Re. historical_linguistics/message No. 286 (Cigdem Arik - )

--- In bcn2003-II@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:

Dear Cigdem Arik and Friends,

Greetings to all. This is my rebuttal to Çigdem Arik (message no.
286). Please bear with me.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/historical_linguistics/message/286

Çigdem Arik wrote:

> From: "cigdem_arik" <cigdem_arik@y...>
> Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 8:27 am
> Subject: Re: About the words "LINGUIST" and "LINGUISTICS"

> "Dear Mr Kaya and members

> I have been unfortunate enough for time now to read the arguments,
> if they can be called so, of Mr Kaya. Judging from the
> profile section of the group, many of you don't know Turkish at all
> therefore are not in a position to evaluate the basics of Mr Kaya's
> assumptions which merely appear as masked hoaxes to me."

POLAT KAYA By your own words, you are indeed unfortunate for having
written the letter that you did. You got emotional and called out what
you wrote. You should not have. You should have thought very
thoroughly about what you read in my paper before you spoke. Your
accusation of my work as " masked hoaxes" is groundless, ill conceived
and due to your lack of knowledge. I do not know whose music you are
playing, but surely your notes are out of tune. If you can think only
in one dimension in your observations, it is no fault of mine. First
of all, you have to increase your knowledge and enlarge your horizon
of vision in order to understand what I am talking about. To do that
you probably need lots of time and hard work.

You defined the term "hoax" in your letter saying that: "Hoax": A
deception for mockery or mischief; a deceptive trick or story; a
practical joke.

I do not believe that you have grasped the real concept of "hoax'
clearly in your mind. What I have written in my paper about the terms
"LINGUIST" and "LINGUISTICS" and all the rest of it do not fit in any
part of your definition. I assure you they are not "deception" for
mockery or mischief; or a deceptive trick or story; or a practical
joke. I urge you not to take lightly what I write. I am very serious
about what I write and my arguments are real arguments. I mean what I
say., Those who play "hoaxes" have something to hide - which they do
behind disguise. I have nothing to hide. Everything I say is open for
all to see and understand.

From your criticism of me, I see that you have got only a very small
part of my writing. That is: "how a language could be anagrammatized
into another language." Since you have understood that much, then, I
ask you: how is it that when I decrypt a given text in English, Greek
or Latin, and give you its source in Turkish in plain view, it becomes
a "trick" or a "hoax", but somehow, in your view, it is not a "hoax"
or "trickery" for those who actually did the real anagrammatizing of
Turkish words and phrases and disguised them with real "hoaxing" and
real "tricking" for their own benefit? While the facts of the matter
are these, you dare to call my work a "hoax"? Have you lost your
judicial measures so much that you cannot comprehend what is so
clearly visible in front of your eyes and accuse me of "trickery"?

Encyclopaedic sources say that the concept of "anagrammatizing" have
been known and used for at least several thousands of years. And for
the record I say that it has been used to make languages from a source
language, and that source language was Turkish, although no linguist
would come forward and admit it, Here a real "hoax" has been
perpetrated. This has become evident from my studies of Indo-European
words many of which show that they are in fact made up from Turkish
words and phrases anagrammatized into Greek, Latin and later into
other Indo-European languages such as English. This is a very valid
"argument" and "theory" that I have been saying and defending all this
time whether you or your kind like it or not.

You wrote:

> Judging from the
> profile section of the group, many of you don't know Turkish at all
> therefore are not in a position to evaluate the basics of Mr Kaya's
> assumptions which merely appear as masked hoaxes to me.


POLAT KAYA: It is too bad that you dont even seem to understand what
you are reading. You give the impression that you came foreward as a
heroin to save the readers from being taken advantage of by Mr. Kaya.
How heroic. She saved all from confusion. Yet what I read from your
rush to such an unwarranted conclusion is that you are confused and
unsure of yourself. You carry that insecurity to anyone who may relate
to yourself. If my name was, say, a non-Turk name, I am sure you would
be singing a different tune.

For the information of Cigdem and also of all, Mr. Kaya is not
interested in conning anyone. If some of the readers do not know
Turkish in this forum, that is natural and understandable. Knowing
that, I write my papers with such great detail and clarity that both
Turkish speaking and also English speaking readers can understand
readily. I have nothing to hide from anyone. What I write can be
scrutinized by anyone and everyone. If a reader does not understand
any point I make, he or she, like a gentleman or a lady, can ask me,
that is, before going into gyrations of emotional accusations, and I
would be more than happy to explain my position. From my point of
view, this forum is a learning forum. People discuss matters that
they believe to be important for them.


You said:

> what he actually does is anagrammatizing English, Latin, Greek words
> and phrases into Turkish words and phrases that DON'T exist in
> Turkish.


POLAT KAYA: Now, you are not only terribly wrong but also trying a
"trick" of debating, that is, trying to turn the table around. First
of all, you do not seem to understand who is doing the
anagrammatizing. You see Çigdem, I do not do anagrammatizing. I do
decompiling, deciphering and decrypting of words that have been
anagrammatized from Turkish into these other languages, if you know
what I mean. There are mountains of difference between the two
concepts which you should try to learn. Anagrammatizing was done by
those who wanted to generate new languages (e.g., Greek, Latin and
English) from Turkish source words and phrases. If you cannot see this
fact, then I cannot help you. All I can suggest is that you think
very carefully before you speak and read what I have written over and
over again until you get it right before you accuse me of trickery and
dishonesty.


You said:

> This way you can rearrange an English word and make 14 possible
> Turkish words from which the word linguistics is said to be
> anagrammatized."


POLAT KAYA: Evidently, you have no understanding of the subtleties of
Turkish language. Even the ancient Greeks and those who manufactured
the words "linguist" and "linguistics" knew it far better than you do.
All "14" Turkish expressions deal with language, linguist and
linguistic related subtleties that are embedded in those two words.
Open up your English dictionary where you will find single words
entries which have a page of different meanings associated with that
single entry. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

You said:

> You even go as far as suggesting that it comes from
> the Turkish phrase "gunesh dil" "sun language", a phrase which has
> beed coined in the '30s.

POLAT KAYA: In the word "LINGUIST" is embedded the Turkish words "TIL
GUNIS" or "GUNIS TIL" which is staring you in the face as the "SUN
LANGUAGE" in English. You cannot deny that it is not there or it is
not referring to "GÜNESh DILI" concept. In this context, the Turkish
Sh has been anagrammatized into S. Did it ever occur to you that those
who manufactured the word LINGUIST or LINGUISTICS from Turkish already
knew that TURKISH was the "SUN LANGUAGE" before Turkish linguists ever
talked about it? They dismissed the proposed theory in its presented
form because: a) it was not convincing in its presented form; b) they
did not want to give that glory to the Turkish language, the language
that has been pushed around, divided and confused since ancient
Babylonian times in order to get rid of it and replace it with one or
more languages manufactured from it; c) they have, since the times of
Sumerians, made and declared the most ancient forms of Turkish
language as extinct languages; d) they diverted Turkish linguists on a
wild goose chase to fields where there were no geese to be found.

Additionally, I like to make it clear that my view of "Günes Dili"
concept is different than which was presented in the 1930's. After
making an indepth study of many related subjects, now I believe in the
"SUN LANGUAGE" concept in a different way. I believe in the "SUN
LANGUAGE" concept because the ancestors of Tur/Turk peoples believed
in a trinity Sky-God religion in which SUN and Moon were the most
important and visible deities. Furthermore, the Sun was the most
central and life giving entity in the sky. They built a Sky-God
religion around that concept and also built a language interwoven with
that concept. Sky God was SUN, Sun was "O-KÖZ" (That Fire, That Eye)
hence "OGUZ", Sky-God was "UTU-ER" (UT U ER) thus "TUR" and the
language related to this religion was the TUR LANGUAGE and OGUZ
LANGUAGE, both of which are known as "TURKISH". Hence, Turkish, by
these definitions, is the "Sun Language". Thus my view of the SUN
Language is very different than the one presented in the 1930's and
dropped.

You said:

> There is no word, nor has been such as aguzculuk, agýzcýlýk. The
> theory belongs to you, you know that you can not prove that they did
> exist and so you go on defending them saying "Why not believe it?".

POLAT KAYA: I am amazed that you said these things. It must be due to
not recognizing what is inches away from ones face. I believe you know
that there is the Turkish word "AGUZ" (AGIZ), that is, the organ that
makes the speech. You must also know that there are Turkish suffixes
-CU and -LUK. When you put them together, it becomes a pure and
perfect Turkish expression of "AGUZCULUK" meaning "the field of
speaking, language.", by another word "dilcilik". And if somebody
becomes in that field, he is called an "AGUZCU" (dilci), that is,
"LINGUIST". Is it so difficult to understand? Even if "Aguzculuk" was
never used in daily Turkish, that does not mean that it is not
Turkish. It is also likely that in old times the expression
"aguzculuk" was used in this fashion before it was abandoned.
Evidently, the Greek linguist was a very clever one. He knew what he
was looking for. He used a Turkish phrase that was not used in daily
Turkish usage.

The Greek anagrammatizer used a less used or non-used Turkish
expression for his purpose. His aim was to gain a word and not get
caught. It does not matter what he used for his purpose and whether
Turks use it or not. Why should he worry about what you are using in
Turkish. But evidently he knew Turkish better than many Turkish
speakers put together. So in this case, he did not use the word
"DILCI", probably it was too easy and readily recognizable. But others
used it in making the word "LINGUIST" by using Turkish word "TILCISUN"
meaning "you are a linguist". Very smart of them. What is the
probability of having this correspondence if there was no man made
interference? The answer is effectively NIL.

You said:

> My dear sir, your Turkish root words don't make sense, they are not
> in compliance with basic Turkish syntax and semantics, they include
> words like Okul which comes from French école and has come into use
> in Turkish after the later half of the 19th century. But that
> shouldn't bother you I believe, since you'd pop out of the hat an
> Turkish expression that does not exist, nor did exist to show
> that "école" was anagrammatized from Turkish.

POLAT KAYA: You are wrong again. I just showed you that they do make
sense. What is wrong with the word "AGUZCULUK"?

With respect to the "okul" and "ecole" relation, what you are blurting
out is the misconception that has been intentionally perpetrated to
con and confuse. Contrary to what you say, Turkish OKUL does come
from Turkish verb "OKUMAK" meaning, "reading, writing, learning, and
getting visdom, etc." which is done in "OKUL". Turkish did not get
the verb "OKUMAK" from French. Is it not possible that the French
"ECOLE" could be made from Turkish verb "okumak"?

You used the word "semantics" which is said to be from Greek
"SEMANTIKOS" meaning: "1 Linguistically, the study of the meanings of
speech forms, especially of the development and changes in meaning of
words and word groups. 2 Logic, the relation between signs or symbols
and what they signify."

Did you ever stop to think that the word "SEMANTICS" or the Greek word
"SEMANTIKOS" could have been anagrammatized from Turkish "SES
MANTIKI" meaning "the logic of voice, sound, speech". Examine these
words. It is staring at you and everyone to be seen, that is, if you
want to see. Here I am revealing it to you all. Please take note.
Thus even this word which is so widely used by "linguists" is neither
Greek nor Latin in origin, but rather is from pure Turkish source
disguised so well that even the most honest linguists have been
conned. You know that words "ses" meaning "sound, voice", and "mantik"
meaning "logic" are Turkish and most likely have been part of Turkish
for thousands of years. This I am also revealing here for the
record.

You said:

> There is no word, nor has been such as aguzculuk, agýzcýlýk. The
> theory belongs to you, you know that you can not prove that they did
> exist and so you go on defending them saying "Why not believe it?".
> Your theories all end up in a dead end since you are suggesting
> and "proving" that words in other languages are anagrammatized forms
> of ancient Turkish expressions and words but you can not link them
> to Turkish expressions and words.


POLAT KAYA: You do not seem to like and/or approve of my "theory". It
is too bad. Of course one cannot approve something that he/she does
not understand. Therefore I cannot blame you. But let me tell you
this much: I am very proud of being able to think, generate, study,
present and defend a theory that questions and inspects the make up
and the roots of the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages in
a way that has never been done before. I have shown the relation of
these languages with respect to Turkish language over and over again
by giving very concrete examples and also shown much ancientness of
Turkish language with respect to these languages. If you are a Turk,
as your name indicates, you should have shown great interest in what I
am saying. Yet, it seems you are all bothered about it.

It is amazing that you expect corrrespondences to be in the exact
shape or format of the present day Turkish that you know. That is an
unrealistic expectation. Did you think or expect that the ancient
Greek linguist to write you a letter of explanation written in the
present day Turkish so that you could understand easily? It is your
job as a linguist to decipher his renderings. If you cannot, that is
not his problem nor mine but rather yours. I explained to you above
and I repeat again "AGUZCULUK", is pure Turkish from every angle and
you know it.


Dear Çigdem. Coming up with a theory about a subject as complex as
"linguistics" and "linguist" that I have raised in the consciousnes of
readers is not an easy task. I am very proud of it. Theories about
difficult concepts cannot be easily absorbed and accepted by those who
have not even thought about the idea before, let alone overcoming the
influence of years of conditioning in schools.

While we are talking about theory and theorem, let me proudly point
out to you and for the record that even the supposedly from Latin and
Greek word "THEOREMA" is an anagram of the Turkish word "TEYOREM" (in
present day Turkish "DIYORUM") meaning "I say, I state". When one
starts presenting a new idea, one starts stating "the statement" of
his/her "THEOREM." In Turkish, one starts by saying: "BEN DERIM KI" or
"BEN DIYORUM KI", that is, "I SAY THAT", "I STATE THAT" and then the
person starts explaining his/her argument. Additionally, the term
"THEORY" is also the anagram of Turkish expression "DIYOR" or "O
DIYOR" meaning "it says, it states". And this is exactly what a
theory does, i.e., it "states a hypothesis" or it "states an
argument". So please take note again.

You said:

> Your theories all end up in a dead end since you are suggesting
> and "proving" that words in other languages are anagrammatized forms
> of ancient Turkish expressions and words but you can not link them
> to Turkish expressions and words. If you say you can please show me
> examples of, aguzculuk, aguzculuk olush, Dilcisun, Dil Konuþ, Dil
> Konuþu.

Dear Çigdem, I am sorry to say that you are out of touch with the
Turkish language. I explained all the things you are asking in my
paper. When someone makes a lot of talking as you have done in your
letter, it is called "aguzculuk". If you are acting as a "speaker
person" for someone else, it is also called "AGUZCULUK", by another
name "AVUKATLUK" as you are doing in your letter now. Those "lawyers"
who do most of the talking do nothing but "AGUZCULUK" by another name
"dilcilik". Please note the format between "aguzculuk" and "dilcilik"
in Turkish. This kind of Turkish was used until and after the
collapse of the Ottoman Empire. I am sure it is still being used in
Anatolia. If you do not know, I suggest you broaden your horizon in
Turkish. Additionally, if you listen to the Turkish dialect as spoken
along the Black Sea coast, you will hear them say "dilcisun" rather
than "dilcisin". In any case they are all pure Turkish.

I can go on for a long time in my writing. But I have already spent
much more time than your accusing letter deserves. However, at this
point I will dwell on the name Çigdem just to illustrate a point. It
has nothing to do with you. In fact you have one of the most
beautiful Turkish names that I like.

"Çigdem" is also the name of an early spring flower that grows in the
fields, known in English by the name "crocus", meadow saffron (kIr
çiçegi). The Botanical name for çigdem is given as "COLCHICACEAE" or
"COLCHICUM". When we examine the name "COLCHICACEAE", as it is written
it sounds very much like the Turkish word "ÇÖL CHICEKI O" meaning "it
is a field flower". In this context. The Turkish word "çöl" and "kIr"
have the same meaning referring to "fields". Is this a coincidence or
did I "pull it out of a hat" as you put it? Please think about it
very carefully. You see, what seems to be a "pop out of the hat"
affair to you, is actually a combination of a lot of research,
analysis, keen understanding and combining all the pieces together in
a way that they make a picture. I hope that kind of wealth of
knowledge you will achieve some day.

Additionally, the name "COLCHICUM" is an anagram of Turkish
expression "ÇÖL ÇIÇEUM" (Çöl Çiçegiyim, "kIr çiçegiyim) meaning "I am
field flower", but it is in the Turkish as spoken around the Black Sea
region where some Turkish speaking Greeks have been in the past.

Another name for it is the Turkish name "KARDELEN", a bulbous
(soganli) plant that flowers early in the spring in the fields. The
Botanical name is given as "GALANTHUS nivalis". When we rearrange the
word "GALANTHUS" letter-by-letter as "SUGANLATH", where H is Greek H
=I, to our amazement, we find that the word is an anagram of Turkish
word "SOGANLITI". This describes the Genus name of this plant
indicating that it is a "bulbous" plant, since "soganli" in Turkish
means "with bulb". Thus this Latin or Greek sounding scientific name
also has been made up from Turkish but is disguised very well.

Additionally, the name CROCUS is very much an anagram of Turkish
expressions such as "KAR GÖZ" or "KAR GÖZü" meaning "Eye of Snow", or
"KARA GÖZ" meaning "Black eye" on a snowy background. Another name
for this flower in Turkish is "Kar Çiçegi" meaning "Snow Flower".
This is another form of the Turkish name "KAR DELEN" for the same
flower meaning "it punches through snow". As you see, even the
"English" name CROCUS is sourced from Turkish.

So you see Çigdem, there must be something terribly wrong with all
these Latin and Greek sounding names that we do not know much about.
While they have been made up from Turkish, they have been distorted,
disguised and presented as Greek or Latin. This is the real hoax
Cigdem.

In this regard, I hope you read my "Robin Redbreast" or "KINALI
GÖGÜSEM" paper. It is very enlightening.


You said:

> Even your suggested root word for proto, namely "bir ata" is
> against the -daþ/deþ tradition in Turkish (atadaþ) . Futhermore to
> stress the "one" notion in a phrase, ata should have been the first
> word in the phrase + posessive suffix, and "bir"; atasý bir just as
> the examples özü bir, sözü bir, gönlü bir.

POLAT KAYA: Dear Çigdem please open up your horizon. You are not only
confusing things to each other again as you have been doing all
throughout your letter, but you are also "nit-picking" as they would
call it. The term "bir ata" refers to the "father" not to his
children. Your "-daþ/deþ" suffix refers to the children as they
become "kardesh" to each other after they are born from "one father"
(bir ata). Persons who are born from "one father" (bir ata) are called
brothers and therefore are related to each other. Similarly, if two
or more languages are regarded as being related to each other, and
through that relation, are considered as coming from one ancient
language, then, they may be also regarded as "brother"/"sister"
languages coming from "bir-ata" language. In this case "bir ata"
language is the "model" language". In the hands of "clever
verbologists", "bir ata" became "proto", that is, the "model"
language. Turkish is that "model" language contrary to all kinds of
disinformation. Therefore, your, -daþ/deþ argument has no place here.

You must also take note that all beings have only "one father" (BIR
ATA). No one can have "two fathers". The seed comes from "bir ata".

However, I must grant you that in Turkish "ata bir" or "ana bir"
expressions are also used, but you must note that these expressions
are used in describing the "step children" i.e., "step brothers and/or
sisters", as is the case in Turkish expressions "ata bir ana ayri"
meaning "children from one father but from different mothers",
similarly, "ana bir ata ayri" only this time referring to "children
from one mother but different fathers".

You said:

> Mr Kaya, you may go on confusing people with your pseudo-proofs of
> the sun language theory, you should be at least show the decency to
> present valid evidence that backs up your theory and not make use of
> their ignorance of Turkish. All I can say is that you don't have
> them apart from the cases of yoghurt, kaimakam, baklava etc.
> I wish a good day and best wishes to all,"

POLAT KAYA: Regarding your example words "yoghurt, kaimakam,
baklava", these are imported words into English. In other words, they
are borrowed words from Turkish without any alteration. They are NOT
anagrammatized. If they were, you would not be able to recognize
them.

For the language that you have used and the attitude that you have
presented, I say "Shame on you Çigdem". As a lady, I would have
expected a higher degree of refinement from you. The behaviour you
have demonstrated has nothing to do with a "scientific criticism" of
my paper on the words "LINGUIST and "LINGUISTICS. It is very
unfortunate that you did not understand my paper. But then, I could
not have made it any simpler.

Dear child, I have all the decency that you could ever imagine. You
should read all my papers very carefully and in fact a number of
times. You will find that I am not confusing people, on the contrary,
I am enlightening those innocent ones who have been confused by others
as I even demonstrated in this response to you. Of course those who
choose to remain in the shade and ignore the illuminating knowledge
that I offer are free to do so. That includes you too.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

October 05, 2003