No. 6) Re: [hrl_2] Bottero's
translation problems between Sumerian and Akkadian
Dear Friends,
Mr. Rogers wrote:
> Thus when you
eliminate vowels and
> concentrate
solely on consonants as Dr. Kaya does in his Turkish
> Anagrammatizing
theory, then you lose "the context" of the
> consonant.
Are you reading my
papers upside down, bacwards or what? Either you
are confused or
intentionally distorting what you read. Your usage of
the appellation
"Turkish Anagrammatizing theory" is a
misrepresentation
and disinformation. You are twisting things around.
I did not use this
kind of labelling on my revelation. If I were to
label it, it would
be something along the lines: INDO-EUROPEAN AND
SEMITIC LANGUAGES
ARE ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURED LANGUAGES BY WAY OF
ENCRYPTING TURKISH
WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS. If I had to give my
revelation a
shorter label, it would be: INDO-EUROPEAN AND SEMITIC
ANAGRAMMATIZATION
OF TURKISH. This is the way my discovery should be
referred to - not
by the deceptive label of "Turkish Anagrammatizing
theory" that
you have concocted.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya
==========
emarhalys wrote:
>
> In this book I
have referenced, Jean Bottero's "Mesopotamia
> Writing,
Reasoning, and the Gods" he explains a problem that arises
> when trying to
translate Sumerian into Akkadian. I write about this
> because
Akkadian is a monosyllabic based language much as Dr. Polat
> Kaya has
described Turkish to be. By coming various Akkadian signs
> (the
monosyllables, what is popularly called cuneiform signs),
> different
terms are rendered. Bottero writes pg. 92:
>
> "On the
other hand, the characters which were devised for Sumerian
> phonetics
could not express the subtleties of Akkadian phonetics.
> The latter, as
in other Semitic languages, contained a number of
> particular
phonemes UNKNOWN in Sumerian: an entire range of
> laryngeals and
of sibilants, as well as the "emphatics," pronounced
> with a
particular stress. With the material of Sumerian, such
> phonemes could
be rendered only very approximately and in an
> ambiguous way.
Moreover, written Akkadian seems to have contained
> only two
largygeals; a weak one and a strong one. The same signs
> recur,
especially to indicate the voiced, the voiceless, or the
> emphatic
consonants: bi for bi and pi; ad for ad, at, or at (schwa
> t); ku for ku,
gu, and qu (emphatic)..."
>
> What this
means, is that in monosyllabic language systems, the
> vowels do
matter. As the case is with diacriticals of Hebrew
> language, the
vowels not only indicate sound, but dynamics of the
> spoken
consonantal letter. Thus when you eliminate vowels and
> concentrate
solely on consonants as Dr. Kaya does in his Turkish
>
Anagrammatizing theory, then you lose "the context" of the
> consonant.
>
> Vowels help
determine case and tense, dynamics, and inflection
> or
"shadings" of consonantal sounds from the unaspirated t all the
> way up to the
emphatic t!
>
> We see in many
of Dr. Kaya's examples how he can play with the word
> renderings
paying no attention to tense or case possesives. The
> reason why he
can do this is he has no vowel indicatives to guide
> him?
>
> If Bottero has
problems translating Sumerian into Akkadian, then how
> much more
might be the problems of translating Sumerian into Turkish?
>
> At least in
this respect, I would like to see a list of readings
> that I can
trace the work of those who have translated Sumerian into
> Turkish --
those who have worked on this problem before Dr. Kaya?
>
> One can look
in the pool of the worldwide web, but without guidance,
> one could look
endlessly?
>
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...