Dear Darren Bohannon,
Thank you for replying to my first response. In that response you
identified yourself and I am happy that you did.
Now I will respond to your first posting which I read in detail. Your
argument is based on presently established views that assume and perpetrate
the notion that all of these many languages were present independently of
each other for thousands of years but and as people contacted each other,
their languages also changed in time with borrowings from each other.
Essentially, this is the theme of your letter.
To start with, I say that while the
borrowings do have some dilution effect on languages, that is not the main
determining factor of the formation of languages. The determining factor is the invisible hands that have manufactured new
languages from an old "father" language. And I say that that "proto" language was the "BIR
ATA", that is, "one
father" language of Turkish.
Additionally in your letter, you are addressing issues related to Ottoman
Turkish which I am not talking about in my writings. I will now respond
to some of your points below.
1. You said:
"Let me begin by saying that I am not a
professional linguist, and that I only know how to speak, read, and write in
English. I have a Bachelor's Degree in history with a focus on early United
States history, so the area covered by ancient Turks is obviously not my
specialty. I will also say, however, that I am not ignorant of other regions
of the world, which is why I found your idea that Turkish is the root of all
languages to be ridiculous. I would also like to know what your
qualifications are, and whether your views are shared by distinguished
scholars in the field of linguistics."
Polat Kaya: With this introduction, you criticized my work and
also stated your disapproval.
By your own admission, while
the area covered by ancient Turks is not your specialty, you did not hesitate
to make the all-encompassing judgment: "which is why I found your idea that Turkish is the
root of all languages to be ridiculous." I found this statement of yours to be a hasty judgment. I
am quite sure that you have not read my papers carefully nor have you
understood what I am talking about. Yet with this deficiency, you did
not hesitate to make an aggressive attack. It must be clear to you that those
who do not know a particular subject are not in a position to criticize or
make judgments - particularly vilifying judgments!
After pointing this out, and for the sake of clarity, let me restate my view
by saying that there was only one language that was spoken throughout the
world until a time that the words and phrases of that language were intentionally
restructured to come up with the words of many of the present day languages.
For this, you can visit, at least, the writings in GENESIS 11. That one
language of the world, I say, was the Turanian TURKISH language and many of
its local dialects - although this fact is not as clearly specified in
Genesis 11 as I do in my writings. The newly manufactured languages were the
so-called "Semitic and Indo-Aryan and Indo-European" languages.
You, without understanding the implications of this statement, jumped to a
hasty conclusion and stated that my views were "ridiculous".
Now, in accordance with my stated views about languages, if I can prove that
this so called "English" word "ridiculous" was also manufactured from the Turkish language,
then you must take back your mistaken and unwarranted judgment.
Dictionary definition of the word "ridiculous" is given as "adjective;
deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd :" It gives its origin as mid 16th cent.: from Latin ridiculosus, from ridiculus laughable."
Similarly, the word ridicule,
noun, "the subjection of
someone or something to mockery and derision", origin late 17th
cent.: from French, or from Latin ridiculum,
neuter (used as a noun) of ridiculus laughable, from ridere to laugh.
I say that these etymological definitions are not truthful
and, in fact, are not telling the real story of how these words were made up. Of course, all linguists know this particular word
as being an English word - as we have all been taught and conditioned to
believe the dictionary without really investigating or questioning its
truthfulness. The dictionaries tell us that it was from
"Latin" word ridiculosus,
from ridiculus meaning laughable" and we all take it at its face value.
As it appears, this word "ridiculous" is certainly not a Turkish word, nor is it similar
to any Turkish word by the way it is voiced or spelled. Hence, I do not
claim it as a Turkish word in its present English form. But what you
are seeing is not necessarily the truth. Things of this nature can be
very subtle and unnoticeable. In the case of this word
"ridiculous", the Turkish language has not adopted it in any shape or form - as Turkish has its own ways
of expression the same concept.
I say that this so-called English" word has been made up from a Turkish
expression as follows:
When I take the word RIDICULOUS and simply rearrange its
letters as "COULDURISI", what
appears is a distorted form of the Turkish expression "GÜLDÜRICI" (GÜLDÜRÜCÜ) meaning "that
which makes one laugh", or, "it
is laughable" or "it is
comical". As you can see, I just found the Turkish word GÜLDÜRÜCÜ embedded inside this so-called English word RIDICULOUS that
means exactly the same thing as the English word does! Restructuring
and camouflaging have taken place in converting the Turkish word into an
English word so that no one suspects what took place. In this
restructuring (anagrammatizing) of the Turkish word into English, the Turkish
letter "C" has been converted into "S" and the
syllables and the consonants of the Turkish word have been dispersed
throughout the newly structured so-called "English"
word. Please see my paper at link [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/121].
When one compares RIDICULOUS with the Turkish source text "GÜLDÜRICI", we find that they neither look alike nor sound alike, hence
they are words from two different languages. Yet we just discovered that this
English word contains a Turkish word that means exactly the same thing.
Turkish is a mono syllabic and agglutinative language where syllabic Turkish
root words are appended with syllabic suffixes, each with certain linguistic
function - to make longer words or expressions in order to construct phrases
and sentences. Turkish is unlike any of the so-called Indo-European or
Semitic inflectional languages.
The Turkish expression "GÜLDÜRÜCI", being the
expression of an agglutinative mono syllabic language, is made up as follows:
GÜL meaning "laugh" - root
of the verb GÜLMEK .
GÜLMEK meaning "to laugh".
GÜLDÜRMEK meaning "to make one to laugh",
GÜLDÜRÜCI" meaning "that
which makes one laugh", "that which is laughable".
GÜLDÜRÜCI O" meaning "it is
that which makes one laugh", "it is comical".
Thus you can see that what I call a "Turkish expression" is
actually a sentence that defines a given concept and is made up from much
smaller units of Turkish syllabic words added to each other to make a much
longer expression.
Now let us look at the English word "laughable". When the word LAUGHABLE is
rearranged as "ALAG-ULEBH", we see the Turkish expression "ALAY
OLUP" meaning "has
become laughable", "has become the subject of derision".
Once again I just found a Turkish phrase "ALAY OLUP" embedded inside this so-called "English" word
"laughable" that
means exactly the same thing as the English word does! So you see, here
is another English word that has
been manufactured from a Turkish expression of two words - contrary to what
you and the rest of the public, including the linguists, think they know.
Turkish word ALAY means "mockery, ridicule, teasing", OLUP (OLUB) means "has become".
Similarly, even the word DERISIVE is made up from Turkish. For this let us
examine the adverbial form of this word, that is, DERISIVELY. When the word DERISIVELY is rearranged as "ELEY-IDIRVS", we see the Turkish phrase "ALAY
EDERÜZ" meaning "we make
fun of", "we make mockery". The Turkish
expression "ALAY EDERÜZ" is a form of the Turkish master "ALAY
ETMEK" meaning "to make fun of, to ridicule".
In the above definition of the word ridiculous, dictionary gives
its origin from Latin ridiculosus, from ridiculus laughable."
Even if we take the so-called "Latin" term ridiculum as the origin of the word, we find that it too is
made up from Turkish.
The Latin word RIDICULUM, rearranged letter-by-letter as "CULDUIRMI", is a
restructured, Romanized (i.e., "Latinized") and disguised form of
the Turkish expression "GÜLDÜRME" meaning "making one laugh", or, "laughable", or "something to make fun of".
Thus, this so-called Latin word has also been made up from Turkish.
Hence Turkish is at the source of these so-called "Indo-European"
words.
Now, this is very significant, because it takes the Turkish language back to
at least the first millennium B.C. - contrary to what you say, and what the
linguists or historical establishments wrongly say about Turks and Turkish.
Why is this so? I say it is so because Turkish was the root language
for not only English words but also for the Latin words as well. Apparently some people have played a linguistic
tricks on us all.
***
The Greek form of the word "ridicule" is given as "PERIGELASMA"
and "PERIGELASMATOS" meaning "laughing at, cheating", [Divry's English-Greek and Greek-English Desk
Dictionary, 1988, p. 638], and "PERIGELWS"
or "PERIGELWTOS" meaning "derision,
mockery; laughing-stock".
The Greek form of the word PERIGELASMA, rearranged letter-by-letter as "PIR-"GELESMA-A", is
an altered, restructured, Hellenized and disguised form of the Turkish
expression "BIR GÜLÜŞME O" meaning "it is a laughing". This
Turkish phrase "BIR GÜLÜŞME O" is not only embedded in the Greek word PERIGELASMA but
it is also another form of saying "ridiculous" in Turkish.
Please note that while the Greek word PERIGELASMA is one word, the Turkish source of it, BIR
GÜLÜŞME O is a phrase. The
implication of this is that when they were fabricating Greek words, they were
mainly using Turkish phrases because then the resulting Greek word would be
impossible to link to a Turkish word.
Similarly, the Greek form of the word PERIGELASMATOS, rearranged letter-by-letter as
"PIR-GELESSMATA-O", is an altered, restructured,
Hellenized and disguised form of the Turkish expression "BIR
GÜLÜŞMEDI O" again meaning "it
is a laughing". What we see here is that the Turkish
source has been lengthened by adding another suffix to it - before the
anagrammatizing starts.
Similarly, the Greek form of the word PERIGELWS, (where letter W is a composite bogus letter that
stands for combinations of UU, VV, YY, UV, UY, VY), rearranged letter-by-letter as "PIR-GULUS-EE", is an altered,
restructured, Hellenized and disguised form of the Turkish expression "BIR
GÜLÜŞ O" - again meaning "it
is a laugh".
Similarly, the Greek form of the word PERIGELWTOS, (where letter W is a composite bogus letter that
stands for combinations of UU, VV, YY, UV, UY, VY), rearranged letter-by-letter as "PIR-GULUSTEE-O", is again
an altered, restructured, Hellenized and disguised form of the Turkish
expression "BIR GÜLÜŞTÜ O" - again meaning "it is a laugh".
Thus when we put these Greek, Latin, English words and their Turkish source
texts side by side we get following picture:
RIDICULUM < "GÜLDÜRME
O".
RIDICULUS (RIDICULOUS)
< "GÜLDÜRICI"
(GÜLDÜRÜCÜ, GÜLDÜRÜCÜ O).
PERIGELASMA < "BIR GÜLÜŞME O".
PERIGELASMATOS < "BIR
GÜLÜŞMEDI O".
PERIGELWS < "BIR GÜLÜŞ O".
PERIGELWTOS < "BIR
GÜLÜŞTÜ O".
In this list, the Latin, Greek and English words all have one common Turkish
source word of GÜLMEK and its various
derivatives in Turkish. Thus these words of "Aryan" languages have
been intentionally manufactured from Turkish but they are well camouflaged
with additional embellishments taken from Turkish.
In view of all these examples, I now ask you, how do you feel about your
hasty judgment of labeling my findings as "ridiculous? I suspect
you may be feeling a bit uncomfortable.
***
In view of this situation, the word comparison methods used by linguists are
not a valid test case anymore because the artificially manufactured
"words" of IE languages are actually made up from phrases
rather than "words". So those IE words have taken their
meanings from the Turkish phrases that they were made up from. Thus they have
already lost all of their similarities to much smaller Turkish words. Thus
the linguistic comparison test is a "loaded dice" which causes no
similarities to appear between the so-called "Indo-European" (IE)
words and the words of Turkish.
The point of all this was to show you how wrong you were in labeling my
discovery as "ridiculous". You can see that the linguistic and the
historical establishments have put you (as well as the rest of the public)
into total "darkness" by brainwashing everyone to believe in some
misconceptions as the "truth" - when they are not true! They
have preconditioned the public from childhood onwards that IE languages were
supposedly independently developed "languages" all the while hiding
the fact that they were manufactured from Turkish. But when it comes to
verbology, they are so quick to deny the presence of Turks and the Turkish
language in history earlier than 1071 A.D. How convenient, how
dishonest and how sinful on the part of the historical establishments to deny
an ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz civilization that gave every aspect of
ancient civilization to the world. Yet the ancient Greeks, Romans,
Semites and some others unfairly get the credits - while the real contributors,
that is, the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz
peoples are just dismissed as
"barbars" without any contributions. For the record, let me
say that when someone takes someone else's property, and then alters it,
restructures it into a different form, paints it a different color - and then
sells it to the world as his/her own property, that is called "stealing" in
easy-to-understand terms. And that is why I use the term "Turkish words
and phrases were stolen" in manufacturing many languages. In your
letter, you seemed to object to my saying so.
Let me also point out that if a Turkish word was maintained in its original
"Turkish" form when taken in to another language - because of
contact with Turks, or vice versa, then we could comfortably say
that that word was "adopted" or "imported" from
Turkish. For example, the Turkish word "YOGURT" is an adopted
or imported word in many other languages as
it has kept its original Turkish
form. If a word or phrase has been altered however, then, it is not
imported nor adopted but rather stolen as my above given examples clearly
demonstrate!
In your letter, somehow you have missed this point and wrongly state that I
am dealing with similar words. I can understand the difficulty you face in
reading my papers because you do not know Turkish. Similarly, most linguists
do not know Turkish either because the establishment has cleverly suppressed
it as an unimportant language.
***
In support of what I have been saying in my writings, at this point I would
like to suggest that you also read the following paper by HYDE CLARKE entitled "THE TURANIAN EPOCH
OF THE ROMANS, AS ALSO OF THE GREEKS, GERMANS, AND ANGLO-SAXONS, IN RELATION
TO THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE WORLD", published in "the
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society", Vol. VIII, 1880, p. 172
-222.
Let me cite just one paragraph from the research of Hyde Clarke:
"My own researches, as laid in detail this year
before the Philological Society, fully establish the character of the
Etruscans as a Turanian language, belonging to one great group, or family of
families, allied to the languages of all the nations of early culture, the
pre-Hellenic, Thracian, Phyrigian, Lydian, Carian, Georgian, Canaanite, the
Akkad of Babylonia, and Egyptian. Among modern languages the analogues are
with Basque, Ugro-Altaic, Georgian, many languages of India and Further
India, Japanese, Coptic, and the languages of higher culture of Central,
Western, and Southern Africa, and many languages of North, South, and Central
America."
This revelation is a mouthful. Both the historians and linguists should
take note of it. It is surprising to see that the worlds historical and
linguistic writers ignored this Turanian fact of the ancient world so far and
in fact intentionally buried it into darkness. In view of the above
citing, when I say that the ancient world was a "House of OGUZ", I
am absolutely correct! After all, I base my conclusions of my studies
on a lot of different sources as I have indicated in my writings.
See, for example, the following urls:
1874 - Literary Criticism
We need not again refer to the fact that almost all the earliest
inscriptions of Asia have been proved to be of Turanian origin. Mr. Hyde Clarke traces a...
books.google.ca/books?id=tCegAAAAMAAJ...
Polat Kaya: This sentence essentially states that
the ancient pictorial writing system, the cuneiform, the hieroglyphic,
alphabetic writing system were all the invention of Turanians and as a result
of this discovery, the learning knowledge in schools was also the invention
of Turanians contrary to all kinds of denying disinformation. The author
above states that "We need not again refer to the fact that almost
all the earliest inscriptions of Asia have been proved to be of Turanian origin." By this statement the author admits that this fact
has already been established and we need not to refer to it as such.
Of course, some groups may have conveniently taken it the wrong way thinking
that we should not remember that fact. If so, this reminds me the
"Biblical statement under "ISAIAH" saying that "For here
I am creating new heavens and new earth; and the former things will not be
called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart."
Evidently this religious command forced those trusting peoples who were newly
converted to Judeo-Christianity to forget the ancient Turkish Era and the
Turkish civilization in that era altogether. Additionally, no
"invisible" God would have talked to any human being and
stated such pronouncements. What we see above is a human made
propaganda concoction deceiving and conditioning the public to forget a much
older civilizaton than the one they are offering.
As have noted in my paper at url http://www.polatkaya.net/Turkish_Era.htm, it can be said that human history up to the formulation of
Judeo-Christianity was the TURKISH ERA or Turanian Epoch. After the start of
Judeo Christianity, Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and their civilization were
obliterated intentionally by a bunch of clergy-politicians - and what
belonged to Turanians were stolen and given to Greeks, Jews, Romans, and
others without any mention of the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.
12 Feb 2009 ... Hyde
Clarke (1880).
The Turanian Epoch of the Romans, as also of the Greeks,
Germans, and Anglo-Saxons, in relation to the Early History of ...
journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0080440100001523
by H Clarke - 1925
The Turanian Epoch of the Romans, as also of the Greeks,
Germans, and Anglo ...
journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid...
Hyde Clarke. "Every inflectional language was once agglutinative and
every agglutination once monosyllabic." Also that "the Turanian despises every idiom ...
Polat Kaya: This means that a long time ago, the world was speaking the monosyllabic
and agglutinative language of Turkish until it was confused by certain groups
of Aryan, Semite and other origin.
You must understand that when I say Turks, I do not mean only the Turks
of Turkey but all the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples all over the
world.
***
The term "epoch" (noun) is defined as: "a period of time in history or a person's
life, typically one marked by notable events or particular characteristics;
the beginning of a distinctive period in the history of someone or
something;
Geology a division of time that is a subdivision of a period and is itself
subdivided into ages, corresponding to a series in chronostratigraphy : the
Pliocene epoch.
Astronomy an arbitrarily fixed date relative to which planetary or stellar
measurements are expressed."
ORIGIN early 17th cent.(in the Latin form epocha; originally in the general sense of a date
from which succeeding years are numbered): from modern Latin epocha, from Greek epokhē stoppage, fixed point of time, from epekhein stop, take up a position, from epi upon, near to + ekhein stay, be in a
certain state."
Actually, the Greek Dictionary gives EPOKHE as meaning "epoch,
era, time, season", [Divry's English-Greek and Greek-English
Desk Dictionary, 1988, p. 513].
Thus, "epoch" also has the meaning of "originally in the
general sense of a date from which succeeding years are numbered)".
This means that before the the "Judeo-Christianity Era" was
started, it was the Turanian Era (epoch) that was used throughout the world
and the event dating system was a Turanian dating system. The so-called
"Before Christ" (B. C) and (A. D.) system intentionally obliterated
the ancient Turanian dating system and with it everything in the previous
Turanian civilization was not only obliterated but also looted. That is why
they say that "do not remember that period". Please see also my paper at url http://www.polatkaya.net/Turkish_Era.htm,
***
Additionally, please note a recent enlightening
study by Dorothy Figueira given in her book entitled "ARYANS, JEWS, BRAHMINS: THEORIZING
AUTHORITY THROUGH MYTHS OF IDENTITY". Following is a summary writing
about this study which is given at link
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3612/is_200310/ai_n9266521/ .
[ARYANS, JEWS, BRAHMINS: THEORIZING AUTHORITY THROUGH MYTHS OF IDENTITY. By Dorothy Figueira. New York: State University of New York Press
, 2002. 300 p.]
This study should also be very enlightening for many "scholars".
***
2. You said:
"I would also like to know what your qualifications
are, and whether your views are shared by distinguished scholars in the field
of linguistics. From what I've read so far, your views are not widely
accepted in the linguistic community. While there is certainly a possibility
that you are correct, this lack of support is bound to make any rational
person suspicious. Instead of simply dismissing you out of hand, however, I
decided to ask you about your views. Please respond with this in mind: I am
not hostile, but I am also certainly not convinced in any way that what you
say is true."
Polat Kaya: I am as good a scholar or better than what you call
"distinguished scholars". My papers speak for
themselves. I do not need a jury of other scholars to certify what I
say. Those who do not know what I am talking about, and also think that
what I am saying is contrary to their established beliefs, are not in a
position to make judgments about my work or myself. Of course, what I say is
totally contrary to the linguistic community. If not now, then
eventually, they will have to accept my findings. Let us not forget that
Galileo Galilei was also contrary to the establishment when he said that it
was the earth that turned around the sun rather than the sun around the
earth. Eventually all that "community of distinguished scholars"
turned around and accepted his views. My findings are also in the same
category. Therefore, your question about my qualifications and whether my views are shared by distinguished
scholars in the field of linguistics are irrelevant. Whether or not you believe my findings is your
choice. I am not going to impose on you or anyone else - nor will I
bring any other third party to make you believe. If you believe, you
will be enlightened. If you do not believe, you will stay as you
are. If you wish you may visit the following internet links:
http://www.polatkaya.net/Polat_Kaya.htm
http://www.polatkaya.net/Articles.htm
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/
http://www.storm.ca/~cm-tntr/
***
3. You said:
"I will also tell you what I know about the
cultural and linguistic history of the Turks. I know that the Turks originate
from the steppes of central Asia, near Mongolia, and were driven Westward by
other nomadic groups in the area. Eventually, they made their way to the
Middle East where they served in the Muslim armies in their conquests of Byzantine
and Persian lands. I am pretty sure that the Seljuk Turks were the first
group of Turks to settle in Anatolia, what is now considered Turkey. From
what I know, the Turks were in no way native to the area. As a minority group
in the lands of powerful empires, I would imagine that many Turkish words
would have been influenced by Arabic, Greek, and Persian, where the Turks saw
the most military action and spent the most time. (This is, consequently, why
I think Turkish might have some similarities with Indo-European languages as
well as Asian languages.) The Ottoman Turks were another, later-arriving
group of Turks who eventually managed to subdue all the other Turkish groups
in Anatolia and eventually absorbed the Eastern Roman Empire."
Polat Kaya: I am afraid what you know and learned from the
establishment is extremely superficial. What you know constitutes only a
small portion of the history of Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. The
Seljuk Turks were not the first ones to settle in Anatolia, or the
Middle East, Egypt, (MASAR/MISIR), Iran or India or other parts of the
world. That is where everyone is making their mistakes - because the
establishment said so. I want to point out that what you call
"Byzantine and Persian" lands were actually Turanian lands in far
earlier times before the so-called "Byzantine and Persian" identity
ever existed in the first millennium B.C.. The emigration of the Turanians
from Central Asia outward has most likely been from the ending of the last
Ice Age - extending into the past at least 25,000 years. The
following map gives an indication of the migration paths of Turanian Turkish
speaking peoples far earlier than the Seljuk Turks that you mention in your
letter.
Historical migration paths of Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples
(if the picture does not appear, see attachment I)
***
4. You said:
"Ottoman society was very flexible because they eventually
ruled over a very diverse population in which Turks were actually not the
most numerous group. I imagine that this would have further mixed the native
languages (Greek, Balkan languages, Arabic, some Persian, and other minority
languages) with the Turkish that the Ottomans spoke. This mixture of language
would have gone both ways, leading to the adoption of some Turkish words and
phrases into these languages and some words and phrases from those languages
into Turkish. I have a friend who speaks Turkish as their native language who
says that there are some similarities between Turkish and Arabic (which they
also speak), but that the languages are far from mutually intelligible. I
also have a couple of Persian friends who tell me that Persian and Arabic,
while containing some similarities (mostly brought about by the widespread
practice of Islam), the languages are also quite different and not mutually
intelligible."
Polat Kaya: Please note that the ancient Greeks were already
speaking a form of Turkish before they fabricated the so-called
"Greek" language from Turkish. Greeks (Latin Graeci, Turkish
Garachi/Garaci) were just wanderers at the time that the Turanians had a
world wide civilization. Greeks were not natives of what is presently called Greece, or the Balkans, or Anatolia, or in the
Aegean sea basin. Far before the Greeks arrived, all of those lands
were the lands of Trojans, Pelasgians, Etruscans, Anatolian Turks. So
your reference statements omits the older times of Turanians in the world and
conveniently start from the first millennium B. C. onwards with the Greeks
and Persians - which are, compared to the Turanians, much more recent groups.
When you say that "This mixture of language
would have gone both ways, leading to the adoption of some Turkish words and
phrases into these languages and some words and phrases from those languages
into Turkish." it may sound reasonable but
it is not correct. There are many Turkish words in Greek which have
been only lightly Hellenized and are mostly from the Ottoman times. But these
words do not make up the main body of the Greek language. What appears
to be the "real Greek words" are the ones that have been actually
anagrammatized from Turkish phrases in the ancient times - as I demonstrated
above. In other words, they are altered and disguised Turkish phrases - put
into a format called "Greek". This fact is not known and that is
the fact that I am talking about and sharing with readers. On the other hand, what was adopted into Ottoman
Turkish from other languages were kept very much the same as in
"Greek" or in other languages.
Similarly, there are many Turkish words in the so-called "Persian"
language that people are not aware of, or, do not admit. Turkish words do
exist in the "Persian" language because before "Persian"
language in Iran, there was the Turkish language in Iran - starting from at
least the times of ELAM (ALAM) and Sumerians in the area. This fact has
been conveniently overlooked.
As I mentioned, Turkish is a monosyllabic agglutinative language that cannot
be readily mixed with other languages without destroying the nature of
Turkish.
Also I noted above for you, adoption of a word or phrase from another
language is one thing, but anagrammatizing words and phrases from another
language into a language is a completely different thing. Thus we must
not confuse and compare oranges with apples as that would be very
misleading. Greek, Persian and Arabic languages have anagrammatized
words from Turkish, therefore, the appearance and pronunciation of the words
in these languages are very different than that of Turkish. Turkish
words and phrases have been "confused" (Genesis 11) in the
formation of these languages so that they are not mutually intelligible any
more.
It is natural for your friend to notice some similarities between Turkish and
Arabic because Turkish was a much earlier language in the world than the
artificially manufactured languages of" Arabic" and
"Persian". When the new religion of Islam was being spread in
Iran and Central Asia, it was not only the Arabs doing it, but there were
also a lot of Turkish peoples in that Arabic expansion.
The Greeks and Romans were belligerent and destructive groups against the Turks and their language and
civilization. There was a time that the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples were also
called "SARACENS" by Greeks and Romans. In this regard,
Wikipedia gives the following definition at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracen
"Saracen was a term used by the ancient Romans to refer to people who inhabited the deserts near
the Roman province of Syria and who were distinct from Arabs. The term was later applied to Arab peoples and by the
time of European chroniclers during the time of the Crusades came
to be synonymous with Muslim."
The so-called "Roman province of
Syria" was a "land of Tyria" before it was changed. The so-called "Canaanites" (which included the so-called "Phoenicians") were the ancient
Turanian "GÜNHANS".
The invention of "Judeo-Christianity"
altered their names and thus erased the Tur/Turk/Oguz element from that
area. All those people in the area who were called SARACENS were
a mixture of Turanians - particularly the Kipchak Turks who had blond hair.
The term SARACENS is from Turkish "SARI CANIZ" meaning "we are
yellow people". Additionally, it has the meaning of "SARI
GÜNEŞ" meaning "the yellow sun".
This name was in accordance of their ancient "sun" based religion. As described by the
Wikipedia reference, the Christian Crusader lumped all of those
Turanians as "Arabs" which is again an intentional
obliteration act of the identity of Turanians. Turkish Saracens
and the North African BERBERS (i.e.,TUAREGS, that is, ancient TURKS of
North Africa) went together to Spain and founded the so-called "Andalucian Empire" that is, "the
MOORS". They were again called by the name "Arabs".
It must also be noted that the so-called term "AL-ANDALUS" comes from the Turkish name "AL ANADOLU" meaning Anatolian Red Sun worshipping
Turks.
See my paper http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/249
http://www.polatkaya.net/You.Asked.for.Turkish.Traces.htm
That is why you must note how certain groups have been so quick to alter the
name of Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and call them by some other name.
***
You said:
I have a friend who speaks Turkish as their native
language who says that there are some similarities between Turkish and Arabic
(which they also speak), but that the languages are far from mutually
intelligible. I also have a couple of Persian friends who tell me that
Persian and Arabic, while containing some similarities (mostly brought about
by the widespread practice of Islam), the languages are also quite different
and not mutually intelligible."
Polat Kaya: Although this comment of yours is an irrelevant view in
regards to my topic, and it does not change my linguistic findings, I must
point out that the so-called "Persian", "Arabic" and even
"Aramaic" were layers of languages that were imposed on the
population of Iran at different times in history. The majority of that
population was a Turkish speaking population since much earlier times. The
purpose of imposing these new languages on native populations of Iran was to
get them to speak a new language rather than continue with their native one.
However, even in that process the native peoples and their language were not
totally annihilated or assimilated. Some leftovers from the old native
language would still be present in the new system. When this happens,
it is possible to find some similarities between the integrated languages,
although they may not be mutually intelligible.
In spite of this, it must be remembered that in Iran, presently, there are
close to some forty million Azerbaijan Turks speaking their native Turkish
and also Persian. And these Turks are not just from the recent past.
This kind of Turkish speaking Azer-Turks (or Azeri Turks) and other Turkish
population have always been present in Iran throughout history. Therefore
historians referring to Iran as an "Aryan" country is a
misnomer. Iran geography was
Aryanized and called "Persia" only since the middle of the first
millennium B. C. Before that time, Iran was a land of Turanians since
the time of Alams (Elams), that is, since 3000 B.C. plus - contrary to what
is known.
In the so-called "Iranian history", when we go to much earlier
times, we find the so called "Elamite Kingdom", (3000660 BC).
"The Elamites were a people located in Susa, in
what is now Khuzestan province. Their language was neither Semitic nor
Indo-European, and they were the geographic precursors of the Persian/Median
empire that later appeared. Some have offered evidence for a linguistic
kinship between Elamite and the modern Dravidian languages of Southern India
(see "Elamo-Dravidian languages") but this is not universally
accepted. The proto-Elamites lived far back as 7,500 years ago in Iran."
The name KHUZESTAN is not a randomly selected name for the ELAM (ALAM) geography of Iran. The name KHUZESTAN is
a Turkish word that has several meanings:
a) The name KHUZESTAN,
in the form "KHUZ-ESTAN", is the Turkish expression "OGUZISTAN" which is an ancient Turanian name like the name TURKISTAN. So Iran geography was a
Turanian land at least since 3000 B.C. at the time of ELAMS which
was actually the Turkish word "ALAM" meaning "I am Red (Sun)" ( I am the
believer of the Red Sun-God).
b) Additionally, the name KHUZESTAN, rearranged as "ESTAN-KHUZ", is the Turkish expression "ISTAN
GUZ" (TANRI OGUZ) meaning "God Oguz". The name
Oguz is also a national ancestral name of the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.
Additionally, "ESTAN-KHUZ", is also the Turkish expression:
c) "IŞITAN GÖZ" meaning "the eye
that lights up" -
which is again the SUN.
d) "IŞITAN KÖZ" meaning "the fire
that lights up and heats up",
that is, "IŞITAN
GÜNEŞ" / "ISITAN
GÜNEŞ" in Turkish - which is again
the SUN.
These definitions all refer to the SUN, that is, Turkish "GÜN"
(KÜN, KIN, HUN, HIN,GÜNEŞ, etc.).
Thus, the name KHUZESTAN means "the
Sun-God OGUZ country".
The Turkish expression "IŞITAN GÖZ" also means "the
enlightening eye" -
which is the human eye. Without the sun and its light, and without the
human "eye", we have no way of being lit up nor enlightened.
In one meaning the term ISTAN means "god".
For example, the Turanian ALAMS (i.e., the Semitized form "ELAM")
had a Dynasty by the name Tukrish kingdom,
(c.2350- c.2250 BC), which was nothing
but "TUR-ISHIK" ("TUR IŞIK
or TURK IŞI) Dynasty.
Similarly there was the Shutrukid Dynasty
(c. 1205 c. 1100 BC). This name SHUTRUKID, rearranged as "SHU-TURK-DI" is the Turkish expression "IŞI
TURK IDI" meaning "It was Light-Turk", that
is, "it was the Sun
Dynasty of Turk". All of the other Turanian
Dynasties of ALAM (ELAM) have been similarly named in Turkish - but they have
been Semitized.
This is a subject for another paper on ALAM
(ELAM) Turks.
For example, the capital city name TEHRAN of the capital city is a remnant of the name
"TURAN".
Although, it is said that the name "PERSIA" supposedly comes
from Greek "PERSIS", the Greek word "PERSIS"
as well as "PERSIKOS" also mean "Persian,
Iranian". This ignores the fact that almost half of the
population is Turkish. Yet the name "PERSIKOS" is
applied to all of them.
The Greek name "PERSIKOS, rearranged
as "PIR-KOSS-E", is the restructured and Hellenized form of the
Turkish expression "BIR GÖZ EVI" (BIR GUZ EVI, BIR OGUZ EVI and BIR
AGUZ EVI) and "BIR KÖZ EVI" meaning "one House
of Sun", "One House of Oguz". All of this
indicates that Iran was actually a Turanian land and its original people were
Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples before they were intentionally
"Aryanized".
For example, let us look at the following so-called old "Persian"
title SHAHANSHAH. When
Darius the Great called himself by the title of SHAHANSHAH, that is, "king of kings", he was
actually honoring himself with the Turkish expression of "ŞAH'IN
ŞAHI" meaning "king of kings". The infix "AN" in the word SHAHANSHAH,
is nothing but the altered form of the Turkish suffix "IN" which is the verbal suffix of
"possessive" case indicating one thing belonging to
another. Thus, the words of a Turkish phrase have been altered
and concatenated together to make a "Persian" name.
Similarly, there is the term "PADISHAH" which has also been used by the Ottoman sultans.
This is also regarded by the linguists as a "Persian" word. But the
title term "PADISHAH", rearranged as "PA-ISHAH-D" is the altered form of the Turkish expression "aPA
ISHAH'Di" (APA IŞIK'DI) meaning "he is the
father-light" -
which is the personification of the Sun in
accordance with the culture of the ancient Sun-God worshipping Turanians.
Alternatively, "PADISHAH", rearranged as "ISHAH-AP-D" is the altered form of the Turkish expression "ISHAH
APaDi" (IŞIK APADI) meaning "he is the light-father", "he
is the enlightening father", "he is the guiding Father".
So the source of this title is Turkish rather than Persian - contrary to what
we are told about it. This also tells us that the so called name "SHAH" (Turkish ŞAH) is from the Turkish word IŞIK meaning "light",
that is, the unquenchable "sunlight" - before any other light was invented.
So I say, Turkish is in the essence of all kinds of words, names and
titles. And when one labels Iran as "Persian", it must be
remembered that it is not all "Persian" - nor was it ever.
Since ancient times, Iran geography was one of the native lands of Turanian
Tur/Turk/ Oguz peoples!
***
5. You said:
"Please tell me if you find what I said to be
unreasonable. Since I have no doubt you will find it incorrect (otherwise I
would not disagree with you), please don't tell me that. I am only asking if
what I say is reasonable for someone who doesn't specialize in either
linguistics or Turkish history."
Polat Kaya: After reading all the paragraphs I wrote above, you
should be able to make your own judgment regarding your reasonability. Of
course, what you say is a diluted
explanation and what you say about the Ottoman Turkish is not necessarily the
most likely scenario. It is the one that the establishment wants us to hear
and believe, In the Ottoman Empire the language spoken was
Turkish. But it is also true that it included words imported from
"Arabic" and "Persian". It is most likely that the
Ottomans being an empire who ruled a population of multi-ethnic
identity, used a mixture of languages in order to administer so many
diverse groups under one flag. It is not an easy task to rule such a diverse
community for 600 years in peaceful coexistence without destroying anyone of
them either linguistically or culturally. But this way of peaceful
administration of people comes from the ancient Turanian civilization all
over the world. The Seljuk Empire and the Ottoman Empires constitute
only the last two links of that
long history of Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.
Additionally, your argument about the Ottoman language is not relevant to
what I say about the word fabrication for Indo-European and Semitic languages
from Turkish. My concern is to see how the words of these languages were
made!
You are also incorrect when you say that Turks were not in the majority, when
they arrived in Anatolia. It is interesting to note that when the Battle of Malazgirt took
place between the Byzantium army and the Turkish army, it was surprising to
find that Turkish speaking soldiers of Peçenek Turks were used in the
Byzantium army. Actually, when the Seljuk Turks arrived in Anatolia, it was
another home coming in an ancient Turanian land of Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples who
were suppressed and alienated from their Turkish identity by the Aryan Greeks
and the Romans. The native peoples of Anatolia, Balkans, Ancient Masar
(so-called "Egypt") and North Africa were mostly suppressed
Turanians whose Turkish language and Turkish identity had not been totally
obliterated yet. Just because the ruling groups were Greeks or Romans, does
not means that the main population also was Greek or Romans. Similarly,
when the Seljuk Turks came to Iran and Anatolia, the natives and the newly
arriving Seljucks had common linguistic and ethnic identity despite the
presence of Greeks in the Byzantium Empire.
The Aryanization of Iran had taken place for the first time during the
establishment of the so-called "Achaemenide
Dynasty" in Iran.
Anatolia and Iran were Aryanized further after the military expedition of
Alexander the Great in year 332 B. C. This was a shallow take over by
the forces of Alexander the Great. As an indication of the presence of
Turkish in Anatolia, Greece, Macedonia and Thracia, let me give you the
following example:
The war horse of Alexander the Great was called "BUCEPHALUS", i.e., supposedly
from Greek term "BOUKEPHALOS" meaning "Bull
headed". But this Greek term BOUKEPHALOS was a restructured, disguised and Hellenized form
of the Turkish expression "BOA KAFALI" - meaning "bull
headed". This indicates that Turkish was present all over
the Middle East, Anatolia and Europe at years 356-323 B.C. and earlier.
[http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/232].
After the death of Alexander the Great, Iran was ruled by the Greek Celeucids which
later were taken over by the Turanians - so-called Parthians. Even the
name PARTHIAN is a misleading name because they were SAKA TURKS. Their name SAKA was
changed by the Aryan Greeks of Iran to the
name ARSAKIS, thus their
real Saka Turk identity was altered and obliterated. Let me state it in
another way for you. The name SAKA sounds Turkish yet the name ARSAKIS
sounds very Greek and Aryan. SAKA was changed to ARSAKIS, not by
accident, but by Aryan design.
Additionally, the name ARSAKIS,
rearranged as "ASKARIS",
is also the altered form of the Turkish word "ASKARIZ"
(ASKERIZ) meaning "we are
soldiers" (we are warriors).
The so-called "Parthians",
who ruled in Iran for about six centuries, were actually Turanian SAKA Turks.
It was the Greeks and Romans and other Aryans who were alien in Iran and were
the invaders and the minority in these lands. Here is an interesting proof of
that fact. In the link below is given a paper on Parthians. In
the paper is given the diagrams of Parthian horse riding cavalry soldiers by a Professor A. Sh. Shahbazi: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/parthians/parthian_army.php . In this article, the pictures of the cavalry
soldiers are captioned as: "Parthian Cataphracts (Fully
Armoured Parthian Cavalry)".
In the given picture, even the tails of horses are tied in the ancient
Turanian Turkish tradition,
Now I want to bring your attention to the term "Parthian Cataphracts"
meaning "Fully Armored Parthian Cavalry". This
word is said to have "ORIGIN in late 17th cent.: via Latin from
Greek kataphraktos clothed in full armor. [Oxford American Dictionaries]. I do not
believe the truthfulness of this etymology. Here is why.
The Greek word KATAPHRAKTOS can be rearranged letter-by-letter as "TORK-AT- ASKAPH" where the Greek alphabetic symbol "P" is
the letter "R" in the Latin alphabet, and Greek letter H is either
an H, I or E as required. Thus, the decipherment of the Greek
word KATAPHRAKTOS as "TORK-AT-ASKARI" reveals to us that it is the restructured,
disguised and Hellenized form of the Turkish expression "TURK AT
ASKERI" meaning "Turkish Horse riding soldiers",
that is, "Turkish
cavalry". So this so-called "Parthian Cavalry" was actually "Turkish
Cavalry" and we have all been
conned without being aware of the fact that we have been deceived by the
ancient Greeks and other Aryans. As you can see, this so-called Greek
word is stolen from Turkish and anagrammatized to hide its true Turkish
identity! The cavalry of the Turkish Army is the oldest in the world and are
renowned! Hence, we can confidently say that Turkish was there before
ancient Greeks started to steal the Turkish language. I say
"stole" because they, very obviously, were not
"borrowing" or "embracing" the Turkish term "TURK AT
ASKERI" from the Turks. They secretly
took that Turkish phrase and restructured it and "repainted" it
into KATAPHRAKTOS. As
anybody can see, the Turkish phrase and the Greek word do not appear to have
any linguistic affinity whatsoever. Yet I just showed that the Greek one was
made up from the Turkish phrase.
We also have from Wikipedia, the following at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia
"Parthia is a region of north-eastern Iran, best known for
having been the political and cultural base of the Arsacid
dynasty, rulers of the Parthian
Empire.
The name "Parthia" is a continuation from
Latin Parthia,
from Old Persian Parthava,
which was the Parthian language self-designator signifying "of the
Parthians" who were an Iranian people.
Parthia roughly corresponds to the western half of (Greater)
Khorasan. It was bordered by the Kopet Dag mountain range in the north (today the border
between Iran andTurkmenistan) and the Dasht-e-Kavir desert in the south. It bordered Media on
the west,Hyrcania on the north west, Margiana on
the north east, and Aria on the south east.
During Arsacid times, Parthia was united with Hyrcania (which
today lies partly in Iran and partly in Turkmenistan)
as one administrative unit, and that region is therefore often (subject to
context) considered a part of Parthia proper."
The name PARTHIA and the so-called "old Persian" PARTHAVA" are Turkish names.
The word PARTHIA,
rearranged as "PARTH-IA",
is the restructured, disguised and Latinized (Romanized) form of the Turkish
expression "PART ÖYI" (PARS ÖYI) meaning "House of
Parth" or "House of Pars". The name "pars" is the name of the Asian tiger so-called "leopard" which is the Turkish expression "ALA
PARD" (ALA PARS) meaning "the spotted tiger".
Leopard (Felis Pardus) is a "spotted
tiger". So the source of the name is Turkish rather than
"Old Persian". "PARS"
(PARD) was a symbol of the
"Parthians".
Similarly, the so-called "Old Persian" name PARTHAVA, rearranged
as "PARTH-AVA",
is the restructured, disguised and "Persianized" form of the
Turkish expression "PART EVI" meaning "House of
Parth" or "House of Pars". So again, the name is
sourced from Turkish!
But additionally, the name PARTHIA,
rearranged as "PIR-ATA-H"
(PIR-ATA-E), is the restructured, disguised and Latinized (Romanized)
form of the Turkish expression "BIR ATA Ev" meaning "House of
One-Father God" which refers to the fact that they were the believers of the
ancient Turanian "One-Father
God" concept, that is,
One-Sky-God or "One GÖK
TANRI" in Turkish. Of
course, the ancient Turanian Sun-God and the Moon-God were the visible eyes
of that Sky God "GÖK
TANRI". All these are validations of my findings that
Indo-Europeans and Semites, and probably others as well, alienated the
Turkish language from the native Turanians - while stealing its words and
expressions to manufacture new languages.
Below is given the coin of a Parthian King so-called MITHRIDATES I. Interestingly, one
face of the coin is written in so-called "Greek" language.
Partian coin of king Mithradates I
(If picture does not appear, see attachment 2)
Coin of Mithridates I of Parthia from the mint at Seleucia on the Tigris. The reverse
shows a naked Heracles holding a cup, lion's skin and club. The Greek
inscription reads ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΜΕΓΑΛΟΥ
ΑΡΣΑΚΟΥ
ΦΙΛΕΛΛΗΝΟΣ ([coin] of the
great king Arsaces, friend of the Greeks). The date ΓΟΡ is the
year 173 of the Seleucid era,
corresponding to 140139 BC.
The Greek writing is transliterated as "BASILEOS
MEGALOS APSAKOY PHILEALLHNOS" meaning "The Great King ARSACES, friend of
Greek".
Now, let us analyze each one of these so-called Greek words
individually.
The Greek word BASILEOS meaning "King" rearranged as "IL-BASSE-O",
is the restructured and Hellenized Turkish expression "IL
BAŞI O" meaning "he is the head of the country",
that is, "He is the
King". So the source of this "Greek" word is
from Turkish although it was hidden and Hellenized at a time in the first
millennium B. C.
The second Greek word MEGALOS meaning "big, large, great" rearranged as "S-LO-AGEM",
is the restructured and Hellenized Turkish expression "aS uLU
AGAYIM" meaning "I am One Great Lord",
which refers to his greatness as a king. But his greatness has been
described in Turkish and then Hellenized!
The third Greek word ARSACES (ARSAKES) meaning "Parthian",
rearranged as "S-ER-SAKA",
is the restructured and Hellenized Turkish expression "aS ER
SAKA" meaning "One/Peerless Saka Man" which describes not only the king but also his
people as the "SAKA TURKS". But this
definition of the SAKA people was also described in Turkish and then
Hellenized to get the concocted name "ARSAKES".
Finally the Greek word PHILEALLHNOS meaning "friend of Greek" rearranged as "HELLN-SAPHILO", where Greek symbol "PH" is read as
"F" or "V", is
the restructured and Hellenized Turkish expression "HELEN
SEVILU" meaning "Greek is loved".
This is the Turkish expression that has been translated as "friend of Greek".
Again the source of this so-called Greek word is from Turkish - contrary to
what historians and linguists tell us and claim as the truth. It must
be noted that even the name HELLEN
(meaning Greek) has been broken
up and anagrammatized in the name PHILEALLHNOS. This shows how
masterful these stealers and disguisers were - that they even hid their own
name.
Thus when we put all of these words in a sentence in the form of "BASILEOS
MEGALOS APSAKOY PHILEALLHNOS" meaning "The Great King ARSACES, friend of
Greek", it turns out that it was originally the Turkish sentence: "HELLEN SEVEN, AS
ER SAKA, ULU AGA IL BAŞIYAM" which translates "I
am Greek Loving, One Peerless SAKA Man, Great Lord Head
of the Country". All of this clearly shows that the
Turkish language was the progenitor language of the world at ancient times -
although this knowledge was obliterated and hidden from the world
public. Instead, the world was presented with a totally false picture
of history!
Evidently, the SAKA Turks were so tolerant of the Greeks at the time (and
possibly influenced by them), that the Parthian kings minted coins with
their name printed in Greek. This kind of genuine tolerance of the Turks have
provided their adversaries the opportunity to take advantage of them in a
sneaky way.
In view of all this, I say that the source texts for all of these Greek words
have been stolen from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing Turkish.
Similarly the Saka Turks have also been alienated from being Turanian Turks
by the deceitful language
manipulations of ancient Greeks and
Romans. That is how they conquer people from within, that is, without the
people being aware of what is secretly being planned!
***
At this point I will give you another
example from a much earlier era. It is about the name of the Akkadian king
Sargon at third millennium B.C. and his daughter. We have the following
from the Wikipedia link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad :
"Sargon of Akkad, also known as Sargon
the Great "The Great King" (Akkadianarru-kīnu, meaning "the
true king"
or "the king is legitimate"), was an Akkadianemperor
famous for his conquest of the Sumerian city-states in the 23rd and 22nd centuries BC.[1] The founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, Sargon
reigned from 2270 to 2215 BC (short
chronology).[2] He became a prominent member of the royal court ofKish,
killing the king and usurping his throne before embarking on the quest to
conquer Mesopotamia."
Interestingly, the so-called
"Akkadian" name SARRU-KINU (i.e., SARGON) meaning "the true king" or "the king is legitimate",
is supposedly a "Semitic" name which needs to be deciphered.
It is coming to us from the time of Sumerians at the third millennium B.
C. Of course, at that time, there were Turanians and the Turkish
language all over the world - yet the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks were not even
born yet. But this so-called Semitic man became a king after invading
the Sumer lands, killing the king, and usurping the Sumerian civilization and
altering the Sumer language to manufacture Akkadian. How evil and destructive
can one be?
The name SARRU-KINU, rearranged as "SARI-KUN-RU",
is the restructured, disguised and Semitized form of the Turkish
expression "SARI GÜN eRU" meaning "yellow sun man".
"The Yellow Sun" or "the Golden Sun",
describing the sun, is not only a "true
king" in the space around
us, but also "the legitimate
king". This is a conceptual fact that no one could
dispute. Ancient kings used to liken themselves to the sun-god - in
accordance with the ancient Turanian Sun-God religious tradition. Almost all
kings have declared themselves as "god". This
"Semite" king also honored himself by using a title that was
composed in Turkish first and then Semitized. It should be noted that
this Semitized name SARRU-KINU, being read as "the legitimate king", is due to
the fact that he stole the Sumerian kingship - and now, the Semites are
trying to "legitimize" that usurpation - by portraying SARRU-KINU as "the
legitimate king"! This is called linguistic laundering of
illegal acts!
Similarly, the present name SARGON, rearranged as "SAR-GON",
is the restructured, disguised and Semitized form of the Turkish
expression "SARI GÜN" meaning "yellow
sun" or "golden sunlight". This again honors this invader and usurper
with a title that is composed in Turkish first and then Semitized, and then
Anglicized.
***
Additionally, we have the following information about King Sargon's
daughter called Enheduanna from
Wikipedia at link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enheduanna :
"Enheduanna (Akkadian: 2285 BC - 2250 BC), also known as Enheduana orEnheduanna,
meaning "lord or lady ornament of An"
or "high priestess ornament of An" (An being "the sky" or
"heaven") was an Akkadian princess as
well as high priestessof
the Moon god Nanna (Sin)
in Ur. She was the first
known holder of the title, 'En Priestess', a role of great political
importance which often was held by royal daughters[1].
Regarded by literary and historical scholars as the
earliest known author and poet, she served as an
En Priestess during the Third Millennium BC. She was appointed to the role by
her Father, Sargon of Akkad."
In accordance with the given information, the name ENHEDUANNA, rearranged as "AN-HADUN-ENE", is
the restructured, disguised and Semitized form of the Turkish
expression "AN HATUN ANA" (GÖK KADIN ANA) meaning "the
sky lady mother".
which is exactly what her title is said to mean. This not
due to coincidence but rather to usurpation!
