Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya (Mark Hubey)

--- In, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear Mark Hubey,

Thank you for your writing. I understand and appreciate what you are
saying. The tools that you are mentioning probably are very valid
tools under certain circuimstances in linguistics. If there is no
intentional human interference in the normal evolutionary process of
words among dialects of a given language, and even the development of
loan words among unrelated languages, your probability theory, what
you call RSC (recurrent sound change) may work. But when there is
intentional interference and intentional rearrangement of words from
one language into another then out goes your RSC. Because this time
we are not dealing with natural changes of sounds but rather total
rearrangements of letters, syllables, i.e., everything that makes up a
word or phrase. This is a totally different ball game. This time one
is "anagrammatizing" a word or phrase from a known language into
another. The resulting new word is an encryption of the source
material. However, even though the initial text is shuffled, it is not
lost and remains embedded in the encyrpted new word (just like
encrypting today). In fact you will get nowhere by using your
probability of changing sounds, because not only have sounds been
changed but also the whole structure of the original text has been
changed. Now after having said this in response to your suggestions, I
will give you an example to clarify my point.

Many Turks know that in Turkish culture, OGUZ KAGAN had six sons
named: Gün-Han, Ay-Han, Yildiz-Han, Dag-Han, Deniz-Han and Gök-Han.
Some people may look at this as mythology. No matter by what name one
calls it, I say this concept was believed in and lived by the ancient
Turanian Tur/Turk peoples very strongly. For that reason alone many
epic stories (destans) have been written. I further say that, as I
have said so many times in my previous writings, this understanding
was part of the ancient world's religion. I have said and will say
again that what we call OGUZ-KAGAN was the name of the trinity sky-god
of Turanians. The trinity consisted of Gök-Ata-Tengri, Gün-Tengri and
Ay-Tengri. Oguz Kagan's most notable animal logo was OKUZ (Boga)
meaning "Bull" and therefore he was portrayed as a "BULL" in many
ancient depictions found in Asia, Middle East, Anatolia, ancient Masar
(Egypt) and all over Europe because the ancient (so-called Pagan)
world was believing in a universal Turanian trinity sky-God concept.
Additionally, Turkish (Gün-dili, Günes-Dili, Oguz-Dili, Tur-Dili,
Türkçe) was the universal language of that religion.

Now I want to come back to the Turkish name of DENIZ-HAN - the God of
waters. If this name took forms among people as DENIZ-HAN TENIZ-HAN,
understand the variations because they are all similar.

In the so-called Greek mythology, the name POSEIDON is the god of
seas, waters, etc. I say this so-called Greek god was nothing but the
anagrammatized name of Deniz-Han of the Turanians. How so? I will show
you how. When one rearranges the name POSEIDON as DENIS-OPO, it is
readily seen that it is the anagram of Turkish "DENIZ-APA" meaning
"father of sea". Now I claim that this is not a normal change of the
name. As you can see, probablity played no part in this
transformation. On the contrary someone intentionally interfered with
it and shuffled (rearranged) it in order to alienate it from Turanian
Tur/Turk culture and to claim ownership for it. The so-called Greek
mythology is full of mythologic names that are rearrangements of
Turkish words and phrases personifying concepts. By this revelation,
I put the so-called Greek mythology and its claimed authenticity
under question.

Now some may say that Polat Kaya was lucky this time. I say no.
Polat Kaya was not lucky, but rather knew what to do with the name
POSEIDON. Polat Kaya knows that when a text is encrypted into another
form, the original text is not lost. It is still embedded in the new
format, but it is shuffled so that it cannot be recognized easily.
The ancient anagrammatizers new this fact. Present day communication
uses this fact as well for encrypting purposes.

To continue, the Latin name for POSEIDON was NEPTÜNUS, that is, the
god of the sea. If one replaces P with H and rearranges the name as
"TÜNUS-HEN", you will recognize the name "DENIZ-HAN". Again we notice
that an intentional interference has been done to alienate it from
Turanian culture. Again, probability played no part in this

The Etruscan name for this god is given as NETHUNS. When we rearrange
this name as "TENS-HUN", to our amazement we find that name is Turkic
TENÜS-HEN" (TENÜZ-HAN) which is again Turkish "DENIZ-HAN".

You will see that the probability cannot work in these cases, because
the name has been intentionally shuffled differently in each case.

After giving these examples, I rest my case. It is now up to others
whether they pay serious attention or not. I would like to state,
however, that when you tell me "but the RSC heuristic is sound, and
you have to somehow use something like it if you want serious
attention from them", you are imposing your artificial rules on me
which is not fair nor are they rules to follow. I have convincingly
demonstrated an original idea with realistic examples to support it
and in plain language so that everyone can understand it.

Thanks for conversing with me.

Best wishes to all.

Polat Kaya

July 23, 2003

Mark Hubey wrote:
> Mr Kaya,
> Your ideas are original, however, what the complains are about are
> different than
> originality.
> If we see a pattern in life which we think did not arise due to
> chance then we have to
> start suspecting that it was due to something else. The heuristics
> of historical linguistics (e.g. rules of
> thumb) are substitutes for the use of probability theory. The common
> heuristic of HistLing is
> the RSC (recurrent sound change). If the probability of a sound
> change X (e.g. some sound change)
> between languages A and B is p, then the probability of this same
> sound change occurring
> twice is p^2, three times is p^3, etc. Since p < 1, every time we
> multiply we get a number
> smaller and smaller. Thus our confidence increases that these RSCs
> were not due to chance
> and thus it was due to something else (e.g. borrowing/copying or
> genetic descent).
> If we use metathesis, anagrams, etc too often it is not convincing
> that these did not arise
> due to chance.
> I know that most HistLingers are ignorant of probability theory, and
> many things they claim
> are true are plain false and others dubious, but the RSC heuristic
> is sound, and you have to
> somehow use something like it if you want serious attention from
> them. The basic idea is
> always the same, e.g. show that the state of events is likely not
> due to chance.
> allingus wrote:
> >
> > ----- Özgün Ileti -----
> > Kimden: "Polat Kaya" <tntr@c...>
> > Kime: <>
> > Gönderme tarihi: 20 Temmuz 2003 Pazar 23:45
> > Konu: Re: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: About claims of Mr. Polat Kaya
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Oktay Ahmed,
> >
> > Greetings. Let me make it absolutely clear that I am not a
> > politician,
> > I have never been a politician, and I am not politically
> > motivated. I
> > am just trying show that some very strange things have taken place
> > in
> > the past that most people do not even know about it and most
> > likely it
> > is still going on at present regarding the ancient Turkish
> > language
> > and culture with respect to others. I have given you and all
> > other
> > readers examples of it. I have nothing against you or anyone
> > else.
> > In fact I appreciate the fact that you are doing a valuable
> > research.
> > But please let us not confuse the Turkish words that have gone
> > into
> > other languages laterally and stayed more or less the same with
> > those
> > Turkish words or phrases which have been anagrammatized as words
> > and
> > made integral part of other languages. They are two different
> > things.
> >
> > I am not attacking you or anyone else. Many readers in this forum
> >
> > know how fair, understanding and tolerant I have been even to
> > those
> > who criticized and ridiculed me rather severly. I am not saying
> > that
> > my work should not be criticized. However in doing that, I am
> > expecting that my censurer should also be fair and respectful of
> > me
> > and not an absolute rejectionist of my work because it is a new
> > and
> > different view of things that we have been taught as truth. At
> > least
> > some room should be reserved in his/her perception of things in
> > case
> > that I am right in what I am saying, which I believe and know
> > that I
> > am right. Thus, of course, my response to those who try to put me
> >
> > down and belittle my work is a bit different. I am just defending
> > my
> > ideas that I shared with you all. Although we did have a debate,
> > but
> > please think of me as a friend not a foe. You can be sure of that
> > as
> > I am sure of it myself.
> >
> > I wish you all the best and success in every aspect of your life.
> >
> > Selamlar,
> >
> > Polat Kaya