Re:
[historical_linguistics_2] To Mr. Kaya
To: David L.
You need to be
patient. The answer you expect from me takes a lot of my
time which I do not
have. By this time you should know that my
responses are not
written immediately after what I read. If I feel
responding, then I
do my research and write my responses in my own
way. So please do
not try to remotely guide me or control me away
from my own
research in your own direction. I am preparing a responce
to your query. And
additionally, please do not jump to any conclusions
just because my
response to your question did not arrive yet.
Last time I
responded to you was about a ten page essay. Yet you did
not touch any of
the things that I brought to your attention. I even
talked about the
name "DAVUD". You ignored them and went totally in a
different direction
without saying a word about them. Did you read
what I wrote about
the Greek words "LEXICON" and "KLEPTOMANIA". If
you did read them
you did not say anything about them. Why not?
After hearing and
agreeing all the correspondences that I brought to
your attention and
also to that of the readers, you are now trying to
define a so-called
"genetic" relationship between Greek and Turkish.
From my point of
view, I see no genetic relationship between these two
languages except
that Greek is a restructured form of Turkish
language in
countless number of Greek words. If I may use the
analogy, the stones
of one bridge built by ancient Tur/Turk peoples
have been
dismanteled by the Greeks and restructured in a different
form which they
called as their own. Although all the building blocks
of the new bridge
were from Turkish, the new bridge built by the
Greeks and other
Indo-Europeans look totally different. They made
sure that the new
languages they manufactured did not resemble in any
way or shape to the
model they used and the linguistic material they
took from, that is,
Turkish.
We are able to find
the correspondences between Greek words and
Turkish phrases,
only because we are now able to decipher many Greek
words and find that
they were made up from Turkish words and phrases.
However, this does
not make Greek language a "genetically" related
language to
Turkish, although it is an abducted and broken up
language.
It is said that the
city of Carthage was dismantled and the stones
left over from the
destruction of this city were taken to Italy by the
Romans. And again
it is said that some of those stones were used in
building of the
presently leaning "Tower of Pisa". Although building
blocks are still
the same, yet the leaning Tower of Pisa does not
resemble the
original Carthaginian temples and city buildings.
Similarly although
Greek has used Turkish language as source material
but does not
resemble Turkish. That was the intention of the usurpers
who made sure that
what comes out of the restructuring does not
resemble the
original.
Additionally while
I am working on a response to your query, please
provide us a clear
cut definition of the "genetically relatedness"
notion. Illustrate
to us the criteria for this notion and what is your
understanding of
it. Please give few examples illustrating how it
works.
I am working on my
response to you, but it will take a while since I
have to schedule it
into my very busy time. However, please be assured
that when I am
ready you will have my response.
Additionally, I do
not know what you have posted about Turkish history
in your group. I
like to make it clear that even though someone may
know enough Turkish
to teach about it to those who are just the
beginners, it does
not mean that he/she really knows the true nature of
what he/she
teaching. The revelations that I made do not exist in
text books. I am
not repeating what someone has written, but rather I
am saying things
that should have been written long time ago by the
historians and
linguists. Additionally what I say were not even known
to Turks either.
What I say is new knowledge that has come to daylight.
They are things
that have not been talked about because of obviouse
reasons. There are
a lot of things that people believe them as
"truth"
but in fact they are not.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
==================
David L wrote:
>
> I posted about
the history of Turkish on my group from an aticle
> which appears
on the internet and seems to be common knowledge among
> linguists
familiar with Turkish; it is similar to what the professor
> who I spoke
with, had told to me.
>
> There are
outstanding (unanswered) questions about the history of
> Turkish relating
to Mr. Kaya's work. How does Turkish relate to
> other Asian
languages? How does Turkish relate to Greek? And so how
> does Greek
relate to those Asian languages to which Turkish is
> related? These
are extremely important questions. If you have not
> investigated
that, then say so, that I do not continue to ask of you
> these
questions.
>
> Thank you for
your help in this matter Mr. Polat Kaya,
>
> Dave