Re: [bcn2004] Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of Scientific Objectivity in Historical Linguistics

Dear Dr. K. Loganathan and friends,

Hi.  When I read your response I was appalled that you label my work a "linguistic game".  This only shows that either you do not understand what I am saying and showing, or, you do understand what I am talking about but you are not in a mood to accept the correctness of what I am claiming about the ancientness of Turkish language and its being used as the source language for the manufacture of many languages.  Additionally I do not believe that you understand the mathematics of probablity as applied to two independently developed languages to have words that are similar in meaning and structure.  Furthermore, the mathematics of probability tells us that two independently developed languages having words and/or phrases that are made up using the same consonants and having the same meaning is, for all intents and purposes, zero.  When I make my claims regarding Indo-European and Semitic languages having been manufactured from Turkish I have the support of  mathematics plus several thousand analysed IE words supporting me. I am afraid you are missing all of these points or want to ignore their presence hoping that the problem will go away.  

Furthermore, let me once again remind you that I have no interest in "linguistic games".  I am a believer that "any lie" whether it was committed a few thousand years ago or recently are liable to be detected no matter how well it has been disguised and buried.  The truth has a way of coming out and shining as the Sun does when coming out from behing stormy clouds. My discovery of the false nature of the Indo-European and Semitic languages was coincidental and is an example of the "truth" coming out after a very long time.  My being able to decipher the words of IE languages stem from the fact that I know Turkish and the Turkish culture well enough to understand some of these Indo-European and Semitic words that catch my attention.  With an endless curiosity for words, I have solved several thousand words belonging to Greek, Latin, English, Italian, French and some to Semitic languages.  Every time I decipher new words as being made up from Turkish, that proves me right again and again.  The technique of altering a phonetic and  agglutinative language, of which Turkish is the perfect and oldest  example, is the easiest way of coming up with a language of your own. Turks neither knew "anagrammatizing" nor did they have a need to anagrammatize words from other languages to come up with words for Turkish.  If anything,  whatever "foreign" words were brought into Turkish were readily identifyable by all (e.g., English RADIO is Turkish RADYO).  Thus in this regard, it can be said that Turkish linguists had no inventiveness.  On top of that, because they are not aware of what has gone on before, they have unknowingly given up many Turkish words as being non-Turkish thinking that the given etymologies are infallible and that linguistics, as presented, is truthful.

On the other hand, as I have said repeatedly, the IE linguists did a fantastic job to use this simple technique of manufacturing languages from Turkish. They had done an awesome job of disguising everything so well that it was virtually impossible to see what went on.  Nevertheless, the whole thing was plagiarism, or plainly, stealing from the Turanian civilization. Those who did this were not the ordinary people but rather were specialized people who had hidden agendas wherever they were.  For them it was a matter of political power over ordinary people and the control and exploitation of people.  They were mostly the religious peoples of "wanderers" (Arayans) whom I refer to as the "priest-linguists" because they were the people who dealt with these kinds of so-called "intellectual" activities. Their "religious" status, that is, pretending to worship God and having a godly attitude, gave them the upper hand over normal people.  Thus anything they said or introduced was accepted without question. Of course, the reality was that they were much more politically motivated intriguers than "religious" or "godly" people.  On top of that, they were after "nation" building for themselves out of an established Turanian resource.  Because what was being taken was ideas and concepts and words or phrases, no one would ever know or suspect that this Turanian culture was being used for making Indo-European and Semitic languages.  After all, the Akkadians had done it with the Sumerians which they conquered and no scholar knew the difference.  

 Still, stealing is stealing.  It does not make any difference if someone steals your car or steals your language that embodies your civilization.  In fact the latter is much worse, because by doing such an act, they not only transferred the ancient  Turkic civilization onto themselves but also they made heavy propaganda to put down the ancient Turkish religion, culture, civilization and the Turanian Tur/Turk peoples.  It is like cultural and/or character assasination and this behaviour has come down to present times. Thus the technique is a double edged sword that cuts down the victim in many ways.  On one side of the sword, the wanderer groups were usurping from the ancient Turkic civilization because it was a most advanced and just civilization with a fantastic religion built around the Sun, the Moon and the Sky-God, and on the other side of the sword, the wanderer groups were using propaganda to put down the creators of such a civilization.  The intention of such activities was to obliterate the victim Turanians and their civilization. Ancient Turanian civilization was not only the Sumerian civilization but also the Masar/Misir so-called "Egypt" civilization, the civilizations of ancient Anatolians, the Thracians, the Minoans, the Medes, the Hurrians, the Kassites, the Mitannies, the Canaanites, the Etruscans, the Pelasgians and many more Turanian people who had inhabited Asia, Europe and North Africa.  Yet ancient Greeks (Aryans / Arayans) and the Semites were the wandering peoples who were in need of some land to which they could attach themselves to. They were very belligirent and agressive groups.  What ever they got their hands on, they first destroyed it and then whatever they put on the ruins they called their own.  The old owner was forgotten or obliterated altogether. Evidently these wanderers had the habit of being a "guest" initially and later evicting or eliminating the home owner at an opportune time.  These wanderers did not bring anything new but rather built on the ruins that they created with the knowledge that they obtained from their host. History is full of examples of such behaviour. 

You said: 

"So be it. So can be the techniques of Reverse Anubhanda Karana and that of Dr Legner . All such techniques are motivated to PROVE a certain view and which is NOT the truth. Polat Kaya wants to trace every significant word to Turkish, Dr Sastry to Sanskrit and Dr Legner to some sub-saharan language."

