Response to Message No. 449 of Historical_linguistics

Dear David Lionardi,

Thank you for your response to my paper numbered as No. 448 in the
historical_linguistics archives.

You wrote:

> I appologise for not being more considerate; on my
> historical linguistics group I get into the habit of replying
> at once to a single person but at the same time writing
> for the group, so I Tend leave out names, and some have
> different login names than Their actual name. I
> should have been more considerate.

Polat Kaya: Thank you. Now we understand each other. This way it
becomes easier to know who is talking to whom. In my previous response
to you, I wrote "To David L." because I did not know what "L." stands
for. Now I have a better understanding of your second name. My second
name is Kaya as is obvious in all of my postings.

You wrote:

> I agree that the correspondences you show are not by chance.
> But I am not comfortable concluding that Turkish is older than
> Greek. I would have to study more to form a solid opinion.

Polat Kaya: Firstly, I am glad to hear that you agree with me that
"the correspondences I show are not by chance." It is good to hear
this. If these correspondences are not by chance, then somebody must
have very skilfully changed the Turkish expressions in order to come
up with these "Greek" words. In old days the "religious" people were
the ones who dealed with such subjects and disseminated their
"knowledge" to all. Judging from what has come to present times in
terms of words of "Greek" language, it becomes quite evident that they
did a lot of intentional confusing in that one language that the world
spoke. They knew how to anagram Turkish expressions and conceal them
to come up with a "broken" (Girik) language of their own that gives
the appearance of being independently developed. These ancient
religious "linguists" were also the speakers of Turkish which was the
language of the ancient Sky-God religion. They concocted all sorts of
things for their own benefit and long term interests. Presently, they
are still the driving force behind a lot of confusion.

Secondly, I can also understand your not being comfortable with
concluding that Turkish is older than Greek. This must be due to the
fact that we have all been conditioned by the writings of so many
European and Semitic authors elaborating on the ancientness of the
"Greek" world but disregarding everything prior - which was an immense
and widespread Turkic civilization - as if the world started with the
Greeks and Semitics. It is not easy to dismantle erroneous old
"knowledge". A fantastic brainwashing job has been done on us all.
But things have changed now.

I personally question everything said about the old world. I have
discovered that all that glittered in the realm of ancient "history
and linguistics" were not in fact true and real "gold" but rather
"fool's gold". There has been an intentional destruction of the
ancient civilization of the ancient Tur/Turk peoples such as: the Tur
Sumerians, the ancient MISIR/MASAR which is called presently "EGYPT",
the Anatolian civilizations, the Sakas (Scythians), Etruscans and all
other native peoples of ancient Europe. Greeks have a way of
destroying what they have taken over from others by either building
something on top of it (e.g., Anatolian civilizations) and/or changing
the identity of what they took over so that the original owner's
identity is obliterated. That is intentional obliteration. Greeks did
the same thing to the Turkish language by way of anagrammatizing it to
come up with their "Greek" language, although they were not the only
one in this activity.

Another reason why you may not be confortable accepting Turkish as
being older than Greek is the fact that what I am saying is contrary
to all the things that we have been misleadingly taught so far. As
soon as one recognizes the fact that Turkish is older then Greek, and
Latin and Semitics and most likely many other languages, all the
things we have all learned about languages and the ancient world of
Greeks and others will come crashing down like the Tower of Babel
concept. Although this may be upsetting to some, the fact is that the
truth has its own way of coming to the surface at the right time and
at the right place.

If nothing else, ancient MISIR (MASAR) was the oldest and the longest
living Tur/Turk state in human history which was far earlier than the
ancient Greek. Same with the Tur/Turk Sumerians. The so-called
Minoans of the island of Crete were Turkish speaking Turanians who
were in the Aegean sea far earlier than the Greeks. The same goes
for the ancient Thracians (Turks).

The so-called IONIANS were not "Greek" contrary to propogated
misinformation. They were rather "Pelasgian" and Turanian Tur/Turk
peoples. They were the Ay-Hans (IONIAN / YUNAN) of Tur/Turk peoples.
The present Turkish name for Greece i.e., "Yunanistan", refers to
those originally non-Greek peoples. When the wandering people of
"Graecians" (Garaci" in Turkish meaning 'wanderer") arrived at the
geography which is called "Greece" today, there was a fully developed
Turanian civilization whom the newly arriving Greeks called
PELASGIANS. And these PELASGIANS had nothing to do with Greeks.
Pelasgians, i.e., SAKA Turs/Turks, were Turkish speaking Turanian
peoples. Greeks did not even have a language of their own until they
manufactured one from Turkish. Greeks got all they knew from the
ancient Turanian civilization in the area. Please see Polat Kaya's
reading of the ancient Pelasgian inscription written on a stela found
on the Lemnos island.

