Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" (Claire Bowern)

--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear Claire Bowern,

If you promise that you will behave like a nice little girl, I will
teach you something new. But you have to listen very carefully.
I shall start with the word "etymology" which everyone thinks
they know very well.

The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, my copy of1947, defines the
word "etymology" as: [F. etymologie, from Latin and from Greek
"etymologia", See "ETYMON; -LOGY]. "The origin or derivation of a
word as shown by its analyses, by pointing out to the root or
primitive upon which it is based, or by referring it to an earlier
form in its parent language; also an account setting forth such
origin or derivation".

ETYMON is defined as by the same source: [Latin, from Greek "etymon"
the literal sense of a word according to its origin, an etymon, from
"etymos" meaning "true, real"].

Based on this definition of "etymon", it is not clear how one can
arrive at the definition of the word "etymology" as given above
from "etymon" meaning "true" or "real" unless one is concocting.
It seems that somebody fed the wrong information to the world
of linguistics. Although these words may appear to be Greek, I say,
the source of these words is Turkic. Let me explain:

In ancient times the letter Y and U were the same. Thus the word
ETYMOLOGY actually should be "ETUMOLOGU" which is from the Turkic
phrase "ETUM OLGU O" ("adum olgu o") meaning "it is the formation of
my name" and equally valid "ETUM O OLGU" meaning "that formation is my
name". It is clear that this is exactly what is meant by the term
"etymology". You will see that in this structure, ETUM is the Turkic
ATUM/ADUM meaning "my name", OLGU means "formation" and O is the
Turkish 3rd person singular personal pronoun corresponding to
"he/she/it" and also demonstrative pronoun "that". Thus we see that
the word ETYMOLOGY is an anagrammatized form of the Turkic phrase
"ETUM OLGU O" or "ETUM O OLGU" as spoken by the ancient Greeks when
they did not have their own language, that is, when the world was
speaking one language as stated by GENESIS 11. This so-called
Greek word indicates that that "one language the world spoke" was
TURKIC.

When we look at the primitive word "ETYMON" < "ETUMON" we find that it
is the Turkic phrase "ETUMUN" ("adumun" < "adum" + "-un") meaning "of
my name". Thus even this word is Turkic and relates to names. You
will agree that when people talk about "etymology" they talk about
"names" and their formations. Words are "names" of concepts.

Now, while the source and make up (formation) of the word
"etumologu" > "etymology" are Turkish, because of anagrammatizing,
this word is known to be Greek, Latin, French, English, etc., yet it
should have been known as being from Turkish. Evidently, someone has
not been truthful about the whole matter. If I may say so, innocent
and very sincere linguists have been denied the true identity of the
word "etymology".

As you can see all these demonstrate how effectively the process of
"anagrammatizing" of Turkic phrases changes the world around, that is,
while it obliterates the Turkic world, it installs the so-called Indo-
European world unwarrantedly. Surely, this would be considered
as not only the falsification of history but also denial of the
ancient Turanian world.

After having said this, now I will come back to your comments in your
response to my letter.

1. You wrote:

"1. The Latin forms you quote don't have the meaning you give them.
cedo is 3rd declension. cedem, cedes, etc, are subjunctive. The
indicative are cedo cedis cedit."

1.a) So is the Turkish "ged o"/"git o". Latin "cedem" and Turkish
"kedem/gedem/gidem" meaning "I should go" is also subjunctive
in Turkish. The Turkish form of the declension is:

1st pr. sing.: L. "cedem", {Tr. "kedem" (gedem/gidem, gideyim meaning
"I should go"},
2nd pr. sing.: L. "cedes", {Tr. "kedesin" (gedesin/gidesin) meaning
"you should go"},
3rd pr. sing.: L. "cedo", {Tr. "kede o" (gede/gide-o), hence
"kedo/gedo/gido/gito" meaning "he should go"}.

Please compare these before you jump to conclusions.

1.b) Secondly, you say: "The indicative are cedo cedis cedit".

Compare Latin "cedo" with Turkish (Tr.) "ked o" (ged o/gid o, gitme)
meaning "it is going"; L. "cedis" with Tr. "kedis" (gedis/gidis)
meaning "it is going"; L. "cedit" with Tr. "kedti" (gitti)
meaning "it is gone".

All these cannot be explained by coincidences unless there was some
intentional interference.

2. You said:

"3. My understanding of the root in Turkic languages is that it means
'go (in)' > e.g. Uzbek kitmoq, whereas cedo means 'be in motion', or
'go _away_ from'."

For your information please note that Turkish "kitmoq/gitmek" meaning
"to go" also expresses a concept involving motion, additionally it
expresses a motion "away" and "from" a point. Turkic "içeri git" (go
in), "disari git" (go out) are motions irrespective of which way one
is going. Thus there is no difference between Latin and Turkish in
this example either. It is curious that the English expression "get
out" and Turkish "git ota (öte)" (go away, go out) have the same
meanings and very similar morphology. Could it be that the English
one is the anagrammatized version of the Turkic phrase? Please think
very carefully before you jump to conclusions.

