Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga-
Polat Kaya-4: Compound Words and Anagrams
Dear
Dr. Loganathan and friends,
Hi. You gave a definition of "anagram" and hence
"anagrammatizing". I am afraid your understanding of this
concept is lacking and very loose. But you are not alone in this regard.
Etymological dictionaries are full of such loose definitions. You said:
"An anagram (Greek ana- = "back" or "again", and graphein = "to
write") is the result of permuting the letters"
Polat Kaya:
First of all, Greek, just like all the other Indo-European langages, is not a
credible language to use as a source or reference language. My
discovering that Greek is a manufactured language from Turkish means that it
has lost its credibility. So the etymology being given as Greek is
incorect.
The "anagrammatizing", as used in the manufacture of Indo-European
and Semitic languages, is more sophisticated than the definition in the
dictionary and involves a) restructuring (i.e., shuffling the letters of the
word or phrase around), and b) disguising (i.e., multiple pronounciations of a
single letter e.g., letter U sometimes vocalized as an A and sometimes
vocalized as U; use of disguising letters such as H, X, Q, W, V, Y and J; vowel
alteration e.g., Turkish A becomes English I; consonant alteration e.g.,
Turkish K becomes an English C or Q or G; alphabetic up-or-down shifting of
letters e.g., Turkish L becomes English M or Turkish M becomes English L; horizontal
flipping of letters e.g., Turkish d becomes English b; vertical flipping of
letters e.g., Turkish u becomes English n or Turkish m becomes English w and
wise versa;, dropping of vowels, introducing new vowels; linguistic wrapping
e.g., introducing a new consonant or prefix or suffix for further disguising;
introducing a new linguistic construct to replace a Turkish letter e.g.,
English SS replaces Turkish Sh or Z; and use of multiple identity letters
that can replace different letters of the Turkish source e.g., the Greek symbol
representing the letter S as found in the ending of many greek words, is a
replacement for Turkish S and Turkish Ch and Turkish Sh and Turkish Z).
When this kind of sophisticated anagrammatizing is used on Turkish words or expressions,
the resulting word is so badly distorted that it is anything but Turkish.
Turkish is an endless source for such an activity as there is no way of
detecting that a Turkish word or phrase is missing. After all, it's not
like having your car or your purse stolen. Yet those who did not have a
language of their own, by usurping Turkish, have come up with languages for
themselves. After anagrammatizing the chosen Turkish word or phrase, they
retain most of the original meaning of the Turkish text in a vague manner - to
further disguise the Turkish source. This is a very simple and easy
technique to use. Then they have a language which they can call their own and
which no one will dispute either.
Your definition does not explain the concept of "anagrammatizing".
Your definition does not tell one what to do in anagrammatizing. A
name or the so-called "etymology" of a word defines and describes the
concept. This definition of "anagram" does not do that.
Additionally, "ANA + GRAPHEIN" does not give
"ANAGRAM". On the contrary, the most it can give is ANAGRAPHEIN which
is not "ANAGRAM" nor "ANAGRAMMATIZING". How did
the letters M, T, Z get into this word? So the reader is misled and the
truth is not told. Only a "cover up" is achieved. With your
definition, I can take a text and write it again and again (as your definition
indicates) without doing any anagrammatizing on it. Thus this definition
is misleading.
Anagrammatizing is breaking a given text into its smallest constituents, i.e., the letters, and then rearranging them in any way that the anagrammatizer wishes. In other words, it is a form of encryption, i.e., disguising the source text being used in making the new word.
About the word "ANAGRAMMATIZE:
Let me show you how it
is made: The English word
"ANAGRAMMATIZE" is the verb describing the action involved. The Greek
form of this word is given as ANAGRAMMATIZW where the bogus letter W is
actually a replacement of Y + U in this case which makes the word ANAGRAMMATIZYU.
When this word is rearranged letter-by-letter (LBLR) as "GARMA-YANI-TUZMA", we see
that ANAGRAMMATIZYU is
really a restructured and disguised form ofthe Turkish expression
"GIRMA YENI TUZME" (kirma yeni dόzme) meaning " breaking
and rearranging". This is what happens to a Turkish source text as it
goes through "anagrammatizing" and this is the exact definition of
the concept named "anagrammatize". Turkish words GIRMA
(=breaking), YENI (=new or re-) and TUZMA (dόzme) means "arranging".
Thus the source for this so-called Greek" word is totally Turkish - not
Greek. And the Turkish source expression prefectly describes what is to
be done when you "ANAGRAMMATIZE". You cannot see this revelation
that I have just made because you
do not know Turkish nor did you or anybody else ever suspect that this kind of
restructuring was going on.
Similarly the English word "anagrammatize", when rearranged as
"ANA-GARMA-TIZME", is the restructured and disguised form of Turkish
"ONU GIRMA TIZME" (onu kirma dizme) meaning "breaking and
arranging it". Here Turkish ONU means "it", GIRMA means
"breaking" and "TIZME means "arranging". Hence again
the source of the word is unquestionably Turkish. Stating that it is from
Greek is a false claim. But giving a misleading etymology camouflages the
fact that the word has been manufactured from a Turkish source. Of course
this is the linguistic equivalent of stealing someone else's car, repainting and re-embellishing it, and
then claiming it as one's own car with bogus ownership documents (i.e.,
etymology).
About the word "ETYMOLOGY"
For the sake of bringing clarity to a word that is used frequently in
linguistics, we should also examine the word "ETYMOLOGY". The
Greek form of this word is given as ETUMOLOGIA. Another form of it is
"ETUMOLOGIKOS' meaning "etymological".
When the
"Greek" word "ETUMOLOGIKOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter
as "ETUMIK-OLGOSO", where letter K is a replacement of Turkish letter
N, it is found that the word is a restructured and disguised form of Turkish
expression "ETUMIN OLGOSO" (ADIMIN OLGUSU) meaning "formation of
my name" or "the makeup of my name". This Turkish
definition is the correct and exact definition of the concept of "etymology".
Again those descriptions given about this word in the dictionaries are false
and are intentionally used as a coverup because the source of the word is not
actually GREEK but rather TURKISH.
You said:
"A letter is a written
message from one party to another. Letters are usually intended to
be received by someone far away. Before widespread availability of
typewriters and computers, letters were always written by hand.
Nowadays, that is still done, mainly for informal letters. The term
letter is sometimes used for e-mail messages with a formal letter-
like format....
[click for more] of a word or words in such a manner as to produce
other words that possess linguistic meaning "
Polat
Kaya: This last part of your definition is just a "filler" and it
adds nothing to the definition of the word "anagrammatize".
About the word "AGGLUTINATIVE"
or "AGGLUTINATE":
After defining the source of the word "anagrammatize", let me now
explain to you the term "AGGLUTINATIVE" or "AGGLUTINATE".
The English term AGGLUTINATIVE, when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"EGLANTI-GATIV-U", is a restructured and disguised form of the
Turkish expression "EGLENTI GATIV O" (EKLENTI KATIP O) meaning
"it is adding suffix". In this Turkish expression that has been
used as the source text for "AGGLUTINATIVE", Turkish
"EGLENTI" (EKLENTI) means "suffix", "GATIV"
(KATIP) means "added" and "O" means "it is".
Thus the source of the word AGGLUTINATIVE is unquestionably pure Turkish contrary to all the
misleading explanations such as "glued together", etc..
Similarly when the word AGGLUTINATE is rearranged letter-by-letter as
"EGLANTI-TAGU", it is the restructured and disguised form of Turkish
expression "EGLENTI TAGU" (EKLENTI TAKU / TAKI) meaning "suffix
attachment". In this expression, Turkish "TAGU" /
"TAKU" / "TAKI" means "attachment" and
"EKLENTI" means "suffix".
These Turkish expressions are various ways of saying the Turkish name
"BITISIMLI DIL"( bitisimli dil) or "EKLEMLI DIL" meaning
"agglutinative language".
Hence, it can be said with confidence that Turkish language is the true
representation of "agglutinating", that is, Turkish "eklenti
yapma" (bitistirma).
