Re: [bcn2004] Re: Dear John Halloran, (4) - Re: Part-1: "Turkish-Sumerian kinship"

To: John Halloran,

You said:

> Well, I am sorry that the relationship between the Sumerian
> transliterated texts and the English translations at the Oxford site
> are hard to make out, that it is difficult to see what Sumerian word
> has what English meaning. It is at this point that you must refer
> either to my on-line lexicon of Sumerian or to the on-line Pennsylvania
> Sumerian Dictionary. Although it will be out-of-date as soon as I
> publish version 4 of my Sumerian lexicon, the version 3 lexicon is
> still useful, especially to a beginner.

You need not be sorry. I brought up a valid point about the
presentation of the transliterations at the Oxford site. They are not
identifying which Sumerian sign equates to which English word in the
transliteration. I praised them for their work too. I shouldn't have
to refer to somebody else's lexicon to try and understand which sign
equates to what. After all, it was just one sentence you were talking
about. If you had expressed yourself clearly to begin with, I would
not be asking questions. I shouldn't have to read your mind.

And I am not buying that "beginner" remark. If you speak clearly,
openly and sincerely, the reader will understand you. You need to be
more explanatory in your expressions in order to achieve a common
ground on a subject being discussed in a forum. If you have not done
that than you are not even a beginner. Your postings seem to be very
short on explanations as compared to your compiling skills. It would
be much nicer if it was the other way around. You were sarcastic in
your previous posting which I ignored with sincerity giving you the
benefit of the doubt that you were not being mean. Now I see that you
have a bad habit of it. In my view, when someone is really loaded with
wisdom, he becomes humbler instead of being infected with "sarcasm".

You said:

> Sorry that I did not provide a word by word translation. I will fix that now.
> gal4-la-ju10 tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu
> gal4-la - womb
> ju10 - my
> tur-ra - small
> am3 - is
> pec11 - pregnancy
> nu - not
> mu - verbal prefix
> un - 1st person pronominal infix
> zu - to know

Your list of words in explaining the "Sumerian" sentence "gal4-la-ju10
tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu" is not convincing at all. Your response
is a kind of sophistry which some so-called "know it all masters" hide
behind when they are questioned. They right away get up on their "high
horses" and shout down pronouncements with authority while being
sarcastic with cliche putdowns. You must understand that I am
questioning all the falsehoods that have been perpetrated under the
guise of "history" writing along with the "language" definitions of
the ancient peoples. I am also questioning the very essence of the way
that the signs of a supposedly "dead" language Sumerian were read.
This should not bother you in the least.

I responded to you with sincerity and wrote a detailed response. Now I
see that you have dismissed most of the things that I pointed out for
you to dwell on. You touch a few items in my response and ignore the
rest. Even if you dismiss them, they are not going to disappear. What
happened to the Turkish "HAN YEL" versus Sumerian "ENLIL"? And
Turkish "NINE YEL" versus Sumerian NINLIL? Why were you silent about
these very important points of mine? How did they know that these
Sumerian signs were "ENLIL" and "NINLIL" but not "HANYEL" and
"NINEYEL" respectively? How come you are silent about the so-called
Sumerian "SUKKAL" versus Turkish "AKSAKAL"? How did "Sumerologists"
know that it was "SUKKAL" but not Turkish "AKSAKAL" when they were
decoding this "dead" language?

How did they know that a particular Sumerian sign was to be read as
"gal4-la" meaning "womb" but not Turkish word "am" meaning woman's
genital? Let us also remember the Sumerian word "munus" meaning
"woman". The reader Tisinli correctly identified this word with the
Turkish "namus" meaning "woman's honor". And I identified "munus" with
the Turkish phrase "amsun" meaning "you are vulva". (please see
Part-3). The Sumerian sign for this word is the female genital which
is "am" in Turkish. "Am" is also present in the word "munus". Thus
there are many reasons to believe that Sumerian "am3" was the same as
Turkish "am" - not "gal4-la".

