(Part 1)








This study is about an Aymaran saying and four Inuktitut sayings which are referred to as a “word” by the researchers.  Two of these words are given in a research paper by the authors Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen.


These authors explain in their paper an interesting subject regarding computer based word formations into non-concatenative languages from agglutinative languages like Aymara or Turkish, and in agglutinative/polysynthetic languages like Inuktitut, where a single word may contain as many morphemes as an average-length English sentence. This is very interesting in the context where I have been saying that the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages have been fabricated from the words and expressions of the Turkish language.  Similarly the native languages of the world are not native any more, but rather are mostly reformatted languages from the original proto-language of the world- that is, Turkish!  In this study, we will see a few examples of this.


Below, we have the title and the url address of a study carried out by the authors Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen:


Finite-State Non-Concatenative Morphotactics

Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen ,


SIGPHON-2000, Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of the ACL

Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, p. 1-12,

August 6, 2000, Luxembourg.”





Finite-state morphology in the general tradition of the Two-Level and Xerox implementations has proved very successful in the production of robust morphological analyzer-generators, including many large-scale commercial systems. However, it has long been recognized that these implementations have serious limitations in handling non-concatenative phenomena. We describe a new technique for constructing finite-state transducers that involves reapplying the regular-expression compiler to its own output. Implemented in an algorithm called compile-replace, this technique has proved useful for handling non-concatenative phenomena; and we demonstrate it on Malay full-stem reduplication and Arabic stem interdigitation.




Most natural languages construct words by concatenating morphemes together in strict orders. Such “concatenative morphotactics” can be impressively productive, especially in agglutinative languages like Aymara (Figure 11) or Turkish, and in agglutinative/polysynthetic languages like Inuktitut (Figure 2)[Mallon1999, 2]. In such languages a single word may contain as many morphemes as an average-length English sentence.


The below figure is an Aymara word dissected by the authors into parts and translated into an English meaning.


utamankapxasamachiwa = "it appears that they are in your house"


Finite-State Non-Concatenative Morphotactics

web.stanford.edu392 × 237Search by image

Figure 1: Aymara: UTAMANKAPXASAMACHİWA = "it appears that they are in your house"”



Polat Kaya:   The authors Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen, in their above referenced article, mention the Aymara and Turkish languages as being agglutinative languages as most natural languages construct words by concatenating morphemes together in strict orders. This statement is correct in the case of Turkish. Probably this statement would also be correct in the case of the Aymara language when it was in its most original format – not the version that is presented in the paper.  It seems that the Aymara language has gone through some intentional modifications. This we see, when we examine the single Aymara word that the authors have analyzed in their study. They have shown one very long Aymara “word” with an English translated meaning given to it. Also given is the dissected form of the same Aymara word:



I.  UTA-MA-N-KA-P-XA-SAMACH-I-WA meaning "it appears that they are in your house"


This very complicated looking and long Aymara word appears to be mixed up in the sense that when I investigate it in a right-to-left reading fashion, I find faint traces of Turkish words having similar meanings to the English translation of this Aymara word.  Similarly, when I investigate it in a left-to-right reading fashion, I again find faint traces of Turkish words having similar meanings to the English translation.  This brings doubt into the authenticity of this Aymara word.  Why should I find these Turkish language sensations embedded in this Aymara word?  Could it be that what we have here is a Turkish sentence that has been heavily altered and presented to the world as an Aymara word?


In this example, we see the linguists take the so-called Aymara 20-character long word and parse it into some syllables – where they assign a meaning to each parsed component (see above). 


In their explanation, it seems that the so-called parsed term SAMACH has not been accurately defined in the translation.   Thus, the meaning of the Aymara word has been altered somewhat.  I say this, because I recognize the so called Aymara term  “SAMACH” as being the altered form of the Turkish word “AÇMIŞ” meaning “someone has opened”.  Yet in the English translation, they have assigned a meaning of “APPARENTLY” to the parsed term SAMACH.  Apparently, the Turkish word “AÇMIŞ” has been altered into the form “SAMACH” and its meaning has been changed into something that has no relation to its Turkish meaning! The remaining other parsed components of the Aymara word have also been mixed up. 


Below, I give the full explanation of this supposedly AYMARA word and show that it was originally a Turkish sentence before it was disfigured and alienated from its Turkish identity.  I start with the lexical and surface identifications provided by the authors.






Here are the parts of this so-called AYMARA saying and their corresponding Turkish words:  


UTA: is from Turkish word ODA meaning “room”.

UTAM: is from Turkish word ODAM meaning “my room”.

UTAMAN: is from Turkish word ODAMIN meaning “of my room”.


KAP: is from Turkish word KAPI meaning “door”.

KAPIXA: is from Turkish word KAPIYI  or KAPISI meaning “the door”.

KAPXA: is from Turkish word KAPIYI meaning “the door”.


ACH: is from Turkish root word meaning “open”.

ACHMAS or ACMASH: is from Turkish word AÇMIŞ meaning “has opened”.


The so called parsed term “SAMACHA” is the altered and reversed form of the Turkish word AÇMIŞ meaning “someone has opened”.  Thus we see that this term “SAMACHA” has no relation with the assigned translation of “apparently”


IWA: is from Turkish word AVİ meaning “the house”.



Hence, in view of my identifications in Turkish of each word, I now rewrite the original AYMARA saying:




SURFACE: “UTA MAN   KAP XA  SAM-ACH I WA” (supposedly meaning "it appears that they are in your house" according to the authors Kenneth R. Beesley and Lauri Karttunen)


in a new form which reads in Turkish, left-to-right in the order that it appears:  “ODAMIN  KAPISI  AÇMIŞ EVİ”.  In a correct way of saying in Turkish, this would be: EV ODAMIN KAPISINI AÇMIŞ” meaning “in the house, someone has opened the door of my room”!


The meaning “it appears that they are in your house" given by the authors of the paper, is very much the same as the meaning of the Turkish expression I gave, although, the one given by the authors of the paper is somewhat skewed (i.e., misrepresented)!


As the original Aymara word is physically presented to us, we can see no obvious connection with the Turkish language.  Yet, I have just shown that the above given “Aymara” word is very much a form of Turkish.  It appears that the Aymara language was originally a form of Turkish, that was intentionally altered into a different format by some people!


Polat Kaya:   Rewriting the same Aymara text  “AWİ OTAMAN  KAPXA ACHMAS” as deciphered into Turkish would be:

EV ODAMIN KAPISINI AÇMIŞ” meaning “someone has opened the door of my room in the house”.  Surely if you found the door of your house open, you would be correct in concluding that someone is either, in your room (house), or that, someone was in your room (house)!  From my many studies of Aryan words, I have discovered that Aryan (e.g., Greek, English, French, Latin) words were fabricated from words and expressions of the Turkish language.  When fabricating Aryan words, the original Turkish text would be mutilated, rearranged, letters would be displaced or deleted or some new parts would be added, letters were upshifted and downshifted in the alphabet, vowels were changed, and many other actions were employed in order to disguise the Turkish source material.  And they were very effective at it.  It seems that a similar alteration has been done here in the formation of this Aymara word as well.  Originally, the so-called “Aymara” people were the Turkish speaking Turanians contrary to denials! But presently the languages of the native peoples have been altered and alienated from their original Turanian Turkish identity!




II.  The second term that I want to analyze is an Inuktitut term dealt with by the same authors in their paper shown below:


Figure 2: Inuktitut: PARİMUNNGAUJUMANİRALAUQSİMANNGİTTUNGA = “I never said I wanted to go to Paris






The authors have subdivided this Inuktitut word PARİMUNNGAUJUMANİRALAUQSİMANNGİTTUNGA as follows:


Paris = (root = Paris)

+mut = terminalis case ending

+nngau = go (verbalizer)

+juma = want

+niraq = declare (that)

+lauq = past

+sima = (added to -lauq- indicates "distant past")

+nngit = negative

+junga = 1st person sing. present indic (nonspecific)”




Polat Kaya: From the explanations given above, we find that these very alien looking terms have the meanings shown and it appears that they are concatenated to each other in a disorderly fashion.  Yet my analysis reveals that this very long İnuktitut ‘word’ is in fact a long Turkish sentence which needs to be deciphered! 