Thus when you and all of us are using these so-called "Greek" and/or
"English" words, we are actually speaking a broken up, encrypted and
disguised Turkish language as it was in earlier times. Some very conning
"linguists" did a good job of "usurping" it. Hence the
whole world population have been well deceived. Thus in this activity,
whole ancient Turanian civilization has changed hands also. This is a
very important fact for all linguists to think about and understand.
After having said this, now let us return to the rest of your writing.
K. Loganathan wrote:
Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-4: Compound Words and Anagrams
Dear Friends
I am glad about the controversy that is raging among many Turkish scholars about the relationship holding between Sumerian Tamil Turkish and such other languages. I am sure when the heat settles down TRUTH will prevail and a consensus (if possible) will be reached. I am putting forward my views on this matter falling back on the Grammar of Tolkaappiyam (c. 300 BC) and which tradition is still alive and where the principles enunciated are still applicable to Tamil except for some novelties.
With thanks V.Raghavan who took the pains to post an article on Anagram (which is new to me), I can see that such a method of derivation of complex words while applicable to some languages but not to the agglutinative languages such as Sumerian Tamil and perhaps also Turkish and other members of the agglutinative languages. The processes of complex word formation that is called agglutination is NOT anagramitization and hence I believe inapplicable to the study of the word formation processes of agglutinative languages.
The anagramaitization is :
>>>>>>>
An anagram (Greek ana- = "back" or "again", and graphein = "to
write") is the result of permuting the letters A letter is a written
message from one party to another. Letters are usually intended to
be received by someone far away. Before widespread availability of
typewriters and computers, letters were always written by hand.
Nowadays, that is still done, mainly for informal letters. The term
letter is sometimes used for e-mail messages with a formal letter-
like format....
[click for more] of a word or words in such a manner as to produce
other words that possess linguistic meaning
>>>>>>>>
The full text posted by V. Raghavan is available at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tolkaappiyar/message/4456
Now such a process of generating complex words through permutational play on the letters or syllables is NOT agglutination where various ROOTS WORDS are brought together to generate a complex word. Thus Zarastustra analyzed as sar-a-tu-si-til-aand Saraswati analyzed into sar1-es-bati and sar-2-es-bati where sar1 means to move, flow etc and sar2 ( to utter, say, read etc) are COMPOUND WORDS (CW) called Tokaic Col in Tamil and Samajam in Sanskrit. This is the kind of process available in Sumerian language and certainly in C.Tamil. Certainly also in Sk and which constitutes one large area of study of traditional Sk grammarians.
Polat
Kaya: No! Neither ZARATUSHTRA nor SARASWATI are formed in the way you are
saying. Your expanations are wrong and have no validity. I have
already explained these words in my two extensive papers. Please revisit them
again. Unquestionably they are made up from Turkish expressions.
Since these names are confused Turkish expressions, your searching for a
Sumerian or Tamil "root" word in them is totally in vain.
Additionally, as I said above, "true" agglutination" is done
only in Turkish language. Other languages attach individual words to each
other to come up wirh so-called "compound words", but they are done
for "disguising" or "wrapping" purposes.
You said:
What is a Tokaic Col? The following sutra from Tol, may provide an answer.
>>>>>>>
The Varieties of Compound Words
407.
veeRRumait tokaiyee yuvamat tokaiyee
vinaiyin tokaiyee paNbin tokaiyee
ummait tokaiyee yanmozit tokaiyen
Ravvaa Renba tokaimozi n_ilaiayee
It is intended to explicate the genesis of the different Compound Words.
Meaning:
The Compound Words are six types and they are as follows: there are compounds implicating the sense of the case markers(veeRRumai tokai), the sense of analogy or metaphorical meanings (uvamat tokai), the sense of actions and activities (vinai tokai), the sense of conjunctive relationships (ummai tokai) and those implicating as the meaning anabsent object (anmozi tokai)
Polat
Kaya: Will you please tell us why the word "veeRRumai" is written
with upper case letters in the middle of the word? What does "veeR"
and "Rumai" mean individually and what does the composite
word "veeRRumai" literally mean?
Notes (Loga)
The Compound Words (CWs), the Tokai Col, are different from the Odduc Col, the Glued Words (GWs) described above. Both are products of the agglutinating processes of word formations quite typical of the Dravidian family of languages. The difference between these two is that while the GWs disallow meaningful analysis into component words, the CWs allow for that and hence can be taken products of transformational processes (mozi maaRRu) rather than something generated just by gluing together.
It is said that a distinguishing mark of CWs is that they function as if a single word (ellaat tokaiyum oru col nadaiya). For example, while the GW entai cannot be further analyzed into constituent words as en-tai etc, the VeeRRumai Tokai like padaikkai can be. It is the NP padaiyaip piditta kai (The hand that held the sword) that becomes padaikai (The sword-hand). Here not only we have the possibility of the analyzing padaikkai into the meaningful units of Padai (sword) and Kai (hand) but also see the word as a product of the TRANSFORM of a statement padaiyaip pidittak kai. Thus CWs are TRANSFORMS, the MozimaaRRu when that statement happens to be presupposed as true and something further is sought to be asserted about it as for e.g. Padaikkai vedduppaddatu (the sword-hand was cut off)
The transformational notions in the genesis of CWs and their ABSENCE in GWs have NOT been brought out sufficiently well by the traditional commentators and I shall fill up these lacunae in my notes.
>>>>>>>
Now as an example of such CW-s let us take the most widely present , the VeeRRumait Tokai, the Case CW-s which are understood as follows:
>>>>>>>
408.
avaRRuL
veeRRumait tokaiyee veeRRumai iyala
It is intended to explain the grammatical essence of Case CWs
Meaning:
The Case Compound Words are those which carry the meaning of cases (the markers of which get deleted)
Notes(Tey)
On account of being said in the essences of case meanings, we have to take compound words that agglutinate but carry the meanings of cases from the accusative to locative as the Case CWs. Here we have to exclude the Nominative case as in the subject-predicate constructions, they remain enunciated separately. The Eighth Case of the Vocative stands always expanded. So those that allow for agglutination must be taken as the remaining cases.
The eekaaram here is teeRRa eekaaram, the particle that isolates and emphasizes
Notes( Loga)
The technical term toku has to two senses - that of deletion and that of agglutinating. The toku in Tokaic col has the second meaning of agglutinating, coming together to form a compound that functions grammatically as a single word. The same sense is communicated by Sk term samaajam which has the Sumerian sum, sam as its root and which means to unite, to come together etc. Here it is interesting the Nominative and the Vocative cases are excluded in the sense where we have sentences in these cases they do not allow for the generation of Case CWs. This is quite clear in the case of the Vocative: Kantaa!Varuka ( Kantaa! Come) This is Direct Speech and does not allow relativization but only reporting such as Kantan was called etc. In the case of the Nominative naay kuraittatu (The dog barked) we can say only kuraitta naay when relativizing and where it remains free of agglutination.
Polat
Kaya:
a) The Sumerian sum, sam meaning to
unite, to come together
is very much the Turkish word "CEM" meaning "to unite, to meet,
to come together". Thus Tr. CEM and Su. SAM are one and the the
same. Similarly, the Sk "samaajam" has the Turkish word
"CEM" in it in the form "JAM". As I mentioned
earlier, "SAMA" is the name of a form of music and it also has
the meaning of "sky" in Turkish. Thus Sk "samaajam"
is very much Turkish "sama cem" meaning "gathering for a music
performance in praise of sky and the sky deities" as it is done in Turkish
Alevi "CEM" houses.
b) Your term "VARUKA" meaning "come" is
very much the Turkish word "VARMAK" meaning "to arrive",
"to come". Thus, the source of Tamil "VARUKA" and
Turkish "VARMAK" are related.