3. You said:

"4. The e in cedo is long; the vowel in Turkic is short."

You cannot make a case out of such a thin air statement (i.e., by
comparing a short and long e). What you say has no merit.

4. You said:

"6. You seem to be assuming an anachronistic assimilation of a single
Turkic form into the rest of Latin morphology. ced- as a root impflect
as you yourself point out the same way that other roots in Latin
inflect."

4.a) Not so! In my first paper I gave a whole set of conjugations
of the Turkic verb "gitmek" along with their Latin counterparts. You
surely cannot ignore all of those and dwell on one only. When you
compare all the mid-suffixes and the final suffixes, you will find
what you have in Latin are the anagrammatized versions of the
Turkic ones.

4.b) Additionally, your assumption that I have only one word is
wrong. I have hundreds of words which you may prefer to label
Turkic assimilations in Latin, but I call them anagrammatized Turkic
expressions in Latin. So your assumption is baseless.

4.c) If there is a Latin morphology based on ced-, there is also a
whole set of Turkic morphology based on "ked/ged/git-".

Instead of ignoring them, please do compare them. You will be
enlightened to your surprise.

Since you used the term "anachronistic", let me explain it to you.
It is defined as "of the nature, or involving, anachronism" and
"anachronism" meaning "to refer to a wrong time", i.e., "alter the
time to show wrong period". The dictionary says that it is from Greek
"anachronismos", [ana- + chronos "time"].

Now let us examine the ethymology of this word. I say the indicated
etymology of "anachronismos" is totally wrong. Further I say it is an
anagrammatized form of a Turkish phrase related to it.

When we examine the word as "ANA-CHRON-ISMO-S" we find
that it is from Turkic "ANI KIRAN ISMI" ("ismi ani (zamani) kiran")
meaning "its name is one who alters the time". In this setup,
Turkic "ani" is the accusative form of "an" meaning "time", "kiran"
means "one who breaks" or "one who alters", and "ismi" means
"its name" all in Turkish. Thus we have accounted for every aspect
of the word in Turkish. Yet you cannot do that from the given
"Greek etymology". It is evident that the Greek anagrammatizers
misnamed the parts. While "ana" related to the time aspect of the
word, they ignored it and misnamed "chronos" as "time" when in
fact it was from Turkish verb "kirmak" meaning "to break".
This is part of the anagrammatization. Thus the wrong meaning is
attributed to the wrong parts of the anagrammatized Turkish
expression. So the confusion starts here at the base. Everything is
confused intentionally. And of course, such a disinformation has
come to our times without anyone questioning it. For your information
even the word "anagram" is from "Turkic "ONU GIRAM" ("onu kiram")
meaning "I should break it" (I should alter it").

5) You say: "Why on earth would you assume it to be built on a
different tense from a partial borrowing of a language that wasn't
even in the area at the relevant time?

5.a.1) First of all, you dont know that it was a "partial borrowing
of a single word". Hence your assumption is wrong. Secondly, the
anagrammatizer would choose a tense that is not the normal usage but
rather a secondary one. An anagrammatizer is free to do anything he
wishes with the chosen source material including renaming or
redefinition of the meaning to be attributed to the new verb or word.
Thus he chose one of the tenses other than the root or the stem of
the verb. After anagrammatizing the original source material, the new
word becomes alienated enough so that it is not identifable with the
original linguistic material. In the case of ced-, the source is the
Turkish "ged/git" over which one cannot do much of a change without
it being readily recognizable. The next best thing is to get one of
the tenses, particularly the 3rd person singular active (such
as "gider") "or passive or similar other tense. The anagrammatizing
gives a totally new appearance to the alienated word. If one is
generating a language (Latin in this case) from an already available
language, Turkish in this case, the anagrammatizer would want to make
sure that the new language does not resemble the source language.
Hence he hides the source language to his liking.

5.a.2) At this point I should point out that anagrammatizing is a
rather simple but powerful technique in generating new languages.
It is much easier and cheaper than creating a language from scratch.
Particularly when you have a model language to work from, such as
the phonetic and agglutinative Turkish language that was developed
over thousands of years with its well established concepts and
attributed meanings, the job becomes extremely simple. It is like
coming up with COBOL or PASCAL when you have FORTRAN as a model.

5.a.3) When you say that: " . . . a language that wasn't even in the
area at the relevant time?" you imply that so-called Latin and Turkish
had no contact. This is where you are wrong again. Contrary to your
indistilled knowledge, all around the Mediterranean sea coast, the
islands, the Italian peninsula, Asia Minor and ancient MISIR/MASAR
(intentionally mislabelled as EGYPT [one meaning of which is "Gypsy
land" but yet the Masar/Misir people were not Gypsies]) were very much
inhabited by the ancient Turkic speaking Turanian peoples far before
the arrival of Latins and Greeks. Hence, when the Latin language was
being generated, Turkish was already there in time and in place.

