Re: [Polat_Kaya] Words under the lens: English word "EXCOMMUNICATE"
Greetings Mr. Churchward,
Thank you for your
interest regarding my posting about the term "excommunicate".
You pointed out
that the term "excommunicate" is said to be sourced from the Latin "EXCOMMUNICARE"
meaning "excommunicate". There are some other variations of
this word in Latin such as EXCOMMUNICO, EXCOMMUNICAVI and EXCOMMUNICATUS at this link http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wordz.pl?keyword=excommunicare .
These
"Latin" variations of "EXCOMMUNICARE" are also made up from related Turkish expressions all
revolving around the concept of "KONUŞMAYI
KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication".
For example, the
Latin term EXCOMMUNICO, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICO, and rearranged as "CONUCMOI-
KESM" is again the anagrammatized form of the
Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication". EXCOMMUNICO is actually the
cut-off front end of the word EXCOMMUNICATUS
or EXCOMMUNICARE.
Similarly, the
"Latin" term EXCOMMUNICATUS, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICATUS, and rearranged as "CONUSMAI-KESTUM-C" reveals the Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI KESTÜM" meaning "I cut off the communication, I stopped the communication". Alternatively, if it is rearranged as "CONUSMAI-KESMKTU", it reveals the Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI KESMEKTÜ" meaning "It is cutting off the communication" or "It is stopping
the communication".
Similarly again, the "Latin" term EXCOMMUNICARE, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICARE, and rearranged as "CONUCMAI-KESERM" reveals the Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI
KESEREM" meaning "I cut the communication, I stop the communication" and/or "I may stop the communication".
Finally, the
"Latin" term EXCOMMUNICAVI, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICAVI, and rearranged as "CONUCMAVI-KISME"
reveals the Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI
KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication" .
So whichever
variation I examine, I find a relevant and meaningful Turkish expression hidden
inside each "Latin" word. This is not coincidence! Some
establishment did it.
*****
You
said:
"Since this word has an etymology
that dates back to before the 9th century A. D., I am curious as to when the
word was taken from the Turkish to be used in Latin. Since it obviously has an
origin in the Christian church, it can't be any earlier than the 1st century A.
D."
Yes, the word
EXCOMMUNICATE is a word used by the church, however, the concept of cutting off
communication with someone was not invented by the church. People who
talk to each other, have always had the occasion to stop talking to each other
for whatever reason - at all stages of history. When two friends, even
brothers, or man and wife, get out of synergy with each other, they probably
stop talking to each other for some time. Basically speaking, this is an
act of "EXCOMMUNICATION". In other words the two parties have shut
their doors to each other and are having nothing to do with each other (i.e.,
NO COMMUNICATION! or in Turkish KONUŞMAYI KES!).
Additionally, even
if we assumed that it was formulated by the church establishment, say around
the 1st century A.D., as an instrument of ruling and controlling their
members, it is clear that these Latin words use the supposedly
"Latin" word "COMMUNICA" or "COMMUNICO"
meaning "communicating". This Latin
word "communica" is embedded in all words supposedly made
up from it. Thus the "Latin" word COMMUNICA, for communication,
existed even before the church establishment "adopted" the word
"EXCOMMUNICARE". After all, people have always communicated
with each other as well as stopped talking with each other - irrespective of
the Church being there or not.
But the
"Latin" word COMMUNICA, when rearranged
(deciphered) letter-by-letter as "CONUCMAIM", is the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "KONUŞMAIM" (KONUŞMAYIM) meaning "I am 'speaking'", "I am 'communicating'", I am
'talking'", "I am speech", "I am discourse", "I
am words". This is a very powerful
revelation. This means that Turkish word "KONUŞMA" was already anagrammatized into the
so-called "Latin" language.
Please note that
the particle EX (pronounced as EKS) in the beginning of the Latin word
"EXCOMMUNICARE" (and others) gives the false impression that it is a
prefix, but actually it is the altered Turkish word KES meaning
"cut" or "stop".
The Turkish word KESTIM means "I cut". Its root is the Turkish word "KES" meaning "cut". This word itself has been
incorporated into "Latin" language in differing forms in many words.
For example:
Latin word SECO, meaning "to cut", when rearranged as "CES-O" (KES O) is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KES O" meaning "it is cut, it is to cut". So
the Turkish root word has not been anagrammatized by itself directly, but,
rather has been wrapped with another conjugational form of it.
Latin word SECARE, meaning "to cut", rearranged as "CESER-A" is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KESER O" meaning "it cuts".
Latin word EXCIDERE (to
cut down), rearranged as "KESDIC-IERE" is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KESDIK YERE" meaning "we cut it to the ground; we destroyed it; we cut him down". Turkish KESDIK means "we cut", YER means "ground", YERE means "to the ground".
Similarly, many
other Latin words such as SECEDO, SECERNO, SECRETO, SECTILIS, SECTIONIS,
SECTOR, SECTURA, and many others have been made up from Turkish word "KES" anagrammatized as "SEC, CES, SCI, or CIS".
None of this is coincidence!
English words
CESSION, CESSATION, SCISSOR, SCISSORS, SCISSION, and many more, have all
been made up from Turkish words and/or expressions based on KES.
Although the provided "etymology" of the word EXCOMMUNICARE points
to a Latin source, I just demonstrated that the true and real source of
the word is the Turkish language and the concept does not necessarily belong to
the church.
With regards to the question of when was this Turkish phrase taken and
incorporated into "Latin", I would say that it was probably done
sometime in the 1st millennium B. C.
*****
You said:
"Since the words in every language
change over time, how have the 'words under the lens' that you have cited
changed over time? For instance, does the term "KONUŞMAYI
KESTIM" mean the same today as it did a few hundred years ago and is it
still spelled the same as it was back then?"
I do not think that
there has been any change in it at all. The Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI KESTIM" is
made up of two words. The first is KONUŞMA meaning "talking,
speaking, communicating, counseling, conversing, chatting, giving a speech". In other words, verbal talk between people, whatever
the subject may be. Its verb form is KONUŞMAK meaning "to speak, to converse, to talk, to discuss. to get council" and its root is "KONUŞ" (GONUŞ) meaning "speak, talk, chat, council together, discuss together".
The Turkish word KONUŞMAYI means "the communication, the talking, the speaking". This word has many variations due to its conjugation
to express many different situations. Hence the root is from Turkish verb
KONUŞMAK and its root is "KONUŞ".
This word is one of
the most widely used words in Turkish and is used daily by millions of
people. Turkish peoples have always used this term and there is no reason
to have it changed. There is evidence that this Turkish word was also in
the ancient so-called "Egyptian" (Masarian) language.
"KONUŞ" is one of the words that makes the Turkish language a
SUN language by way of Turkish homonyms: GÜNEŞ (KÜNEŞ) means "sun" and "the
sunlight", "GONUŞ (KONUŞ) means "speech" and
GANIŞ (KANIŞ) means "understanding". Of course,
Turkish also has other words that mean "speak" or "speaking" or "language" - such as AUZ
(AGUZ), SÖZ, DE, DEDI,
SÖYLE, SÖYLEDI", DANIŞ, DANIŞDI".
I don't agree with the linguistic assumption that "the words in every language change over time". Language change is done intentionally by man.
It is not a natural process! I
have the feeling that this "linguistic" assumption is put forward by
those who want to open the gates to change a given language for some political
reasons. Changing a language is a game for divide and rule.
Dialectal changes do occur but these are essentially the same word voiced
differently.
Spelling is a
problem with the Indo-European (IE) and Semitic languages - because they are
"inflected" languages. In other words, it is a problem for them
because they are manufactured languages. Spelling is never a problem with
Turkish for a Turkish speaker. As soon as a Turkish word is voiced, it is
readily known exactly how to spell it. Turkish is a phonetic and
straightforward language with simple and logical rules. Those who don't
know this fact put all kinds of distortion in the writing and speaking of
Turkish words.
To answer your
question "does the term "KONUŞMAYI KESTIM" mean
the same today as it did a few hundred years ago",
I say yes, it was the same as it is now and it will most likely be the same in
the future.