c) When you say: "The toku in Tokaic col has the second meaning
of agglutinating, coming together to form a compound that functions
grammatically as a single word", it reminds me of a Turkish word having similar
meaning. The term "TOKU" is the root of the Turkish verb
"tokumak"(dokumak) meaning "weaving". In the concept
of "weaving" as in "carpet weaving", the "knots" are added to each other (united) to
make a surface with visual motives, and in the case of word formatting,
the letters or syllables are agglutinatinated
(Tr. "tokunur') to make
words. Thus Dravidian "toku" and Turkish "toku" are
very much the same. The Turkish "tokumak" (dokumak) is exactly
your definition in Tokaic.
d) Your Dravidian expression "naay kuraittatu (The dog barked) is also interesting. In the Dravidian word "KURAITTATU alone there is the
Turkish expression "IT KάRάTά" (IT HάRάDά) meaning "the dog
barked". In this Turkish correspondence, IT means "dog"
and "HάRάTά" (όrόdό, havladi) means "barked". Thus the term "kuraittatu seems to have been made up with these
Turkish words. Perhaps you may want to check this correspondence further.
You said:
Now let us consider the sentences: a. teer kutiraikaLaalpuuddap paddna. (The horses were harnessed to the chariot) b. atteerilavan cenRaan (he traveled in that chariot). Combining both by presupposing the truth of the first we have: avan kutiraikaLaal puuddappaddat teeril cenRaan (He traveled in the chariot harnessed with the horses). This same sentence can be said as: Avan kutirait teeril cenRaan (He traveled in the horsed chariot). Here we have the Case CW kutiraitteer and which can be expressed only by the bizarre English expression horsed chariot and which means horse fitted chariot. Here we also see the deletion of several particles for the purpose of generating the CW. This process of agglutinating is a characteristic mark of Dravidian languages as is also of Sanskrit and because of which it can also be taken as cognate with Tamil.
In SumeroTamil we see the beginning of such processes and strangely enough in the names of people: utuhegal (utu hegaL: the rising sun), Urnammu(uur-nambu: the lord of the city) Enuduanna (eeN-udu-anna: the Lord of the heavenly stars) etc
>>>>>>
Here kutirait teer is Case CW and is derived from KutiraikaLaal puuddappadda teer a chariot harnessed with horses( kutirai: horse, teer: chariot) We can see CWs are shortened or transformed form of clauses where despite the shortened form the MEANING remains an invariant and which allows the EXPANSION of the truncated into the FULL CLAUSE where necessary.
Clearly such a process is NOT forming anagrams through play on the letters.
Polat Kaya: "KUTRIAI" meaning "horse" is
interesting in the sense that when the name "KUTRIAI" is rearranged
letter-by-letter as "KURII -AT" where Turkish "K" has
been shifted into letter "I" in Dravidian, it is the Turkish
expression "KURIK-AT" (tay at) meaning "young horse".
This correspondence, together with the above given ones, again shows that
some rearrangements of ancient Turkish words have been done in Dravidian words
as well.
You said:
Some Sumerian Examples.
Let me consider some examples form Sumerian where we notice that this process occurs very clearly in the formation of Proper names
We have Proper names like Suruppak Zi-u-sudra ubartutu from one of the earliest Sumerian texts viz. Surruppaks Neri (c. 3000 BC) and where the first name also occurs in Rig Veda as Suuruppak. From later texts we can add names such as urunammuUtuhegal Enhuduanna and so forth. I believe phrases like the Sumerian ki-na-mi-u-na-ma ( Ta. kii aNai maiuuna emma: the sleeping place( kii aNai) for the night time(mai-uuna) of mine(em-ma)) may allow us to SEE such linguistics processes at work
Polat
Kaya: The Sumerian names such as the "SURUPPAK",
"ZI-U-SUDRA" or "UTNAPISHTIM", "UBAR-TUTU"
which appear in the story of BILGAMESH (altered into "GILGAMESH") are
personifications of concepts. It is true that they appear as
"proper" names in the story, but the truth is that they have been
made up with Turkish expressions that define the concepts that they personify.
I will talk about them in a separate paper. For the time being it
might suffice to say that your description of these names is not correct.