Turkish AN (GÖK, GÖY) means "sky", HATUN (KADIN) means "lady, woman", ANA means "mother".
Alternatively, the name ENHEDUANNA, rearranged as "HAN-ANNEDE-U",
is the restructured, disguised and Semitized form of the Turkish
expression "HAN ANNEDI O" meaning "she
is the lord mother". This again is in agreement with her
specially designated title - although it is camouflaged as a
"Semitic" name. Again this not due to coincidence but rather
to usurpation!
Turkish HAN means "lord", ANNE (ANA) means "mother", ANNEDI means "she is mother", O means "he/she/it; that".
Since you are a historian, I gave you historical examples also. With
these examples, I demonstrated, proved and explained how the ancient Turanian
language of Turkish was stolen, anagrammatized and camouflaged, while the
ancient Turanian history was changed, lied about, suppressed, and
obliterated. Everything was then sold as either "Aryan" or
"Semitic" to the world.
They did the same thing by changing the name of the most ancient Turanian
epic story of BILGAMESH to
the Semitized name of "GILGAMESH".
Now, it is known and talked about as the "Babylonian" epic story -
when in actuality, it was a Turanian story!
***
6. You said:
"To say that the same forces didn't happen to
the Turks at all, but that the reverse is true, seems to defy clearly
observable trends and smacks of nationalism, maybe even jingoism. To say that
Turkish is the mother language of all languages because it has some similar
words and sounds to other languages with which it has had contact seems to me
to be unsound thinking."
Polat Kaya: Evidently, you have not understood what I have been writing
about the Turkish language, its ancientness, and, it being the source
language for others in the context that I have been writing - as I also demonstrated
to you and all throughout this response. From every direction, my discoveries point to the fact that Turkish was
the source language for many languages. Pointing out this fact with
many examples in varying subjects cannot be construed as "nationalism" or "jingoism".
I am simply telling the linguistic facts about language makeup as I have
discovered. If someone uses such vilifying labels to describe me and my
work, either they do not understand what they are reading in my writings, or,
they have a vindictive agenda.
***
7. You said:
"I will conclude by saying that I believe my (and
the linguistic community's) explanation for the evolution of Turkish is more
reasonable than yours for the reasons stated above. The Turkish language
changed with its speakers as they moved through history, just as every
language changes and evolves. I don't believe that culture is being
"stolen" when words are absorbed into another language as you seem
to believe. We can observe the phenomenon of language change firsthand as
cultures mix, just as they always have and will continue to do. I invite you
to respond to my arguments without being hostile or dismissive."
Polat Kaya: On the contrary your explanation is so superficial and off
the mark that you are not even close. The Turkish language did not
change as it moved through history, because Turkish is a monosyllabic
agglutinative language where the monosyllabic words of Turkish cannot be
reduced any more than they are or made larger than they are. Otherwise
Turkish loses its uniqueness and is not Turkish anymore. The
Indo-Europeans and Semites knew this nature of Turkish and therefore
"restructured" Turkish words and phrases to come up with concocted
words that they called their own. So please do not even try to sell me,
or anyone else, your explanation.
As you can see, with my long response to your criticism, I have responded to your arguments without being
hostile or dismissive. To assume that I would be hostile and/or dismissive is
a baseless assumption on your part. If you had carefully read my
papers, you would have noticed that I do not dismiss anyone. You would
have also noticed that I am not hostile to my readers.
8. You said:
"I understand that this was a long post, but that
is repayment for producing over 600 forum posts for me to read through to try
to get to the heart of why you believe what you do. I look forward to your
reply."
Polat Kaya: You seem to be with full of erroneous assumptions.
This statement of yours tells me that you are out to take revenge on me just
because I wrote 600 forum posts. Why would this bother you? I did
not even know you until you sent your recent letter and I asked you to
identify yourself. Reading or not reading my papers is your choice. I
do not write my postings to any one particular person. Those who are
interested in the subject can read my papers as they wish without my forcing
them. I do feel confident, however, that, in time, the world will come
to believe what I am saying - even though my papers sound contrary to their
present beliefs!
So with this, I will end my very detailed and lengthy response to you. I
believe I have answered all your relevant points. As I am very busy
with my research, I will not be able to respond to further questions.
My best wishes to you for the coming holidays and the New Year. Similarly, I
wish a Happy Holiday season to all mankind!
Polat Kaya
14/12/2010
Darren Bohannon wrote:
<>Dear Polat Kaya,
I want to begin by assuring you that I in no way meant any disrespect with my
letter. I have been using the internet for a long time, and I know that a
certain amount of anonymity is usually preferable to allowing people to know
your full name on public forums. If it is truly important to you, my name is
Darren Bohannon. The reason I don't like giving that information out to
anyone is that Googling that name will immediately bring both my Facebook
page and information about the high school I graduated from. While you are,
and wish to be, a public figure, I do not share those intentions.
I felt that it was quite clear who the letter was directed to. If it is a
prerequisite for me to get an answer from you in the future, I will include
your name at the beginning of my posts from now on (as I have done in this
message). The reason I didn't in the first place is because I posted on a
public forum in which you are both the host and the moderator. In general, at
least in my experience, one doesn't need to address each message they post in
such an environment. In private correspondence (which, again, I didn't write
with that situation in mind), I always include a salutation at the beginning
of every letter. It was my experience on other forums, not any desire to be
impolite, that caused my omission.
As for your third objection, I again say that it is my experience on public
forums, not any desire to be impolite, which caused my omission. If I felt I
was writing a private message, as I am now, I would certainly have thanked
you for taking the time to read and respond to my message.
You don't need to refer to my degree in quotations, as I have actually
received it. I received it this past spring (2010) from the University of
California Riverside. I don't in any way assume that this makes me a
qualified individual to talk about the things dealt with in your forum as a
professional. I enter this discussion as a layman, and would appreciate it if
you could take that into consideration in any responses. I will also say that
I am not ignorant about language or history, as one was my area of study and
both are areas of intense curiosity for me. I would like to examine your
views for myself and draw my own conclusions as to their validity (after
consulting other sources as well).
I hope you take my earnest desire to hear your views and the evidence you
have to support them as genuine and without pretense. While I disagree with
them from what I've read so far, that doesn't mean that my mind can't be
changed with solid evidence and effective argumentation. I hope this private
letter answers your objections to your satisfaction. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
Sincerely,
Darren Bohannon
To: historical_linguistics_2@yahoogroups.com
CC: Polat_Kaya@yahoogroups.com
From: tntr@...
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 09:39:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [hrl_2] Questions about your theory
Message body
To the owner of the e-mail given below and written by
"D":
Dear D,
I read your letter and found it inquisitive and deserving of a
response, yet, I have to say that I am also disappointed because:
a) You did not identify yourself. The Letter "D" is not an
identity. With this kind of secretive representation of yourself, you
have put yourself in a "shadowy non-entity" with whom I have no
intention of communicating unless you properly identify yourself. In
case you do not know, please note that my name is always identified in my
postings. I expect my readers to do the same when they communicate with
me!
b) Although, there are indications that your email was directed at
me, that is, Polat Kaya - whose findings you are referring to in your
writing, nowhere have you written my name, that is, something to the
effect of "To Polat Kaya" or "Mr. Polat Kaya" or
"Dear Polat Kaya",
etc.. You should have clearly identified who you are talking to. In a
cordial communication, one is expected not only to identify himself or
herself, but also to identify the addressee before "requesting"
rather
than "demanding" something, particularly of the personal nature. As
you
may know one does not phone someone and immediately start talking about a
subject as soon as the other
party picks up their telephone - without first identifying themselves
and also acknowledging the person that they wish to speak to. The
same applies to written communication.
c) Last but not least, one should always sign off their letter with a
sincere good-bye and/or thank you note - and finish with their name.
This was also missing in your letter.
Without these, I found your letter rather offensive as it puts me in a
"non-person" position too, although I did note your
saying: "I am not hostile." Surely, the writer of the below
posting,
who has a "Bachelor's Degree in history" would know these essential
elements of communication.
I would like to respond to your posting, only, if you do not mind,
please fulfill my above noted conditions. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Polat Kaya
02/12/2010
D wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I am not a professional linguist, and that I only
know how to speak, read, and write in English. I have a Bachelor's Degree in
history with a focus on early United States history, so the area covered by
ancient Turks is obviously not my specialty. I will also say, however, that I
am not ignorant of other regions of the world, which is why I found your idea
that Turkish is the root of all languages to be ridiculous. I would also like
to know what your qualifications are, and whether your views are shared by
distinguished scholars in the field of linguistics. From what I've read so
far, your views are not widely accepted in the linguistic community. While
there is certainly a possibility that you are correct, this lack of support
is bound to make any rational person suspicious. Instead of simply dismissing
you out of hand, however, I decided to ask you about your views. Please
respond with this in mind: I am not hostile, but I am also certainly not convinced
in any way that what you say is true.
I will also tell you what I know about the cultural and linguistic history of
the Turks. I know that the Turks originate from the steppes of central Asia,
near Mongolia, and were driven Westward by other nomadic groups in the area.
Eventually, they made their way to the Middle East where they served in the
Muslim armies in their conquests of Byzantine and Persian lands. I am pretty
sure that the Seljuk Turks were the first group of Turks to settle in
Anatolia, what is now considered Turkey. From what I know, the Turks were in
no way native to the area. As a minority group in the lands of powerful
empires, I would imagine that many Turkish words would have been influenced
by Arabic, Greek, and Persian, where the Turks saw the most military action
and spent the most time. (This is, consequently, why I think Turkish might
have some similarities with Indo-European languages as well as Asian
languages.) The Ottoman Turks were another, later-arriving group of Turks who
eventually managed to subdue all the other Turkish groups in Anatolia and
eventually absorbed the Eastern Roman Empire.
Ottoman society was very flexible because they eventually ruled over a very
diverse population in which Turks were actually not the most numerous group.
I imagine that this would have further mixed the native languages (Greek,
Balkan languages, Arabic, some Persian, and other minority languages) with
the Turkish that the Ottomans spoke. This mixture of language would have gone
both ways, leading to the adoption of some Turkish words and phrases into
these languages and some words and phrases from those languages into Turkish.
I have a friend who speaks Turkish as their native language who says that
there are some similarities between Turkish and Arabic (which they also
speak), but that the languages are far from mutually intelligible. I also
have a couple of Persian friends who tell me that Persian and Arabic, while
containing some similarities (mostly brought about by the widespread practice
of Islam), the languages are also quite different and not mutually
intelligible.
Please tell me if you find what I said to be unreasonable. Since I have no
doubt you will find it incorrect (otherwise I would not disagree with you),
please don't tell me that. I am only asking if what I say is reasonable for
someone who doesn't specialize in either linguistics or Turkish history.
I understand that languages that are descended from common origins don't need
to be mutually intelligible to be related, in case you were going to point
that out. As you likely know, English is derived from the native languages of
the British isles, various Germanic and Nordic languages, and Old French,
which itself is derived from Latin. I also find it curious that you believe that
by borrowing or adopting words from another language is "stealing"
from that language and culture. Languages are very fluid and malleable,
changing slightly with each generation of new speakers. To borrow a word or
phrase from another language simply reflects the word's relative usefulness
to the language's speakers. For example, English picked up many of its French
and Latin based words after the Norman kings used French (a kind of French
probably only barely discernible to modern French speakers) in court. It was
important for nobility to speak the new language of power if they wanted to
maintain their own power, so the new French was eventually mingled with the
Old English of the English of Saxon descent.
I think this mirrors what may have happened to the Turks to give them so many
similarities with languages spoken in the Middle East of the time. When the
Turks arrived, the languages of power were Arabic, Persian, and Greek. Arabic
was the language of Islam, which quickly spread among the Turks as they
permanently settled the Middle East. It was also the language of many of the
powerful rulers of the time who were hiring the Turks for military service.
The Persians similarly became powerful when the Safavids became the dominant
force in the region. Once again, the nomadic Turks were either recruited for
military service in the many violent wars that accompanied this period in
history, or already settled in areas ruled by the Persians. It makes sense
that the Turks, still a minority group at the time, would have adapted some
of the chief languages of the region to suit their own needs. The
Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire was also still a formidable force in the
region, and the owners of what is now Turkey before the Turks began to invade
and settle there. Initially, the Turks settled a land of Greek speakers
where, once again, the Turks were a minority. The Eastern Roman Empire was
obviously very influential to the Turks because the Turks who ruled in
Anatolia called themselves the Turks of Rum, or Rome in Turkish. They wanted
to inherit the cultural and military tradition of the Roman Empire. To deny
that they were impacted by the chief language of the Roman Empire at the time
seems foolish to me.
That all being said, I think it should be obvious which way I think the
Turkish language was initially influenced. Initially, Turkish was influenced
and changed by the powerful Indo-European languages in the region. Once the
Turks gained power and control over Anatolia, much of the Balkans, the
Levant, and Egypt, linguistic forces probably worked in two directions. The
Turkish the Ottomans spoke (I don't know if it is the same as modern Turkish,
so I'll just call it Ottoman Turkish) became the language of power and likely
had a strong influence on the languages of the ruled. The Ottomans, however,
inherited many of the administrative and cultural structures from the
preceding groups and obviously didn't dismantle them. The Greeks presided
over a long-lived and powerful Empire, and their administrative talents would
have been valuable to the conquering Turks. Additionally, as I mentioned
earlier, the Ottomans were a very tolerant ruling group in allowing minority
groups to continue to be culturally and religiously unique. The fact that one
needed to be Muslim to advance in Ottoman society meant that to have power,
one must also at least speak some Arabic (for religious purposes) and Ottoman
Turkish (for administrative purposes).
One can draw many parallels between the Ottomans and the modern United States
linguistically in this regard. English, while not legally the official
language of the country, is used universally for business and government.
This means that in order to advance in society, immigrants must learn
English. I believe I read somewhere that you attended school and worked for a
time in the United States, so you know this to be true. You would also be
aware, then, that many people who speak multiple languages frequently mix the
two when they speak to each other in either language. My Turkish friend speaks
in a combination of English, Turkish, and Arabic to her parents.
English-speaking Americans also borrowed many words from Spanish in the
American Southwest. I live near Los Angeles (a Spanish name), and many
Americans who have no working knowledge of Spanish (like me), still have a
wide vocabulary of common Spanish words and phrases. Additionally,
Spanish-speaking immigrants frequently mix Spanish and English words when
they speak to each other.
Another example of language mixing is the language of Tagalog, which
originates around Manila in the Philippines. Many of my friends' parents come
from the Philippines, where the Spanish and Americans each had a significant
presence. Tagalog combines native Filipino languages with Spanish and English
to such a degree that sometimes the complete English or Spanish phrase is the
only way to say something. For some words, there is no "native"
equivalent, and the phrase has been adopted unchanged.
What is the point of these examples you might ask. The point is that I can
personally observe instances where languages have changed or are changing
because of the presence of another powerful language. To say that the same
forces didn't happen to the Turks at all, but that the reverse is true, seems
to defy clearly observable trends and smacks of nationalism, maybe even
jingoism. To say that Turkish is the mother language of all languages because
it has some similar words and sounds to other languages with which it has had
contact seems to me to be unsound thinking.
I have looked through some of your suggested alternate etymological origins
of other words. There are some instances where the sounds are similar, and
others where words appear to be close. This, however, is coincidence and no
more. More often than not, you really have to stretch to see the
similarities. As you have said to another poster, you believe that such
coincidences have almost no chance of occurring. This is not true, however.
Take for example, the Iroquois Seneca tribe, which is identical to the Roman agnomen
Seneca (made famous by Seneca the Elder and Seneca the Younger, prominent
Roman orators and playwrights). The Native Americans had over ten thousand
years in which to develop languages distinct from their Asian origins (until
European contact, the Americas were incredibly linguistically diverse). It is
a coincidence that the two words are exactly the same. It is more reasonable
an explanation than claiming that Turkish was spoken by everyone in the
world.
I will conclude by saying that I believe my (and the linguistic community's)
explanation for the evolution of Turkish is more reasonable than yours for
the reasons stated above. The Turkish language changed with its speakers as
they moved through history, just as every language changes and evolves. I
don't believe that culture is being "stolen" when words are
absorbed into another language as you seem to believe. We can observe the
phenomenon of language change firsthand as cultures mix, just as they always
have and will continue to do. I invite you to respond to my arguments without
being hostile or dismissive. I understand that this was a long post, but that
is repayment for producing over 600 forum posts for me to read through to try
to get to the heart of why you believe what you do. I look forward to your
reply.
------------------------------------
2 of 2 Photo(s)
