Re: [historical_linguistics]
Response to Polat Kaya's...
--- In b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya
<tntr@C...> wrote:
Dear friends,
Mr. Tisinli and Mr.
M. Hubey have both directed me with the
following:
"I would like
to see Mr. Polat Kaya show me why Turkish "acele eder"
-- for the sake of
argument, I will assume that acele is not a loan
word -- is not from
"accelerate"? (If "acele eder" can be
anagramatized from
"accelerate" so as the latter can be from the
former). I am
requiring this, because, if it turns out that Mr. Kaya
turns is right
about the possibility of obtaining a language from
another by
anagramatizing, some people will definitely come forward
and claim it is
that Turkish that is anagramatized from Latin and not
the other way
around."
First of all, if I
may say so, this is a distraction from the main
topic. Anyone
claiming that Turkish is an anagram of Latin has to do
his own defending
of the idea as I have been defending my claim that
Latin and Greek and
their derivatives were anagrammatized from
Turkish.
Additionally, I never said that "acele eder" was
anagrammatized from
"accelerate", I said it was the other way around.
I shared with
everyone in this forum that "accelerate" is an anagram
of Turkish
"ecele eder" (acele eder). Now the idea is being put
forward saying that
Turkish "ecele eder" may be the anagram of English
"accelerate"
and hence Turkish may be claimed to be anagrammatized
from Latin. I say
this was not the case for Turkish. First of all,
one cannot apply
mathematics to linguistics so readily. I realize
that in
mathematics, if A = B and B = C, then we can say that A = C;
however this type
of thinking cannot be applied to linguistics. The
words of a language
cannot be likened to the terms of a mathematical
equation. Words are
the product of deliberate assignment of names to
concepts. They are
influenced by culture, beliefs, language-lifespan,
history,
environment and many other factors.
Secondly, who
anagrammatized from whom is a function of what language
was ahead of the
others. If language A was ahead of B and C, it is
very likely that B
and C took a lot from language A. This holds true
for loan words and
anagrammatized words. However, if B and C were
designed to be
totally different from A, which is very likely, then
they would have far
less loan words from A but far more words and
phrases from A
anagrammatized into them. Take the modern example of
computer languages.
It cannot be denied that computer languages like
COBOL and C, which
were developed after Fortran, took much from
FORTRAN (and even
BASIC). In other words, FORTRAN served as the model
language for the
development of other computer languages. This is
exactly what I am
saying about the Turkish language in relation to
other languages.
Turkish was the most ancient language. Why?
Because Turkish was
present at least with the Sumerian and the
so-called ancient
"Egyptian" languages some 7000 years ago. The name
"BILGAMESH"
(so-called GILGAMESH) is one giant testament to that.
The Encyclopaedia
Brtannica (EB) World Language Dictionary (1963) says
that theoretically
Turanians antedated the Aryans in Asia and Europe.
This means that
Turkish was being spoken in Asia and Europe earlier
than other
languages. An earlier language has no need to
anagrammatize from
a later language in order to enrich itself. The
newer languages are
the ones that have benefited from the earlier
language, not the
other way around. The earlier one language that the
world spoke had
nothing to anagrammatize from. It created words for
itself over
thousands of years of evolution. It had already named all
concepts known at
that time. The people who wanted to confuse that one
language that the
world spoke took the easy way out and anagrammatized
the existing one
language. Anagrammatizing is much easier, cheaper and
less time consuming
because all concepts used by humans at that time
were already named
and defined. The later languages are inflected
languages because
they are cut and paste languages that do not follow
rules. As everone
knows, there are no rules in shuffling a deck of
cards.
Manufacturing new words by way of anagrammatizing is like
shuffling a new
deck of cards which comes in a predefined order.
Shuffling confuses
that order. And today, to further bury that ancient
one language
(Turkish) deeper into the ground, the so-called name
"NOSTRATIC"
has been coined as the "proto-language" - as if it
represents a
language different from Turkish.
The English term
"accelerate" is a rather modern term expressing a
modern concept in
physics. If Turks needed a term like "accelerate"
to express the same
concept in Turkish and hence anagrammatized
"accelerate",
then the question comes to mind: "how come they did not
use "acele
eder" as a term in physics to express the concept? Instead
they have used a
totally different term to express it (presently
"ivme").
If one is not going to use the anagrammatized term, then why
bother with the
"anagrammatizing"? Yet the Turkish expression "acele
et" has been
used in many expressions in Turkish before the invention
of the term
"accelerate".
Turkish
"acele" could not have been derived from Latin or English to
express the concept
of "accelerate". It is a native Turkish word of
long standing. In
Turkish, when one has an urgent message to deliver
to a destination,
probably the first thing that comes to mind is to
say to the
messenger: "acele et" meaning "hurry up", "be
quick",
"run",
"don't drag your feet", etc. Here, "acele" is not alone. It
is accompanied with
Turkish "et" meaning "do" or "make".
"Accelerate",
however, is a
modern term claimed to be from Latin "accelero". Yet
Latin
"accelero" is very much from Turkish phrase "acele er o"
meaning
"he is a fast
man". Point being that "acele", as in Turkish
expressions
"acele eder", "acele er o", "acele et",
"acele git",
"acele
gel", "acele yap", etc., is used in a Turkish context, i.e., as
the Turks would use
it.
Critical minds will
know that Turks did not gallop out of Central Asia
on their horses to
make contact with Latins/Greeks etc., in order to
enrich Turkish by
way of anagrammatizing Latin words or Greek words.
Turks are not in
the habit of confusing, or anagrammatizing other
languages. Even in
the most recent Turkish Ottoman empire, all ethnic
groups were allowed
to keep and maintain their languages. The Ottoman
Turks did not
confuse or obliterate their languages. The most they did
was to take some
loan words and retain them in their original format,
i.e., not
anagrammatized. Therefore stating that Turkish could be
claimed as being
anagrammatized from Latin or any other language is
not realistic.
I had given the
example of Arabic "TENZILAT" (anagrammatized from
Turkish
"AZALTTIN"). If it was the other way around, that is, the
Turks had
anagrammatized "AZALTTIN" from "TENZILAT", then why did they
keep using
"TENZILAT"? If the Turks had actually anagrammatized
"AZALTTIN"
from Arabic "TENZILAT", and thrown away "TENZILAT", and
then used
"AZALTTIN" for price reduction, we would never know that
such an act had
ever happened. But Turks do use the Arabic loan word
"TENZILAT"
for price reduction - without any changes to it - implying
that Turks did not
anagrammatize. "AZALTTIN" is a derivative of
Turkish word
"AZALTMAK". Hence Turkish can not be claimed as being
from Arabic either.
The question may
come to mind: "Why are there many so-called Arabic
and Persian loan
words in Turkish?" The answer must be that the
Selcuks and
Ottomans knew that their TUR ancestors were in what is
presently called
Iran, the Middle East, so-called Egypt, Anatolia
etc., far earlier
than themselves and that they were talking an
earlier form of
Turkish (despite the fact that modern Turks do not
seem to know this).
The Selcuks and Ottomans readily accepted loan
words from these
Middle Eastern peoples because they probably regarded
them as the
mixed-up remnants of their ancient TUR ancestors in that
region.
I have indicated in
this forum many times the statement of Sir E. A.
Wallis Budge saying
that ancient Egyptians (MISIR/MASAR) were certain
invaders from
north-east or Central Asia.
Sir E. A. Wallis
Budge was one of the pioneers who wrote books about
the ancient
Egyptian language. He is well famed for his "An EGYPTIAN
HIEROGLYPHIC
DICTIONARY". Regarding the ancient Egyptian
hieroglyphic
writing system, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge wrote:
"THE ANCIENT
EGYPTIANS EXPRESSED THEIR IDEAS IN WRITING BY MEANS OF A
LARGE NUMBER OF
PICTURE SIGNS, KNOWN AS HIEROGLYPHICS. THEY BEGAN TO
USE THEM FOR THIS
PURPOSE MORE THAN SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO, AND THEY
WERE EMPLOYED
UNINTERRUPTEDLY UNTIL ABOUT 100 BC, THAT IS TO SAY,
UNTIL NEARLY THE
END OF THE RULE OF THE PTOLEMIES OVER EGYPT. IT IS
UNLIKELY THAT THE
HIEROGLYPHIC SYSTEM OF WRITING WAS INVENTED IN
EGYPT, AND EVIDENCE
INDICATES THAT IT WAS BROUGHT THERE BY CERTAIN
INVADERS WHO CAME
FROM NORTH-EAST OR CENTRAL ASIA; THEY SETTLED DOWN
IN THE VALLEY OF
THE NILE, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN MEMPHIS ON THE NORTH AND
THEBES ON THE
SOUTH, AND GRADUALLY ESTABLISHED THEIR CIVILIZATION AND
RELIGION IN THEIR
NEW HOME. LITTLE BY LITTLE THE WRITING SPREAD TO
THE NORTH AND TO
THE SOUTH, UNTIL AT LENGTH HIEROGLYPHICS WERE
EMPLOYED, FOR STATE
PURPOSES AT LEAST, FROM THE COAST OF THE
MEDITERRANEAN TO
THE MOST SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE ISLAND OF MEROI, A
TRACT OF COUNTRY
OVER 2,000 MILES LONG."
This statement is
extremely important. First of all, Sir Wallis Budge
uses the phrase
"CERTAIN INVADERS WHO CAME FROM NORTH-EAST OR CENTRAL
ASIA more than
seven thousand years ago." The meaning of this phrase
is: "he knows
the identity of those invaders who came from north-east
or Central Asia,
but he will not reveal them for some reason".
HENCE, THESE
CENTRAL ASIATIC FIRST SETTLERS OF ANCIENT EGYPT HAVE
REMAINED NAMELES TO
THIS DAY. Although, Sir Wallis Budge does not
indicate the ethnic
identity of those "certain invaders who came from
north-east or
Central Asia", it is rather obvious that they were the
ancient Turanian
Tur/Turk people of Central Asia. This is evidenced
and verified by the
king names of ancient Egypt indicated by himself
and is also
supported by many Turkic words that appear in the
"EGYPTIAN
HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY" that Sir Wallis Budge prepared.
[2].
Additionally, this
indicates that these ancient Central Asians, before
coming to ancient
so-called Egypt, had a language developed to such a
degree that they
could invent a writing system for it. This is how
advanced they were
some seven thousand years ago. And at that time
there was no IE,
Latin, Greek, or Semitic languages. Those Central
Asians from some
seven thousand years ago were speaking the TUR
(Turkish) language
which was the dominant universal language of that
time - like English
seems to be today.
Additionally,
Genesis 11 admits that the world was speaking "ONE
LANGUAGE". It
is understood that that one language was neither
Semitic, nor Greek
nor Latin. If it was any one of them, they would
have named it and
we would all know about it; and we would probably be
speaking it today.
Furthermore, if it was their own language, they
would not want to
confuse their language or themselves. It must be
understood that the
confusers were secretly confusing somebody elses
language. The term
"confusion" is associated with the name Babylon
indicating that the
concept of confusing languages was born there and
spread to other
places. EB states that the concept of "anagram" is
ancient and was
known to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans. So the
Turs/Turks were not
doing the confusion. They would not want to do
such a thing to their
own language and to themselves.
To conclude, I say
that Turkish words are not anagrams of words or
phrases from other
languages because Turkish was the proto language
itself where even
the term "PROTO" is an anagram of Turkish "BIR-
ATA".
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
Jul 23, 2003