You said:
In all such words what we have is agglutination, the plain and simple that does not involve transformational changes or that which does. For example ubartutu can be analyzed into ubar-tutu where the ubar and tutu are ROOTS that also exist as individual words. The Su.ub,ab, uber means the above, the heavenly etc and exists in C.Tamil as upper, umpar etc. The tu-tu is a variant Su du(g)-du(g) where du is also transliterated as tu( to chant ,recite etc). This word exists in Tamil as tuutu, tuti (to praise etc). Thus Ubar-tutu has the meaning speech from the heavens. Now the Sk upnishad is of the same meaning and we can see this if we analyze it as upa-ni-saaR.u where all the roots are also available in Sumerian
Concluding Remarks
It is clear that the formation of CW-s like Zaratustra Sarasvati Ubartutu Upanishad etc are NOT derived through a play on the letters or the syllables i.e anagramitization but rather by gluing together ROOT WORDS that are on their meaningful and exist in the language itself Now such CW-s can travel quite easily from one language to another but where in the borrowing languages the ROOT words may not be available. This is the case with Rigkrit and Sk where the CW-s do not have the ROOTS in that language itself but only in SumeroTamil as V.Raghavan and I have pointed out quite extensively. This is the reason why I call Sk is a language which is a variant of Tamil and which continues to be its basis. Sk language does not have its own basis - the set of basic root words that found the IDENTITY of the language.
I have a feeling that this may also be the case with Turkish Avestan and so forth and which remains a matter for future investigations.
Polat
Kaya: I am sorry to say that you are wrong in this regard as well. You
cannot find a ROOT word where the whole body of the word has been already
shuffled (confused). What one may find as "ROOT" word may have
nothing to do with the concept that the word represents. Thus your
technique of finding roots is rather untrustable and nothing more than
guesswork. I get the feeling that you liken the Sumerian words which
resemble some Tamil words whose meanings you know and thus think that similarly
appearing Sumerian words also have similar meanings. In this manner, you
may be comparing apples with oranges which are not the same thing. This I
say because I am not comfortable with the truthfulness of the presented
Sumerian texts.
As a final note in this response-dialog, and if you do not mind my saying so,
somehow I get the feeling that you are ignoring my writings and not wanting to
discuss the words that I analyse and present. By not touching any one of
the words I have been presenting, you are pushing back the concept that I am
advocating, that is, the Indo-European languages are all manufactured
languages from Turkish. In this regard you and most people seem to prefer
staying silent. Why is that? Your saying that "I do not
believe you, what you do is not scientific" is neither a scientific
comment nor is it a truthful comment. Anyone can say that and get away
with it, and many have. If you are searching for a regularity in an
already confused language vocabulary, you may be searching for in wain. For
example already in this paper I have shown that the words ETYMOLOGY,
ANAGRAMMATIZE, AGGLUTINATIVE and others are not what the linguistic community
thinks. I have clearly shown that their origin is not GREEK but rather
TURKISH. Additionally, I identified the identity of Zeus and things
that are attributed to Zeus. You did not say anything. I identified
the goddess Saraswati but you are very quiet about it. I identified the
source of BIBLIOTEQUE and LIBRARY as Turkish yet you are very silent on it. My
revelations about the Turkish source of these words is unquestionable. I
made very powerful statements yet you act as if I said nothing - as if you did
not hear me speaking. Please do not think that I do not notice.
Now I see that you are getting some help from other readers whose knowledge of
Turkish is also superficial. Particularly citing the writings byNyland as a source to be
regarded is not credible. It is a nice try but it will not work with me.
I have had my encounter with Edo Nyland earlier. His writings
have no value whatsoever as far as the antiquity of Turkish is concerned.
For your information I am including the URL of my response to him years
ago in this forum: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/132 You will find that his explanations of an
etymology for names and words do not hold water. Activities like that of Edo
Nyland are further attempts to cover up the fact that Indo-European and Semitic
languages have been made up from the most ancient language of Turkish.
So you
see my friend, If you continue to ignore what I say, we, particularly
you, will not be able to get anywhere in this dialog.
My best wishes to you and to all,
Polat Kaya