Similarly, please try to respond to the questions that I posed in my
Turkish-Sumerian Kinship Part-3. No dodging please. For example, how
did "Sumerologists" determine that the Sumerian sign for "honey" was
to be vocalized as LAL but not BAL? How did "Sumerologists" determine
that the Sumerian sign for "wind" was to be vocalized as "LIL" but not
"YIL" ("YEL")? The same question applies to all the other signs. After
all, the signs of a "dead" language do not speak for themselves and
tell us how they are to be vocalized or transliterated. Somebody
somehow has to fill in the blanks.

In view of all this, now I ask: Could it be that Sumerian was
"Turkish" to begin with and those who filled the Sumerian blanks knew
this fact? The decoders also had another ancient "lexicon" describing
the meaning of each Sumerian sign in another language called Akkadian
and/or Assyrian that itself was manufactured from Sumerian/Turkish.
After declaring that Sumerian was a "dead' language, they then filled
in the staring blank signs with an altered version of Turkish so that
the original Sumerian (which was Turkish) would be distanced from
Turkish. In this approach, the "Sumerologist", knowing that Sumerian
was really Turkish, could readily generate "LAL" from Turkish "BAL"
and assign it as the vocalization (i.e., transliteration) for the
Sumerian sign that they knew, from their Akkadian lexicon, meant
"honey". Similarly, "LIL" could be generated from Turkish "YEL" (YIL
or even IL) and assigned as the vocalization of a Sumerian symbol. In
other words, could it be that what we are being presented with as the
vocalizations and words of Sumerian are not genuine Sumerian?

By such an approach, one could fill in all the blanks using altered
Turkish. After all, the so-called "Indo-European" languages do not
show any resemblance to Turkish in appearance, yet we now know that
they are all restructured and disguised Turkish words and phrases. It
would be no problem for the "master engineers" of Indo-European and
Semitic languages, who had the experience of generating their
languages from Turkish words and phrases, to generate an altered
version of Turkish and present it to the world as Sumerian. No one
would know the difference. I just happened to be in a unique position
to spot all of this.

In the sentence that you used as an example taken from the Enlil and
Ninlil story where a young girl is talking about her predicament,
instead of explaining the translation of the sentence word-by-word,
you bring in the English words "enclitic", "copula" and "to be" to
explain Sumerian "am3". The English language did not even exist in
their time so such an explanation is nothing but sophistry being used
as a diversion tactic which may con some people but not all the
people. That is why I am not buying it.

Even your explanation of the Sumerian word AM3 with a Latin root is a
cover up. What you are saying is that English "am" meaning "to be" is
the same as the Sumerian "am". But why should it be? I know that
English has taken many words from Sumerian but why should it? How
come English is now owning the Sumerian word am? Is it one of the
Sumerian words that has been incorporated into English? Is it the
only one? In the sample Sumerian sentence, while it is talking about
"vagina", which is "am" in Turkish and obviously it was also "am" in
Sumerian, instead of admitting this fact, you bring in a diversionary
explanation. In your list of words for the Sumerian sentence, you
provide English meanings for the transliterated words. But how can we
be sure that they carry the genuine meanings?

To illustrate my point, let me bring to your attention the following
Greek word. The Greek term SUNEURISKOMAI meaning "to copulate", taken
from a Greek dictionary, is another Greek word manufactured from
Turkish. The word SUNEURISKOMAI, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"AMINE-SOKURUS-I", is a restructured, disguised and wrapped form of
the Turkish expression "AMINA-SOKARUS" meaning exactly "the act of
copulation". Evidently Greeks usurped this Turkish phrase and modified
it by the anagrammatization technique to come up with this word for
the "Greek" language. There is no question in my mind that the other
Indo-European linguists also did the same. Additionally, I am
beginning to think that "Sumerologists" did the same for the Sumerian
signs that you listed above and others as well. It is the easiest way
of owning a language, that is, using Turkish as the linguistic source
data base.

With this background it is easy to see that English "enclitic" and
"copula" were also made up from Turkish. Of course some linguists do
know that this very effective and cabalistic technique called
"anagrammatizing" has been used very widely but somehow they do not
speak about how it was used to generate Indo-European and Semitic
languages from a mother/father language called Turkish. If they did,
that would change everybody's understanding of "Who" did "What" in the
ancient world. Sumerologists have to accept that Sumerian and Turkish
were one and the same. And history is just going to have to be
rewritten to correct all the wrongs perpetrated against the ancient Turanians.

Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya