No. 2) Dr. Kaya, I found paper you posted in a group called historical linguistics

Dear Friends,

Greetings. My response to Mr. James M. Rogers' posting is
interspersed within his text below.

emarhalys wrote:
> Dr. Kaya, thank you for your responses. I think when a researcher
> immerses himself in study speciality, and pours months and possibly
> years into his work, then for a newcomer like myself to make less
> than stellar reviews of the theory -- I understand this can be hard.

POLAT KAYA: You understand very little. You should consider yourself

lucky that I spent time to respond to your posting. I am not going to
start from the beginning explaining my theory every time a new
freshman student ushers himself in. 

You say:

> Many of the reference books in my personal library are doctoral
> theses. And one of the requirements of a thesis defense, it is to
> document all those who have studied the subject before you. For
> example if I was to do a thesis on Belzoni, the great Egyptologist,
> I could not just start my book with an the birth of Belzoni. No,
> instead I would have a section describing the field of Egyptology
> and the other great explorers who preceded him.
> So this is what I ask of you. In order for me to study your
> anagrammatization of Turkish letters into later languages, I need to
> see other instances. If this is a phenomena that has been replicated
> in another part of the world, I would want to see examples, so I can
> do a comparative study of how those experts approached
> anagrammatizing versus how you approach it?

POLAT KAYA: Do you think that I will stop my work and what I am doing

just to accomodate your wishes? You are not only badly mistaken but
overestimating yourself. If you read my writings, it is your gain but
if you don't it is your loss. I do not care what choice you make but
please do not pretend that you can put demands on me. You are not in
that position. Additionally I am not here to get your approval or
disapproval regarding my work. 

If you want to see other word examples that I have analysed in
addition to those I have already given, you can find many examples in
my online library.

You wrote:

> I appreciate the url to your papers. I shall read them in the coming
> week.
> Dr. Kaya, you wrote:
> "My work is totally original and unique and results from my own
> > research trying to understand the true nature of these languages"
> This may be true. But you would not be awarded a doctorate if you
> began your thesis in this manner? 

POLAT KAYA: You are mixing up my reply to you with a discertation. I

did not make that statement in a discertation. I made it in a reply
to you. Besides, what I say is true and you are not in a position to
doubt it. If you know anyone who has explained the nature of languages
as I do, please indicate them, otherwise stop your insinuations. I am
not here to get a doctors degree from you or from anyone else. 
Additionally, those who are new to the subject and have not even
understood its implications are not in a position to bestow any

You say:

> What other linguists have used
> anagramatization in their decipherments. You ideas have much merit,
> and you can see a similiar phenomena in how Sumerian logograms were
> incorporated into Hittite (see Beginning Hittite, Warren H. Held,
> Jr., William R. Schmalstieg, Janet E. Gertz, Slavica Publishers,
> Inc., 1987).
> I had thought once that I could learn Hittite, but in order to do
> that you must know Akkadian, and Akkadian is four thousand years old
> with mulitudes of dialects. Cuneiform, some people call it. But I
> could make very little sense of John Huehnergard's "Akkadian
> Grammar" as I am not grammarian.
> You also mentioned concerning Semitic:
> "They could insert (or not insert) any vowel
> > between the consonants to come up with a whole set of related words
> > where the order of consonants are not changed - but the words are
> > related to each other"
> But the vowels are added according to oral tradition, at least in
> Hebrew.
> The reversal of orders in letters in translation is interesting if
> you consider Egyptian hieroglyphs. Sometimes they are read left to
> right or right to left depending on the direction the people face.

POLAT KAYA: I am aware of what you say. But ancient Masarians

(intentionally misrepresented to the world as "Egyptians" i.e.,
"Gypsies",) knew how to write their words in the right order
irrespective of whether they wrote from left-to-right or right-to
left. I am not talking about this kind of reversal. I am talking
about Turkish words and/or expressions (dating back to the times of
Sumerians and Masarians) that were intentionally disassembled or
distorted and then reassembled to form single words that look
different from the original and that were then claimed as belonging to
someone else. That should be clear enough for you. So please drop the
verbal sophistication and stop trying to confuse the issue. 

You say:

> Also sometimes elements of names (especially Pharaoh names) are not
> pronounced in strict word order, thus though "son of Ra" comes
> first, it is not included until the end. Or "the King of the North
> and the King of the South" not mentioned until the end because it is
> a "title." 

