Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd:
Latin verb "CEDO" (Benjamin Lukoff)
--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Dear Benjamin
Lukoff,
Thank you for your
questioning letter. I will try to answer your
questions.
1. You asked:
"What is the evidence for this claim?"
1.a) The ancient
Sumerian language of TUR Sumerians;
1.b) The ancient
so-called "Egyptian" language of TUR Masarians
(MISIR);
1.c) The ancient
Latin and Greek languages anagrammatized from
ancient Turkish;
1.d) The toponyms
of many place names;
1.e) GENESIS 11.
2. You asked:
"Why would this be done? Why not a straight borrowing?"
Anagrammatizing
allowed for the creation of new languages for people
who originally did
not have distinct languages of their own. Without
the language, group
is not a distinct nation. To overcome this
difficulty, group
has to have a distinct language. How do you get a
language? Either
you have to create one from scratch using totally
new rules which
would be a very difficult task and may take very long
time to develop and
put into practice. Or one can generate a new
language by
anagrammatizing an already existing language. This process
is far easier and
cheaper. After one develops a new distinct
language, straight
borrowings from the mother language would dilute it
and therefore would
have to be avoided. With the anagammatizing
process, the owners
of the new language would also usurp many cultural
aspects of the
mother language.
3. You said:
"This seems much more cumbersome than the traditional
interpretation of
the etymology of 'desire'."
Maybe so, but
traditional understandings are the ones that people are
used to hearing.
Thus one does not question. Yet when I tell you
about the nature of
"desire" being from Turkic "erzide" (arzudu), one
naturally reacts to
it until one accepts it being so. Let us not
forget that my aim
is to show you the root of "desire", not being
concerned about its
relative cumbersomeness.
4. You asked:
"How does one "steal" a word?"
Very easy. Generate
a new word by anagrammatizing from a
mother language,
make sure that the new word does not resemble
the original word
or phrase in the mother/father source language,
and claim it as
being sourced from another language by providing
misleading
etymology. Who will know the difference? How many
people look at the
etymology of a word and out of those, how many
actually question
the validity of the given etymology?
Sincerely yours,
Polat Kaya
=========
----- Özgün Ileti
-----
Kimden: Benjamin
Lukoff
Kime:
linguistics@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 09
Ocak 2003 Persembe 03:00
Konu: Re:
[b_c_n_2003] Fw: [L] Fwd: Latin verb "CEDO" ("to go") and
Turkish
"GIT-O" ("it is go")
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003,
Kamil KARTAL <allingus@h...> wrote:
> The reason why
I say that the Latin version has been taken from the
ancient Turkish
language is because, contrary to common beliefs of the
establishment, the
ancient world was a Turkic speaking world. The
What is the
evidence for this claim?
"anagrammatizing"
is a totally different concept from borrowing.
Anagrammatizing is
where one takes a word or phrase or sentence
from a language
such as Turkish, alters and shuffles them at will,
and then recombines
them in a form that is suitable for their purpose.
Why would this be
done? Why not a straight borrowing?
For example, take
the Turkish phrase "arzudu" ("erzidi" in the
earlier Eastern
Anatolian dialect of Turkish) meaning "it is desire".
Rearrange it in a
new format by reading the syllables backwards
in the form of
"de-zi-re", and then further change Turkic "z' into "s"
which will bring
you to the English word "desire". It is further
alienated by
vocalizing it as "dezayir". And there you have a brand
new word that has
no resemblance to its original Turkish form.
So you see Peter,
in this process the Turkish word "erzidi" (arzudu)
was not borrowed
from Turkish but rather usurped from Turkish.
This seems much
more cumbersome than the traditional interpretation
of the etymology of
'desire'.
For your information
even the term "usurp" is also anagrammatized from
the Turkish phrase
"ASURUP", (ashirip), s=sh, meaning "he stole"
or "It is
stolen". Thus you see that while "anagrammatizing" is
stealing,
"borrowing" is importing it without altering its original
ethnic identity.
How does one
"steal" a word?