The Inuktitut term PARİMUNNGAUJUMANİRALAUQSİMANNGİTTUNGA is a 37 character long ‘word’ where even the name PARIS has been altered.  It is likely that the rest of the term has also been made up from an original native expression that was heavily altered and mixed up!  With the help of its given meaning, that is, “
I never said I wanted to go to Paris” and also using the Lexical form, that is, “PARİS+MUT+NNGAU+JUMA+NİRAQ+LAUQ+SİMA+NNGİT+JUNGA”

I have deciphered this Inuktitut term into Turkish, letter-by-letter as follows:


a)  First decipherment into Turkish:   



In this decipherment into Turkish, what we find is a sentence that is a likely dialect of the Turkish language.  As we can see, the original structure of the Turkish sentence has been totally destroyed and intentionally made unrecognizable by way of using anagram and encrypting techniques.  Many letters in the original Turkish sentence have been altered and replaced with different letters using Caesar cipher encryption.  In order to come up with the proper Turkish sentemce,  we can replace the altered consonants NN with M,  J  with S,  G with D, Q with K and some of the U vowels with vowel Ü and in this process, we go through the following steps:






which means:  “I did not tell my wish to go to Paris - Güner




In the lexical structure, where the sentence has been parsed into its parts, the quantity of the used letters are numbered as follows: 




A= 7            M = 3           U = 5

G = 3           N = 6           S = 2

İ = 4             P = 1            T = 2

J = 2             R = 2

L = 1            Q= 2


= 40



In this Turkish sentence, I also parsed the sentence into its parts, that is, the words as follows:


MEN means “I

PARİS is the name of the capital city of France

PARİS’E means “to Paris

GİTMEK means “to go

İSTEK means “wish

İSTEĞ-ÜM means “my wish

İSTEĞ-ÜM-Ü means “the wish of mine

SÖYLE  means “tell

SÖYLE-ME  means “do not tell

SÖYLE-ME-DÜM  means “I did not tell

GÜNER” is a personal Turkish name for men meaning “sun-man

The name “GÜNER” seems to be the first name of a second person to whom the first person is relating the story. But it is not mentioned in the translation given by the authors of the paper. In order to increase the confusion and the disguising of the source Turkish sentence, such unnecessary packaging material are generally used in constructing Aryan and Semitic words from Turkish words and expressions.  In this case, the resulting confused, disguised and concatenated words are combined into one long unreadable, un-understandable and unspeakable word which has been identified as a word of the INUKTİTUT language in this study!  The authors try to enlighten us by describing  the Inuktitut languages asagglutinative/polysynthetic languages”! In other words, such rearranged “Native Languages” are not the original ancient Turanian Native Language of Turkish anymore.  They have been altered, that is, they have been linguistically reengineered - (i.e., false or artificial or made-up or fabricated from the model language of Turkish) - and thus, they are  polysynthetic as the authors say.  Hence, they are not original any more!




A SYNTHETİC item, that is, things or even words, means that the new item is “made up, false, artificial, not original, copied from some other things or language,  or poor quality”.   The term “POLYSYNTHETİC” as applied to languages means “plenty synthetic”.  In other words, that the words of that language are made up from another language by way of breaking the words or sentences of an original and natural source language and then concatenating the broken pieces back together after attaching new meanings to each broken part.  Thus coming up with a fabricated word for an engineered artificial language.  Contary to false claims, all the Indo-European and Semitic, and most likely other languages as well, are such “polysynthetic” and artificial languages. I showed above that both the Aymara word and the Inuktitut words, as presented to us, were artificially made up words.


For example, when I decipher the English term SYNTHETİC into Turkish, letter-by-letter, as “SYNİ-ETTHC”,  I find this so-called Aryan term is actually an altered (i.e., parts are renamed and then concatenated together) Turkish saying  “SUNİ ETTİK” meaning “we made it artificial”.  That is to say, it is made false, it is fabricated, the source concept and the words and expressions have been taken from Turkish!  Turkish word “SUNİ” means “artificial, false, synthetic” and “ETTİK” means “we did it, we made it”. 