POLAT KAYA: I am also aware of that fact. The word orders in the

titles of ancient Masarian kings should not be altered at will.
Thinking that this can be done does not result in a truthful
representation of an ancient writing. Actually it is intentional
misrepresentation of the source language - just like the original
BILGAMESH is being misrepresented to the world as GILGAMESH. If what
was written at the beginning is moved to the end by some "readers of
Egyptian writings", then this is an intentional distortion in the
title. It is aimed at hiding the Turkishness of the king's title. It
is not because "it is a 'title'" as you (and they) suggest.

For example, "Egyptologists" misrepresent the original title of a
Masar (Misir) king as "TUTANKHAMEN" when in actuality, the symbols
show "A-MEN-AN-TUT-ANKH-HAK-AN-SU". Their reading of this writing in
the form of "TUTANKHAMEN" is a complete misrepresentation. The
public have been given the wrong title. What has happened is that
"Egyptologists" have read the title of this king starting from the
middle consisting of TUT-ANKH and then added the beginning A-MEN to it
and then disregarded the rest of the title. This is not truthful
reading. The correct reading would be "A-MEN-AN-TUT-ANKH-HAK-AN-SU". 
If the learned scholar looks at this reading with a Turkish view,
he/she will see that it is very Turkish. We see Turkish I-MEN (Bir
Men) or O-MEN meaning ONLY-ME or ONLY-HIM. We see Turkish/Sumerian AN
which represents Turkish SKY or HAN meaning LORD. We see TUT which in
Turkish means HOLD or HOLDING. We see ANKH (which means life) which
is Turkish CAN meaning LIFE or Turkish KAN meaning BLOOD which is
again LIFE. We see HAK-AN which is Turkish HAKAN meaning SUPREME
RULER. And lastly we see a symbol having the phonetics of SU
representing the southern Egypt. In fact without getting into too much
detail here, there are some other glyphs just below the cartouch which
should be read as JED-T-I and some above which carry the name OGUZ. 

While the reading of "TUTANKHAMEN" by the "Egyptologists" does not
signify much, the real one as I have shown above presents itself as
Turkish! So there has been an intentional distortion, omission,
obliteration and confusion aimed at concealing the Turkishness of the
title. In other words, these "Egyptologists" have erased a Turkish
civilization and presented it on a silver platter to the Gypsies in
the form of "Egypt". As is plain to see, this is not science but
rather sorcery. The same sorcery has been applied in usurping Turkish
language texts to manufacture words for the so-called IE languages. 
And now you come along and add more confusion to an already
established confusion. You are not advancing the truth. You are
hindering it.

You said:

> Thus I have to wonder about the mediums the languages
> were written in, something which I have not seen any comments on in
> your work.

POLAT KAYA: I have provided ample explanation with examples if you are

willing to read them with a positive mind. With your admitted
gamesmanship, you would not see the truth if it came up and hit you. 

You write:

> Have you heard of the Ulu Burun shipwreck off the Luwian coast in
> the Bronze Age? They used a quill on a wax sheet which could be
> cleared. Only for important legal documents did they use the clay
> tablet.
> So in the good examples of your work, I see this "language
> transmission" issue.

POLAT KAYA: This is simply more diversion which requires no comment

by me.

> On Sumer all I have is Kramer's book, and that is very dated. So I
> can not comment about the heritage of Sumer's language. I have
> studied the Kassians only a little, but I do have a book on Elam.
> These are huge subjects, ones which I would not want to summarize in
> a few sentences. I have also studied the old Assyrian mining
> colonies in Anatolia, and in this way, I have seen the Akkadian
> units of weights and measure were well established by that time.

POLAT KAYA: Not so fast. Those weights and measure that you

conveniently attribute to the wandering Akkadians were actually
abducted from the Tur/Turk Sumerians without giving any reference to
them. For your information, this is another example of a "stolen and
repainted car" case. 

You write:

> Dr. Kaya, have you ever read Jean Bottero's "Mesopotamia Writing,
> Reasoning, and the The Gods"? In it, he has a chapter on "Writing
> and Dialectics, or the Progress of Knowledge", but in it he talks
> about word order. You mentioned Turkish is composed of monosyllables
> words or units of meaning that can be combined into ever longer
> words. Could it not be this, which we are seeing in the
> anagrammatizing? A simple case of Turkish word orders being changed
> on the syllabic level?

POLAT KAYA: I have not read this reference you give but at the same

time, you are not expressing your question clearly. Whom are you
saying changed what? Please explain yourself clearly without being

You say:

> You have written more, and I will answer in subsequent posts, as I
> do not want to lose this little bit I have written before I post.
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...

POLAT KAYA: You have written a lot but have said little and

contributed less. Please read my responses slowly and carefully
without feeling the urge of snowing them in with verbosity.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya