Re: [historical_linguistics_2] To Mr. Kaya

To: David L.

You need to be patient. The answer you expect from me takes a lot of my
time which I do not have. By this time you should know that my
responses are not written immediately after what I read. If I feel
responding, then I do my research and write my responses in my own
way. So please do not try to remotely guide me or control me away
from my own research in your own direction. I am preparing a responce
to your query. And additionally, please do not jump to any conclusions
just because my response to your question did not arrive yet.

Last time I responded to you was about a ten page essay. Yet you did
not touch any of the things that I brought to your attention. I even
talked about the name "DAVUD". You ignored them and went totally in a
different direction without saying a word about them. Did you read
what I wrote about the Greek words "LEXICON" and "KLEPTOMANIA". If
you did read them you did not say anything about them. Why not?

After hearing and agreeing all the correspondences that I brought to
your attention and also to that of the readers, you are now trying to
define a so-called "genetic" relationship between Greek and Turkish.
From my point of view, I see no genetic relationship between these two
languages except that Greek is a restructured form of Turkish
language in countless number of Greek words. If I may use the
analogy, the stones of one bridge built by ancient Tur/Turk peoples
have been dismanteled by the Greeks and restructured in a different
form which they called as their own. Although all the building blocks
of the new bridge were from Turkish, the new bridge built by the
Greeks and other Indo-Europeans look totally different. They made
sure that the new languages they manufactured did not resemble in any
way or shape to the model they used and the linguistic material they
took from, that is, Turkish.

We are able to find the correspondences between Greek words and
Turkish phrases, only because we are now able to decipher many Greek
words and find that they were made up from Turkish words and phrases.
However, this does not make Greek language a "genetically" related
language to Turkish, although it is an abducted and broken up

It is said that the city of Carthage was dismantled and the stones
left over from the destruction of this city were taken to Italy by the
Romans. And again it is said that some of those stones were used in
building of the presently leaning "Tower of Pisa". Although building
blocks are still the same, yet the leaning Tower of Pisa does not
resemble the original Carthaginian temples and city buildings.
Similarly although Greek has used Turkish language as source material
but does not resemble Turkish. That was the intention of the usurpers
who made sure that what comes out of the restructuring does not
resemble the original.

Additionally while I am working on a response to your query, please
provide us a clear cut definition of the "genetically relatedness"
notion. Illustrate to us the criteria for this notion and what is your
understanding of it. Please give few examples illustrating how it

I am working on my response to you, but it will take a while since I
have to schedule it into my very busy time. However, please be assured
that when I am ready you will have my response.

Additionally, I do not know what you have posted about Turkish history
in your group. I like to make it clear that even though someone may
know enough Turkish to teach about it to those who are just the
beginners, it does not mean that he/she really knows the true nature of
what he/she teaching. The revelations that I made do not exist in
text books. I am not repeating what someone has written, but rather I
am saying things that should have been written long time ago by the
historians and linguists. Additionally what I say were not even known
to Turks either. What I say is new knowledge that has come to daylight.
They are things that have not been talked about because of obviouse
reasons. There are a lot of things that people believe them as
"truth" but in fact they are not.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya


David L wrote:
> I posted about the history of Turkish on my group from an aticle
> which appears on the internet and seems to be common knowledge among
> linguists familiar with Turkish; it is similar to what the professor
> who I spoke with, had told to me.
> There are outstanding (unanswered) questions about the history of
> Turkish relating to Mr. Kaya's work. How does Turkish relate to
> other Asian languages? How does Turkish relate to Greek? And so how
> does Greek relate to those Asian languages to which Turkish is
> related? These are extremely important questions. If you have not
> investigated that, then say so, that I do not continue to ask of you
> these questions.
> Thank you for your help in this matter Mr. Polat Kaya,
> Dave