Similarly, the term “POLYSYNTHETİC” is also an artificially fabricated word.  Supposedly, the prefix “POLY” is a Greek word.  This term on the surface looks like a “Greek” term, but contrary to falsely spread information, it is a term that has been fabricated from Turkish word “BOL” meaning “plenty, a lot” and the Turkish word “O” which has been altered first to letter “U” and then to “Y”.  Thus the source is the Turkish saying “BOL O” meaning “it is plenty, it is very much”. With these explanations, we see that the so-called “English” word “POLYSYNTHETİC” is also a word that has been fabricated from the Turkish saying “ONU BOL SUNİ ETTİK” meaning “we made it plenty artificial”, that is, “it is not the original, it is heavily concocted.


Now, while the linguistic facts are this, the authors implying that “naturally agglutinative Turkish is a “polysynthetic language” is distorting the facts and deceiving the public!  First of all, Turkish is neither a polysynthetic or a synthetic language.  TURKISH IS THE ORIGINAL SINGLE LANGUAGE THAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE BEEN FABRICATED FROM!  On the contrary, it is Indo-European languages, for example, that are polysynthetic.  In this regard, the public of the world has been conned for thousands of years!!!





“A polysynthetic language is defined as a language where words are made with lexical morphemes (substantive, verb, adjective, etc) as if parts of sentences were bound together to constitute one word, which can sometimes be very long. Those “words” will be translated by several words or even by a complete sentence for less synthetic languages such as English.

For instance, in IÑUPIAK-INUKTITUT, language of the Eskimo-Aleut family in North America:

TUSAATSIARUNNANNGITTUALUUJUNGA means “I can’t hear very well”.

This word could be broken down as follows: the root TUSAA– (“to hear”) followed by 5 suffixes:

TSIAG– (“well”), –JUNNAG– (“to be able to”), –NNGIT– (negative form), –TUALUU– (“a lot”), –JUNGA (marker of the first person and present tense).

Polysynthetic languages are usually agglutinative. Note that this definition of polysynthetic languages is also controversial. If the concept of polysynthetic language (and agglutinative) is operational for languages with very long “sentence-words”, as for Iñupiak, it is often difficult to tell how polysynthetic a language is if there are no written translations.

Nowadays, this definition is often used to describe any language where words are made out of a lexical/verbal root, when syntactic functions are only marked by affixes. In that case, we could describe Basque as a polysynthetic language, although there are no “sentence-words” as long as our example.

Note: the concepts of agglutinative and polysynthetic languages are controversial and their definitions are sometimes considered as non-operational.”




Polat Kaya:  In the IÑUPIAK-INUKTITUT language, the so-called word TUSAATSIARUNNANNGITTUALUUJUNGA and its subdivision into sub-components appear to be very artificial and unconvincing.  As I showed earlier, the given examples were made up from a Turkish sentence rather than one very long artificial word! Therefore, it can be said that this INUKTITUT word is not really a word of naturally being “agglutinative”, but rather is the concatenation of some artificially generated parts followed by the claim that “Polysynthetic languages are usually agglutinative.”  It should be noted that the concept of “Polysynthetic languages is considered controversial.  It seems that such “Polysynthetic languages” have been designed to be imposed on the native peoples.  In trying to recover the suppressed and lost languages of the natives, these new fabricated (polysynthetic) languages are being imposed on them as if they were their original languages.  Rather than helping the natives to speak their language easily and improve their culture, these artificially generated languages would serve to tongue tie the natives and retard their cultural development.  


Now let us analyze this IÑUPIAK-INUKTITUT word that means: “I can’t hear very well”.


The word “TUSAATSIARUNNANNGITTUALUUJUNGA” is made up of  30 letters.  In view of the given English meaning of this word, that is, “I can’t hear very well”, I decipher it letter-by-letter into Turkish as shown in Line 1 below.




From this decipherment, I find that four N letters in the first two words are replacements for Turkish letter M.  However, one of the original five M characters has been dropped which we need to recover in the fourth word from left.  Also, letter T is a replacement for Turkish letter D, letter J in the first word is a replacement for Turkish letter Y and letter S in the second word is a replacement for Turkish letter Ş.  With the replacement of these letters in the deciphered words, we get the following Turkish sentence made up of five Turkish words. 




This Turkish sentence would be regarded as a dialectial sentence in Turkish. This is so because, when they altered and confused this source Turkish sentence to make an engineered word for the native IÑUPIAK-INUKTITUT polysynthetic  language, they also broke the “vowel harmony rule” of the Turkish language! Thus, we can rearrange my decipherment as follows in Line 3.




This decipherment into Turkish means “I cannot hear him/her, my ear is deaf”.  The Turkish words of this sentence are:

1. DUYAMAM means “I cannot hear, I cannot feel”.   DUYMAK is the Turkish verb meaning “to feel, to hear”.

2. İŞİTEMEM means “I cannot hear”. The root verb is “İŞİTEMEMEK” meaning “not being able to hear”.

These two similarly meaning words are repeated here in order to accentuate the severity of the hearing loss by the person. 

3.  ONU (ANU) means “he or she or people in general”.  In Turkish, there is no distinction in genders. The third person singular personal pronoun is expressed by the Turkish word “O” and in the plural case, the word “ONLAR” is used, meaning “they”.  In ancient usage, the word would be “ONAN” where the “AN” suffix is the plurality suffix, meaning “they”.

4.  KULAK means “ear” and “KULAĞUM” (GULAĞUM) means “my ear”.

5.  SAĞURDU means “it is deaf”.  It comes from the Turkish word “SAĞUR” meaning “deaf”.  With the suffix “DU”, it gets the meaning of “it is deaf”!



So in this decipherment of the IÑUPIAK-INUKTITUT ‘word’ “
TUSAATSIARUNNANNGITTUALUUJUNGA” meaning “I can’t hear very well”, I find that even this word has been manufactured from the Turkish sentence “DUYAMAM İŞİTEMEM ONU, GULAĞUM SAĞURDU”!  Evidently, some “linguists” have usurped this Turkish sentence and converted it into a totally confused and alien format and then called it a word of a, so-called, “Polysynthetic language.”  There is no question that all of this linguistic confusion is manufactured by way of “anagrammatization” of the Turkish language words and sentences!





I also found the following Inuktitut saying:  UQALIMAAQTINUT which is translated into English as:  “Dear Readers”. (Inuktitut, No. 85, 1999,  p. 3)


Polat Kaya:  When the Inuktitut saying  UQALIMAAQTINUT is deciphered into Turkish letter-by-letter, as “TAM-UQUIANTILAQ” or “TUM-UQAIANTILAQ”, where the letter T is a replacement for letter S (by way of Caesar cipher) and similarly, the letter Q is a replacement for letter R (again by way of Caesar cipher), then we find that the deciphered term is the altered form of the Turkish saying “TAM OKUYANCILAR”  (TÜM OKUYUCULAR) meaning “All  Readers”  - compared to “Dear Readers” as given above.  Thus, we see that, this so-called “Inuktitut” saying “UQALIMAAQTINUT” is actually an anagrammatized form of the Turkish saying “TAM OKUYANCILAR” or “TÜM OKUYUCULAR”.  Evidently, some people intentionally changed this Turkish expression and presented it as part of the ancient Inuktitut language!




Closing Remarks:


In view of the above analysis, we can say that the Native languages, not only in the Americas, but everywhere, are not as they are presented to us. The findings in this paper, in addition to my many other writings on the web, indicate that ancient natives were speaking at least a dialect of Turkish.  Turkish was the world-wide spoken language of the ancient Turanians.  At some point in time, when the new religions spread into the world, their missionaries were very active in changing the identities, the languages, their religious beliefs in the sun-worshipping sky deities religion (Sky God, Sun God and Moon God) and other cultural identities of the natives everywhere.  What we have today is a deliberately distorted view of the ancient world as said (i.e., admitted) in “Isaiah 65:17 - “For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the heart.”  With the help of my research, the former things are coming back into the minds and hearts of people.


With my best wishes to all,


Polat Kaya


October 06, 2018



Note:  This is Part-1 of a study that I have been working on since October 23, 2012 off and on until present.