You also asked:
"Also, what is the motivation for
someone to take words from one language, scramble the letters and use the words
in their own language?"
The reasons for it
can be summarized as follows:
a)
Those who took the Turkish words and expressions to make new words for
themselves, most likely did not have a fully developed proper language of their
own - but wanted to have one - to make themselves a "nation". This
probably was their prime motivation. Because having a language of your
own is a big asset. Without a language, one cannot be a
"nation". Initially, they were "wanderer peoples" who
probably got by with a very limited language.
b)
Turkish speaking ancient Turanian civilization was a dominant world wide
civilization followed in Asia, Europe and North Africa. Hence, initially
people everywhere spoke Turkish and followed the ancient Turanian religion in
Turkish. This made other languages, if any, as secondary and
underdeveloped. The dominant effect of Turkish on other languages was like the
suppressing effect of "English" on the languages of today.
When the time came,
some people wanted to fall apart from this ancient Turanian civilization and
its religion. They wanted to have their own religion and also their own
language. Turkish was the readily available source data base to benefit from
for this purpose.
c)
The Turkish language is a monosyllabic and agglutinative language. Most
of the single syllabic sounds have been defined as root words which are the
basic names for concepts. Additionally, meaningful suffixes, which when
added to the root words, create meanings describing all kinds of new
situations. This makes Turkish a very versatile "first"
language and also a source language available for others to be easily
manufactured from.
d) To
create a language from nothing is a very difficult task that takes thousands of
years. Creating a new language from an already existing language is much
easier and can be achieved in a much shorter time, that is, as short as a few
generations.
e)
When one defines a concept in Turkish and then breaks that phrase up and rearranges
it anyway he pleases - even with alterations and substitutions, the result
becomes a new "word" for a new "language" that is not
recognizable as Turkish anymore. The meaning to be attributed to each new
word is already in the Turkish word and/or phrase that it was made from. This
makes the process of new language engineering, by way of anagrammatizing from
Turkish, a very easy and profitable task. This is not
"adopting" or "borrowing" but rather, "usurping".
f) From my
studies of the words belonging to the so-called "Indo-European"
languages, I have discovered that the IE languages have been manufactured from
Turkish by way of anagrammatizing and disguising. This is an
ongoing process behind closed doors. It is used to continuously
enrich a language with new words manufactured from Turkish source texts.
g)
Greeks and Romans did this to come up with the "Greek" and
"Latin" languages, just like the Babylonians did it to come up with
so-called Akkadian and other Semitic languages. The so-called
"religious" cabal priests who presented themselves as the middle-man,
talking to God in one hand and talking to people at the other, were most
likely the ones that did this alteration of the ancient Turanian language of
Turkish and its dialects into new "Indo-European" and
"Semitic" languages. Evidently, talking to the public with an
unrecognizable broken up foreign language became an asset for these "godly
priests".
Having said all
this, let me also cite a part of GENESIS 11 of The Old Testament relevant to
languages (bolding of items 7 and 9 is mine), ["New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures" by New World Bible Translation
Committee, 1984, p. 18-19]:
1. Now all the earth
continued to be of one language and of one set of words.
2 It came about that in their journeying eastward they
eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shinar, and they took up
dwelling there.
3. And they began to say, each one to the other: "Come on!
Let us make bricks and back them with a burning process". So brick served
as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar.
4. They now said: "Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and
also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make celebrated name for
ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth.
5. And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that
sons of men had built.
6. After that Jehovah said: Look! They are one people and
there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now
there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for
them.
7. Come now! Let us go down and there confuse
their language that they may not listen to one another's language.
8. Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all
the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city.
9. That is why its name was called Ba'bel, because
there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered
them from there over all the surface of the earth."
Point 2 makes a
reference to the land of "Shinar" - where the Turanian
Turko-Sumerians flourished with their civilization. As can be seen from
this citing, there has been a religious conspiracy against the ancient Turanian
world which gave civilization to the world. Genesis 11 is implying
that Jehova was so intolerant or jealous of those Sumerians who were capable of
achieving so many things, that he needed to confuse their one language that the
world was speaking. What ungodly behavior on the part of Jehova to do such a
thing. First of all, God does not get jealous of people. God is
supposed to be very tolerant. Secondly, God does not talk to
people. And thirdly, God does not change or "confuse" a
language that the whole world spoke. People who followed the concept of
Jehova did that "confusion" - under the pretext of a godly
commandment.
*****
At this point I would like to share with you
the following reference citing. H. G. WELLS, in his book "The
outline of History", writes the following, [H. G. Wells, "The
outline of History", Volume 1, 1920, 1956, p. 232]:
"But the barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose
civilization was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities
and writing were already there. The Greeks did not grow a civilization of
their own; they wrecked one and put another together upon and out of the ruins."
The Greeks, Romans
and Babylonian groups did exactly that. They did not grow a civilization
of their own. Rather, they took the ancient Turanian civilization with
its Turkish language, destroyed the
physical material creations, built new structures on top of the ones that they
destroyed. And additionally, they confused (i.e., scrambled, altered, rearranged, encrypted) the existing Turkish
language to engineer new languages for themselves.
When H. G. WELLS
states: "But the
barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose civilization
was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities and writing
were already there", the civilization he refers to was the civilization of the
ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.
*****
One definition of
the term TURANIAN is given as (bolding of item 3 is mine): “Adjective. Of or pertaining to a large family of agglutinative languages
of Europe and northern Asia, neither Indo-European nor Semitic, specifically
known as the Ural-Altaic languages, or any of the people who speak them. Noun.
1 One whose mother tongue is Ural-Altaic language; a person of Ural-Altaic
stock. 2 The Ural-Altaic languages collectively. 3 Theoretically,
one of an unknown nomadic people who antedated the Aryans in Europe and Asia. [<
Persian Turan, a country north of the Oxus River].” [Encyclopaedia Britannica World language Dictionary,
1963, p. 1353.]
The bolded
statement indicates the fact that the Turanians, that is the Tur/Turk/Oguz
peoples, antedated the Aryans in Europe and Asia. In other words, the Turanian civilization was already
established and flourishing in Europe and Asia and in Africa far earlier than
the arrival of the "Aryans" to Europe. This fact is also
verified by the above citing from H. G. Wells.
*****
Sir E. A. Wallis
Budge, ["Egyptian Language" written in 1910 in British Museum:,
London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications
Inc, Fourteenth Impression, 1977], states:
"The ancient Egyptians expressed their
ideas in writing by means of a large number of picture signs, known as
hieroglyphics. They began to use them for this purpose more than seven thousand
years ago, and they were employed uninterruptedly until about 100 BC, that is
to say, until nearly the end of the rule of the Ptolemies over Egypt. It
is unlikely that the hieroglyphic system of writing was invented in Egypt, and
evidence indicates that it was brought there by certain invaders who came from
north-east or Central Asia; they settled down in the valley of the Nile,
somewhere between Memphis on the north and Thebes on the south, and gradually
established their civilization and religion in their new home. Little
by little the writing spread to the north and to the south, until at length
hieroglyphics were employed, for state purposes at least, from the coast of the
Mediterranean to the most southern portion of the Island of Meroë, a tract of
country over 2,000 miles long."
The bolding in the
above citing is also mine. Those "certain
invaders from Central Asia" cited
above were surely the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz people who established and
flourished the most ancient and long-lived civilization of MASAR (MISIR) -
which is incorrectly but intentionally mislabeled as "EGYPT". I
find countless numbers of Turkish words in the ancient language of Masarians
(so-called "Egyptians") which takes Turkish back some six thousand
years from the present.
*****
The Çatal
Höyük excavations in Anatolia have clearly demonstrated ancient Turanian
civilization in Anatolia that goes back to at least 7000 B. C.
*****
I know my response
is lengthy, but in view of your inquiries, it needed to be that way. This
should satisfy your inquiries.
Best wishes to you
and to all,
Polat Kaya
31/03/2009
ganggon@... wrote: