Conversation started Saturday
Ours is a scholarly group for studying Pictish history and culture.
This means that only informed comments are permitted.
Informed means that one has conducted significant research into the subject.
In this context it is required that commentators have engaged with actual evidence for Pictish. Turkish is irrelevant - it is the Pictish language that must be studied. This means that the standard works of O'Rahilly, Jackson, Ptolemy, Rivet & Smith, Forsyth, Koch are required reading. Obviously you must also have studied the toponymy and personal names etc.
Please desist from making uninformed commments as it upsets and distracts members.
This is NOT a group for free association of unrelated concepts.
Your interests and approach would be suited elsewhere.
Please understand that this is a serious issue for the group.
Please find below my responses to your message.
1. You said: “Ours is a scholarly group for studying Pictish history and culture.
This means that only informed comments are permitted.”
Polat Kaya: You having a scholarly study of Pictish history and culture is admirable. I have no objection to such a purpose. But, if that is the case, then, what is the need for you to display such an unscholarly, condescending and pretentious attitude. As you know, someone who claims to be scholarly, as you do, should display some modesty and welcoming attitude. As for the requirement of “informed comments”, it seems that you have failed in recognizing “an informed comment” as compared to an “uninformed comment” regarding my postings in “Picts - The Indigenous People of Scotland (or not?)”. My postings are full of original “informed information” that most people had never heard before and thus they were alien and beyond their comprehension. I understand if this bothered you. But, then, I do not repeat what others have told us wrongly all this many thousands of years. It is unfortunate that some people display a closed mind to knowledge that is new to them. Labeling my paper as “uniformed comment” is an indication of a closed mind. Probably, it was not even read because of prejudiced and preconditioned attitude towards “Turks” and/or “Turkish”. Dear Celtic, I dare to say that it was rather your loss ignoring my postings because what I wrote was specifically intended to help your studies regarding ancient Pictish culture. I am afraid without the information that I shared with your group, your studies will still come to a dead end. I feel confident that eventually the information I provided will be seen as one that informs and enlightens.
2. You said: “In this context it is required that commentators have engaged with actual evidence for Pictish. Turkish is irrelevant - it is the Pictish language that must be studied. This means that the standard works of O'Rahilly, Jackson, Ptolemy, Rivet & Smith, Forsyth, Koch are required reading. Obviously you must also have studied the toponymy and personal names etc.”
Polat Kaya: Dear Celtic, how do you think that I wrote those very long writings without my being “engaged in studies regarding the Pictish people and their culture?” If you read them carefully, you will note that no one has told you before this kind of enlightening information.
You say that “Turkish is irrelevant”. I am afraid this view of yours is totally wrong. In fact it is an uninformed view with regards to the ancient Turanian civilization and their Turkish language.
For people who do not know Turkish or the ancient Turanian civilization, what I wrote may be difficult to comprehend and appreciate. But I am confident that one day the fact will be accepted, that: “Turkish is very relevant in the make up of all “Indo-European” and “Semitic” languages.” The English that we are using in this communication between us is made up from Turkish contrary to the known incorrect knowledge of the “scholarly” world. English, like Greek and Latin and all other Aryan languages, is full of words that are made up from the altered, restructured and intentionally disguised forms of Turkish words and phrases. Thus, when this fact is ignored, then, the works of O'Rahilly, Jackson, Ptolemy, Rivet & Smith, Forsyth, Koch also become irrelevant. When everything in these so-called “Indo-European” languages has already gone through reformation or linguistic “metamorphosis”, then it becomes near to impossible to recognize what was what before the metamorphosis. I suggest this should be thought of very carefully.
3. You said: “Please desist from making uninformed commments as it upsets and distracts members.
This is NOT a group for free association of unrelated concepts.”
Polat Kaya: Your rejection of my comments is unfortunate, particularly, for the benefit of the studies of your group. My comments to the group were not “uninformed” as you wrongly claim. One who does not know or read the presented concept is not in a position to make judgments irrespective of good ones or vilifying ones. My many years of research regarding the makeup of the Indo-European languages have shown definitively that their words have been made up from the words and phrases of the Turkish language by rearranging and restructuring them. Therefore Turkish is at the very foundation of all these languages. This fact should be taken into account in your studies – and nobody should be upset over this.
The information content of my writings, other than a few references from Wikipedia, are the results of my own research. What I said in my writings is serious information for recognizing the ancient identity and culture of the Pictish people that you say your group studies. Those who carry out scholarly studies should also keep in mind that the ancient world was not how it is presently understood to have been. Good luck to you in your “scholarly” studies!