So when you imply that Turkish did not even exist in the area at the
relevant time, that is where you are making the big mistake. This
erroneous perception is a disinformation that has come to our times
regarding the ancient world. This wrong view of the ancient world is
because of intentional obliteration inflicted on the history of the
ancient Turanian peoples who were in Asia, Europe and North Africa
before the Indo-Europeans were around. (Please see definition
"Turanian" in Encyclopaedia Britannica World Languages Dictionary,
1963, p. 1353). Evidently, we all have a very distorted view of the
ancient world.

6) You said: "7. Your claim that these forms reflect "old Turkic" or
something similar is not reflected in the Turkish philological
tradition."

6.a) Exactly what forms and what Turkish philological tradition are
you referring to? Please be specific.

6.b) Since you mentioned the terms "tradition" and "philology" in
your statement, it may be beneficial for the argument if we examine
their etymological identity in a new light.

The word "tradition" defined as "the oral transmission of information,
beliefs, customs, etc., from ancestors to posteriority." When we look
at the structure of the word "tradition" in the form of "TR-ADITION",
we find that it is very much the Turkic phrase "TuR ADETISUN" meaning
"you are the custom of Turs/Turks". This etymological definition in
meaning is very accurate ragarding the name "TUR" (Turks) and the
"ADET" (custom) and in terms of the suffixes, and cannot be due to
coincidences. Similarly its Latin form "TRADITIO" is from Turkish
"TUR ADEDTI O" meaning "it is the custom of Turs/Turks". Thus, when
you use the term "tradition" you are not aware of what is its true
etymological identity.

6.c) You also used the term "philology" supposedly from Greek
"philiologia"and/or from "philologos" meaning "fond of learning".
I disagree with these etymological definitions of "philology",
because one cannot get from the concept of "love of learning"
to the concept of "knowledge of language". I say it is a concocted
etymology. Additionally, I say, Greek "PHILOLOGOS" is the
anagrammatized form of Turkic phrase 'BIL OLU AGUS" meaning
"the knowledge of language creation" in which Turkic BIL" (bilgi)
meaning "knowledge" is anagrammatized as "PHIL", plus Turkic "OLU"
from Turkic verb "olmak" meaning "coming into existence, creation",
and "AGUS" (aguz, söz, dil) meaning "language". All of these, after
being concatenated, becomes PHILOLOGOS. Thus, "philology" is not
from IE-linguistic source as portrayed but rather from an
anagrammatized Turkish phrase meaning "the knowledge of language
creation" or "the knowledge of how a languages becomes".
Etymologically, this is a far truthful definition than the "love of
learning" or "fond of learning" that has been circulated forever.

7. You said: "8. Arguments such as this are always made with regard
to single forms and never take into account the way the languages
actually work, and proper morphological and phonological
reconstruction."

Please don't confuse the issue by giving us such a sweeping and
meaningless verbology. Also, please note that what you call
"morphological and phonological reconstruction" is actually the
"anagrammatizing" that I am talking about. Only your s is cleansed.

8. Finally you said:

"9. Please go away and learn the philological traditions of
Indo-European and Turkic and come back with a proper argument
rather than wasting our time with garbage like this."

I do believe that I have demonstrated here, in this forum, proper
arguments and knowledge that you surely didn't know. Hence, your
statement has no merit other than a cheap ploy of intimidation. By
this remark, you have demonstrated a rude behaviour for which you
should be ashamed. You owe me an apology for your crudeness. If I
shook you too hard in your deep sleep, then please go back to it and
close the windows and curtains making sure no 'light' comes in. In
your linguistics you are just another victim of the past
misinformations.

Sincerely yours,

Polat Kaya

============

----- Özgün Ileti -----
Kimden: Claire Bowern
Kime: linguistics@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 09 Ocak 2003 Persembe 02:18
Konu: Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" ("to go") and
Turkish "GIT-O" ("it is go")



I guess I'm going to get jumped on but I'm going to
make these comments anyway.

1. The Latin forms you quote don't have the meaning
you give them. cedo is 3rd declension. cedem, cedes,
etc, are subjunctive. The indicative are cedo cedis
cedit.

2. Latin infinitives are the remains of locatives of
s-stem locatives. Latin underwent a sound change where
s > r intervocalically.

3. My understanding of the root in Turkic languages is
that it means 'go (in)' > e.g. Uzbek kitmoq, whereas
cedo means 'be in motion', or 'go _away_ from'.

4. The e in cedo is long; the vowel in Turkic is
short.

5. Your 1b forms are imperfect subjunctive.

6. You seem to be assuming an anachronistic
assimilation of a single Turkic form into the rest of
Latin morphology. ced- as a root impflect as you
yourself point out the same way that other roots in
Latin inflect. Why on earth would you assume it to be
built on a different tense from a partial borrowing of
a language that wasn't even in the area at the
relevant time?

7. Your claim that these forms reflect "old Turkic" or
something similar is not reflected in the Turkish
philological tradition.

8. Arguments such as this are always made with regard
to single forms and never take into account the way
the languages actually work, and proper morphological
and phonological reconstruction.

9. Please go away and learn the philological
traditions of Indo-European and Turkic and come back
with a proper argument rather than wasting our time
with garbage like this.

Claire