No. 6) Re: [hrl_2] Bottero's translation problems between Sumerian and Akkadian

Dear Friends,

Mr. Rogers wrote:

> Thus when you eliminate vowels and
> concentrate solely on consonants as Dr. Kaya does in his Turkish
> Anagrammatizing theory, then you lose "the context" of the
> consonant.

Are you reading my papers upside down, bacwards or what? Either you
are confused or intentionally distorting what you read. Your usage of
the appellation "Turkish Anagrammatizing theory" is a
misrepresentation and disinformation. You are twisting things around.
I did not use this kind of labelling on my revelation. If I were to
label it, it would be something along the lines: INDO-EUROPEAN AND
revelation a shorter label, it would be: INDO-EUROPEAN AND SEMITIC
ANAGRAMMATIZATION OF TURKISH. This is the way my discovery should be
referred to - not by the deceptive label of "Turkish Anagrammatizing
theory" that you have concocted.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya


emarhalys wrote:
> In this book I have referenced, Jean Bottero's "Mesopotamia
> Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods" he explains a problem that arises
> when trying to translate Sumerian into Akkadian. I write about this
> because Akkadian is a monosyllabic based language much as Dr. Polat
> Kaya has described Turkish to be. By coming various Akkadian signs
> (the monosyllables, what is popularly called cuneiform signs),
> different terms are rendered. Bottero writes pg. 92:
> "On the other hand, the characters which were devised for Sumerian
> phonetics could not express the subtleties of Akkadian phonetics.
> The latter, as in other Semitic languages, contained a number of
> particular phonemes UNKNOWN in Sumerian: an entire range of
> laryngeals and of sibilants, as well as the "emphatics," pronounced
> with a particular stress. With the material of Sumerian, such
> phonemes could be rendered only very approximately and in an
> ambiguous way. Moreover, written Akkadian seems to have contained
> only two largygeals; a weak one and a strong one. The same signs
> recur, especially to indicate the voiced, the voiceless, or the
> emphatic consonants: bi for bi and pi; ad for ad, at, or at (schwa
> t); ku for ku, gu, and qu (emphatic)..."
> What this means, is that in monosyllabic language systems, the
> vowels do matter. As the case is with diacriticals of Hebrew
> language, the vowels not only indicate sound, but dynamics of the
> spoken consonantal letter. Thus when you eliminate vowels and
> concentrate solely on consonants as Dr. Kaya does in his Turkish
> Anagrammatizing theory, then you lose "the context" of the
> consonant.
> Vowels help determine case and tense, dynamics, and inflection
> or "shadings" of consonantal sounds from the unaspirated t all the
> way up to the emphatic t!
> We see in many of Dr. Kaya's examples how he can play with the word
> renderings paying no attention to tense or case possesives. The
> reason why he can do this is he has no vowel indicatives to guide
> him?
> If Bottero has problems translating Sumerian into Akkadian, then how
> much more might be the problems of translating Sumerian into Turkish?
> At least in this respect, I would like to see a list of readings
> that I can trace the work of those who have translated Sumerian into
> Turkish -- those who have worked on this problem before Dr. Kaya?
> One can look in the pool of the worldwide web, but without guidance,
> one could look endlessly?
> James M. Rogers
> emarhalys@...