Ancient Greeks were not civilizing but rather were destructive of the
existing Tur/Turk civilization from which they learned everithing they
knew. The Greeks simply built a different version of what they had
learned from the native Tur/Turk peoples. Since then, the advocators
of the Greek civilization have been claiming that it was the Greeks
that started everything - conveniently not mentioning the much older
Tur/Turk civilization. This is huge misrepresentation.

With regards to the ancient Greeks, it is enlightening to read the
following written by historian Michael Wood who writes under the
subtitle of "The Greek Conquest of Asia" [1] :

"The Greek,' said Aristotle, 'are intelligent and free and have the
capacity to rule all mankind." In the fourth century B.C. under
Aristotle's pupil, Alexander the Great, they invaded the near East,
overrunning Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and then Egypt. The Greek era
in Asia, known as the Hellenistic, is now seen as one of the most
revolutionary in the world history."

Polat Kaya: Yes, revolutionary indeed by way of destruction rather
than civilizing. What they re-did was already there before the Greek
invasion and destruction contrary to all the applause that the western
writers keep pumping to the public about Alexander the Great's
conquest of Asia and ancient Masar (Misir or so-called "Egypt"). But
they never admit that these ancient Greek wanderers did not even have
a language of their own until they broke the Turkish language in
confusion to make a language for themselves.

Michael Wood continues: "Within a generation, the valley of the Nile
thronged with Greek colonists, as if on a gold rush. The civilization
of Egypt, ancient, mysterious and exotic made a deep impression on
Greek minds. In upper Egypt the monuments were covered with graffiti
by awestruck Greek tourists. The native Egyptians, as we can now see
from oracular and apocalyptic papyri, were strongly resistant to these
new outsiders, as they had been in the past. (This was nothing new:
Herodotus had written that "they keep the ancestral laws and add none
other in avoiding foreign customs.") In a prophecy of the Greek
period, native Egyptians looked forward to the day when the 'foreign
civilization planted among us will fade away; these foreigners who
occupy Egypt will disappear like autumn leaves.' Others were more
open in their hostility. "These Greeks are thieves and upstarts,
addicted to violence,' fumed one Egyptian priest. "To think we taught
them all they know." And at Luxor still today, in the inner shrine of
the ancient Egyptian temple, striding like a Pharaoh of old, is the
violent golden boy of Western history, Alexander himself."

Polat Kaya: The violent golden boy of Western history and his
followers did a lot of damage to the ancient world by way of changing
the ancient language and culture of the old world to an unrecognizable
state from what it was. Alexander the Great built in the order of 10
to tvelve so-called cities of limited size that were all called
Alexandria. This may be likened to mine staking (i.e., putting a
stake with one's name on it wherever one sees something nice and then
claim it as his own). This is "grabbing", not civilizing.

Michael Wood writes: "In one of the least known episodes in ancient
history, Alexander's successors went further still. In the second
century B.C. they sent devastating expeditions down the Ganges,
sacking the ancient religious centers of Benares and Patna. In the
village of Kausambi modern archaeology has uncovered graphic evidence
of the trail of destruction. Here a Buddist monastery has been
excavated which was swept by a Greek firestorm, torched by Greek
mercanaries sweltering by the Jumna, so far from home."

"These were terrible times", said the Indians. "The vicious but
valiant Greeks ruined our land with fire and famine, killing women and
children and even our cows." Theirs was a revolutionary epoch, an age
like our own: restless, cosmopolitan, self-aware, fascinated by sex
and violence. And at its heart, just as in the last three centuries,
was the brutal appropriation of other cultures In India they saw the
writing on the wall. "With such strength, implacable will, and
cruelty, the heirs of the Greeks will rule the world in a future age.'
As Europeans see their history, this was the first time the West went
out to the world." [2]

Polat Kaya: These citings are self explanatory. Here we are reading
about a destructive force rather than a civilizing one. The ancient
Egyptians expressed clearly their view of them. "Brutal appropriation
of other cultures" is a laundered expression which in plain language
it means "stealing".

Separately, I will post a number of articles related to some words of
Greek and other Indo-European languages, particularly the ones related
to "GNOSTICISM" that you might be interested in reading. They tell a
very different view of the Greek and Latin languages with respect to
Turkish. There you will see which one is older than the other.

So-called PAGANISM was far earlier than the Judeo-Christianity, and
the language of PAGANISM was Turkish. This is also evident from the
term PAGAN. Embedded into the word PAGAN are the Turkish expressions:

a) "PA GAN" (aPA GUN) meaning "Father Sun" referring to the Sun, with
its unlimited energy source in the form of light and heat, and which
was the creator father of all things on earth and in our solar system.
This was a fact known to ancient Turanians.

b) "aPA GAN" (APA HAN) meaning "Father Lord" referring to the Creator
God of the Ancient Turanians;

Judeo-Christianity took all sorts of religious information from "Paganism".

It is hoped that you will give room to my writings in deciding for
yourself whether it is Greek or Turkish that is older. Although we
have all been very heavily conditioned on behalf of the Greek language
by very insistent and persuasive misrepresentations, that should not
stop us from doing judicious independent research and analysis
regarding the matter in hand.

I also urge you to read my "Babylon" papers very carefully which are
also in the histotical_linguistics archives hosted by Kamil Kartal.
You will find them not "gloomy" as you once remarked, but rather
enlightening with revelations regarding the ancient world.

You wrote:

> I am having trouble with fonts, U with umlats is not
> showing on my computer, I may have to change the
> font setting. I have 'Times New Roman Star' but I think
> the browser can be set to unicode or some other, I will
> have to see what I can do. For instance I see ADIN T_K_ with
> boxes in place of the spaces there, so I do not know what
> I am looking at. currently I would have to distinguish
> u and u: as such, but I will try to change my settings.

Polat Kaya: I noted from your previous communication regarding my
paper on NOSTRATIC that there was some problem coming from your
system. It seemed that everytime somebody responded to your writing
the errors would propagate. Thus my original "ATIN TÜRKÇE" expression
would be unreadable, hence the essence of my paper would be garbled.
That is why I brought it to your attention hoping that you might be
able to do someting to correct it in your system. From now on I will
have to be watchful and if I note any aberration coming from any
source, I may have to correct it in my reply to avoid propogating
errors. I thank you for letting me know that you will try to change
your settings.

You wrote:

> You and I are both trying to show the errors of Indo European Linguistics.

Polat Kaya: I know you are trying to show the errors of Indo European
Linguistics. That is good. But, here I differ from you. I am not
trying to point out "minor" errors here and there in Indo-European
linguistics but rather I am showing that Indo-European languages,
which include the ancient Greek and Latin, are languages that are
manufactured from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing. So are the
Semitic languages. This fact has never been brought to the surface
before. When we speak the words of any one of these languages we are
actually saying words encrypted from Turkish, and they are used in new
rules and ways of pronounciation.

The Indo-European Linguistics seem to be not aware of this fact. This
may be due to:

a) either linguists genuinely do not know this situation and
therefore are honestly and sincerely trying to understand the nature
of languages. I think most linguists are in this group and I respect
their position.

b) or some people know the truth about the make up of the
Indo-European and Semitic languages, but they will not come forward
and admit it for reasons of their own. My analysis of many words of
Indo-European languages indicate unquestionably that there has been
anagrammatizing of Turkish language into European languages. Thus a
game of confusion and usurpation has gone on in the past and most
likely is still going on at present.

If you don't mind my saying so, with your above statement you seem to
take my revelations rather lightly and give the impression that as if
you are trying to launder the act of "confiscating" Turkish words and
phrases into Indo-European languages as an understanding of "errors"
in Indo European Linguistics. They are totally different concepts.
There was no Indo-European or Semitic languages before Turkish.
Please read my BABYLON papers. They are very revealing.

In view of all this, I say let no one say that we are trying to find
errors in European linguistics. That would be an understatement. In
studying to understand the nature of the make up of languages, we are
face to face with the artificiality of all European languages. They
have done admirable work in coming up with so many languages for
themselves. However, in spite of all the clever camouflage and
disguise, it was possible for me to discover the artificiality of the
Indo-European and Semitic languages and their makeup from Turkish. In
this activity, not just the Turks but the whole world was deceived by
a group of secretive and deceitful language handlers. At the same time
the ancient Turanian universal Sky-God religious concepts were usurped
and obliterated.

You said:

> Today I am going to study Colloquial Egyptian Arabic. But I
> will soon study your data more. I am very interested. But
> to say that this language or that language is older is difficult,
> but I am open minded. I am going to study you data.
> You are always welcome to post on historicallinguistics.

> Thank you for your assistence. I hope we can work together.

> Take care, always welcome on historicallinguistics (without the space)

Polat Kaya: I am glad that you are open minded and are examining and
questioning languages. That will enable you to carry on your research
independently. I wish you knew Turkish in reading my papers. Then my
writings would be much more meaningful for you since I give the
anagrammatized source material in Turkish text as well. I say Turkish
is older because of the fact that I find Turkish expressions embedded
in many words of Indo-European languages. Naturally, this cannot
happen between "independently developed" languages. Finding these
correspondences between words of Indo-European languages and Turkish
makes Turkish the model language from which others have been
generated. The first "MODEL" of any series of things is always made
ahead of the rest. That is why I find Turkish expression "ATIN TORCS",
that is, "ADIN TÜRKÇE" meaning "Your name is Turkish" in the name
NOSTRATIC indicating that the model language was Turkish.

I believe you once said that you may learn Turkish. Of course, each
new language opens up a new horizon for all of us. I wish you success
in your studies of languages.


[1] Michael Wood, "Legacy The Search For Ancient Cultures", Sterling
Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1992, p. 190-191.
[2] Michael Wood, "Legacy The Search For Ancient Cultures", p. 192.

Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya