tisinli wrote:
Polat Kaya Bey
What is a "concept generating phrase"? If the concept itself exisits why should there be a "concept generating phrase" besides it? In other words, if "torba" or "horseback bag" exisits why should "men at torbasiyam" (to be "distorted" and "anglisized" to "men at torba o") is necessary?
Concepts do not need to be generated, they are already there as "a bag that is used on horsebak" or found when we look deeper into things, like "electron", or " mathematics". The electron did not need to talk and say " hey, I am an electron" to be called "electron".
Here is the deciphering of your alleged decipherings:
(1) Glancing at a series of English words in a dictionary, and suddenly "portmateau": "torba" grabs your attension because the first part of portmateau is basically "torb" in reverse order (with the exchange of p with b).
(2) You need an "a" to make it "torba", and you find it in the rest of the word.
(3) You omitt the letters of "torba" from "portmanteau" to get "mnteau"
(4) Luckily "mnteau" can be arranged as "menatu" and seperated into Turkic words like "men at o" (with the exchange of u with o.
(5) Adding these together you get "men at torba o" which is close to Azeri Turkic "men at torbasiyam"( litterally I horse bag he". )
(6) You have no chioce but assume that "objects talk like humans" and you call their speach by the fancy and scientific sounding name "concept generating phrase". Then you find it reasonable to use this "concept generating "men at torba o"(I horse bag he) instead of just a simple "torba."
(7) But for this nagging u, you can't find anything, except claiming without any shred of proof whatsoever, that it was added to disguise the assumed "ushurping". You could have simply assumed that the "wrapping" u was added to the English word (the alleged output) instead of adding it to the psudoTurkic sentence "men at torba", and wouldn't look as ridiculous as " men at torba o". In both cases it would be rejected as a proofless claim anyway...
So, in efect, you are starting from the output to get the "required" input (data).
You've never explained why almost always you use long words. My explanation is: if you didin't, your degrees of freedom will be nill, and you would never reach a correspondance no matter how much you cook your data. For example the English word "yes" has only three anagrams : sey, eys, esy, none of which has any Turkish menaing. So where did yes, and thousands of words like it "ushurped" from, according to your theory (Remember that you theory claims that English language, all of it, is ushurped from Turkish?!)
Tell me what
come
go
give
hand
three
six
there
use
electron
quark
photon
are anagrammatised from. If you fail to do this, or find an excuse not to do it, then you are indirectly admitting failure of your theory.