Re: about "LINGUISTICS" list ----- (En & Tu)
--- In email@example.com, Polat Kaya
Sayin Kamil Bey,
I see the response from the other side as double talk and an excuse
for further censorship. Evidently they did not like what we said
and did not want our views to be heard by many people. Their
responses regarding our claims about the Latin language had no
scientific content or scholarly value and basically amounted to
childish attacks aimed at silencing us. But this is a tactic that is
used all the time. When they don't like what the other side is
saying, they ridicule them, throw mud at them, make sarcastic
remarks, be rude, deny and try to intimidate them, and if this
doesn't work, they just shut them out.
None of the responders appeared to be in a position to make any
judgment as they showed no sign of knowledge on what I proposed.
They sure made a lot of noise though. Suffice it to say, those who
do not know the subject cannot judge. Plain and simple.
I say the words of Latin and the other Indo-European languages are the
evidence and I am very confident of this. These words cannot be
ignored. When their anagrammatized structures and their meanings
become the same as Turkic expressions, which cannot be explained by
probability, then, the linguists have a whole lot of explaining to
do. They cannot simply dismiss this, that is, if they are truth
searching and open minded linguists. More and more it is becoming
clear that there has been a massive usurpation of the Turkish
language and eventually linguists must come to terms with it. What is
amazing is that they even denied the validity of what has been given
in the Latin related books. All this time, these were valid
information but as soon as we used that information as evidence,
then they suddenly became invalid. How convenient!
At the very least, the listowner of "linguistics" should have accepted
my two responses, i.e., to Claire Bowern and Benjamin Lukoff, and the
one by Haluk Berkmen and published them in their group. That would
have been the fair and right thing to do.
"Kamil KARTAL " wrote:
> [Turkish version is below]
Dear bcn Members,
Although Mr. John Stephenson, the listowner of "linguistics", had
expressed his positive impressions, displayed a democratic and
dignified model attitude during the recent discussions on
genetic relations between TURKISH -> LATIN (pls. see below his last
message in "linguistics"), I regret to inform you that I was
eliminated from futher discussion in his list by overriding my group
posting settings from unmoderated to moderated, which at the same
time means, that Mr. Kaya's and Mr. Berkmen's scientific papers were
I did check to affirm this with three posts (on special demand), of
which two were replies from Mr. Kaya and Mr. Berkmen forwarded to the
list but not yet published, and other was my question about the
situation directly to John but not yet answered!
When we include also the linguists who are closely interested in the
issue and want to continue the discussion, the total result is a
> From: "John Stephenson" <listowner@l...>
> Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 12:48 pm
> Subject: Re: [L] Fwd: Re: [b_c_n_2003] Turkish influence on Latin
> proven! (Japanese)
> On 12 Jan 2003 at 20:00, Paul Danon wrote:
> > Thanks. I understand the issue better. I believe the posting was
> > opposed by at least one person who, rather than saying that the
> > evidence was wrong, suggested it needed to be corroborated by
> > input
> > from other disciplines.
> I didn't oppose the posting (such postings as the alleged Altaic
> origins of Indo-European are welcome on this list, which is for
> interested parties of any level of experience), though I did say no-
> one would publish it.
> As to corroboration, my point is that in linguistics in particular,
> languages are so fundamentally similar and change in such
> ways that it's very easy to claim any language is related to any
> other - as several posters have amusingly pointed out. Plus, since
> writing is actually rarely found (most languages are/were unwritten)
> I want to see some kind of separate evidence before claiming that
> there's a link between two languages hitherto claimed unrelated.
> And I would never downgrade the importance of linguistic evidence -
> I'm a linguist - but sometimes it isn't enough. Archaeological
> evidence could help us to establish where a people once lived, but
> linguistic evidence, other than written examples, leave no concrete
> A copy of the message was emailed to Mr. John Stephenson.
> For your Information,
> Kāmil Kartal
> Merhaba Arkadaslar,
> "linguistics" bilgi toplulugu, ileti gonderme ayarlari serbest olan
> bir topluluktur.
> Topluluk kurucusu Sayin John Stephenson, Turkce -> Latince iliskisi
> hakkinda suren tartismalari olumlu buldugunu belirtmis, ornek bir
> demokratik ve olgun tutum sergilemisti (bkz. yukaridaki iletisi).
> Ancak uzulerek belirtmeliyim ki, bu topluluktaki "uye ileti
> ayarlarimin" serbestten denetimliye degistirilerek, suren
> tartismalara katilmamin engellendigini goruyorum. Bu ayni zamanda,
> Sayin Kaya ve Sayin Berkmen'in bilimsel calismalarinin da bundan
> boyle tartismalarda yer almayacagi anlamina gelmektedir.
> Bu durumu dogrulamak amaciyla, (ozel talep uzerine) linguistics
> topluluguna 3 adet ileti gonderdim. Bunlardan ikisi, Sayin Kaya ve
> Sayin Berkmen'in topluluktan gelen yorum ve sorulara verdikleri
> yanitlardi, ancak henuz yayinlanmadilar. Digeri ise, dogrudan
> gonderdigim ve durumu sorusturdugum iletiydi, ama hala yanit
> "linguistics" bilgi toplulugunda, konuya yakin ilgi duyan ve
> tartismanin karsilikli olarak surmesini isteyen dilbilimciler
> oldugunu da dikkate alirsak, tum bunlarin dusundurucu bir tezat
> icerdigi sonucuna variyorum.
> Bu iletinin bir kopyasi Sayin John Stephenson'a gonderilmistir.
> Kāmil Kartal