But excuse me for saying: are you not doing the same thing? How is your behaviour any different from those of mine, or of Dr. Sastry or Dr. Legner. You call our activities as "linguistic games", yet very arbitrarily call your own claims as "nothing but the "truth"".  I get the feeling that you are trying to villify my very valid claims.  But such moves may not save you from losing your "SHAH", that is, if I may use a term from the game of "chess".

You keep referring to "historical linguistics"and asking me to provide "Turkish texts" with a date attached to it..  And I say that when I find my Turkish word "TENGIR" with the Sumerian word DINGIR" then I say "my TENGIR" is as old as DINGIR.  When somebody defines the Indian God name INDRA and I find that  "INDRA" is a rearranged form of Turkish name "DANRI" (TANRI) meaning "God", then I say, Turkish "DANRI" (TANRI) is as old or older than INDRA.   When I say the name BILGAMESH disguised as "GILGAMESH" is pure Turkish, then I say Turkish is as old or older than Sumerian. These words have their own time frames attached to them and that proves the antiquity of Turkish.  Now you cannot simply ignore these things and go off in a different direction.  

You said:

'Now it may be the case that Su, sam, sum also parallels the Turkish “CEM and so forth. But what follows from this? That Sumerian language  borrowed the Tr. Cem and transformed it into Sum, Sam  and the same was done by the speakers of Sk who created ‘samajam’ out of it? 

Now the question is : Why it cannot the other way  that Turkish language borrowed the Su, sam, sam and transformed it Tr.cem and so forth?"

Polat Kaya:  Throughout the Indo-European and Semitic languages I find so many cases where the Turkish letter "C" has been changed into S, C, or K.  This allows me to say that most likely they changed Turkish "C" to "S" here also.  What follows from this is that it is very likely that those who read the Sumerian texts read them in Turkish first, but then presented the results in a form that does not look Turkish.  Thus showing an original "CEM" as "SAM" should not be a problem for some of these linguists. After all Turkish "SÖZ" was also presented as ZEUS!   For example, the Sumerologists somehow came up with LAL as the Sumerian word for "honey" which has the Turkish form BAL.  How do we know that the Sumerologists did not read it as BAL first and then change it to LAL?   The Sumerologists read EN-LIL as the Sumerian "Wind God" which has the Turkish form "HAN YEL" meaning "Lord Wind".   How do we know that the original Sumerian was not HAN-YEL or EN-YEL?  They read Sumerian "LALARTU" as meaning "phantom" but they do not indicate that this could be the Turkish expression "LAL ARTU (LAL ERDÜ) meaning "tongueless man" (i.e., a phantom).  Are these all coincidences or is somebody intentionally ignoring or suppressing the Turkish aspect of Sumerian?  Was it not the "Babylonians" who confused the "one language that the world spoke"?  What god ordered that to be done? After all most of the readers of the Sumerian texts were scholars who pobably knew Turkish well.  How do we know that they did not utilise their knowledge of Turkish in reading the Sumerian texts but then paint a different picture in the transliteration?  Of course the "Semitic" aspect is pushed to the front as usual.  Remember in many books the name "GILGAMESH" (BILGAMESH) is indicated as "Assyrian -Babylonian" rather than Sumerian or Turkish. Do you not find these things questionable?  Very conveniently the Turanian or Tur/Turk aspect of the ancient Masar/Misir civilization is suppressed and the name MASAR or MISIR is replaced with EGYPT  meaning "Home of Gypsies" or "Home of Wanderers".   Were ancient Turanian Masar people "gypsies"?  Of course not!  Gypsies do not build pyramids or those most magnificent stone monuments of ancient Masar/Misir.  

You said: 

"This is very likely for historically Turkish is a late language which could have been deeply influenced by Sumerian which was the model of high culture in the 3rd Millennium world with widespread influence in the whole of ancient middle East."

Saying that Turkish is a "LATE LANGUAGE" is the cliche "lingo" of those who used Turkish to manufacture their Indo-European and Semitic languages and then came up with such propaganda statements as tools of "suppressing" Turkish. You are just repeating the propaganda that has been charted before.  "Propaganda" is willfull spreading of "disinformation".   Turkish is the oldest language for a world that spoke one language at one time.   Do you think the Turks and their language - Turkish, magically materialized out of thin air some, say, two thousand years ago? Is that what you believe?  

You said:

"Furthermore Polat Kaya uses the CURRENT Turkish language to make his claim and WITHOUT providing any textual evidences for Turkish language in the 3rd Millennium world or even earlier."

Polat Kaya:  I already pointed out to you and all that Turkish was and still is a "monosyllabic" agglutinative language just like Sumerian is known to be.  It generates words for concepts by almost mathematical precision with many suffixes being attached to root words. The "monosyllable" words of Turkish would not change in time.  After all, for example,  the Turkish word ATA meaning "Father" was ATA in Sumerian times and is still ATA now.  The Sumerian word for "Father" is presented to us as "ADDA".   ATA and ADDA are very much one and the same.  How can we be sure that ADDA was not really altered from an original form of ADA or ATA?  How did the Sumerologists determine that it was ADDA but not ADA?  How did the Sumerologists determine that the Sumerian word for "Mother" was "AMA" but not "ANA" as in Turkish?  It seems that some very questionable linguistics has taken place.   The Turkish word "O" meaning "God' and also a personal pronoun for third person singular cannot get any smaller than what it is already.  It was O then and it is O now.  Thus thinking that the CURRENT Turkish is very different than the old Turkish is a fallacy.  

Additionally, when you equate:  
"Su, sam, sum with Ta. um and with Sk sa," then you just omitted the Sumerian letter "s" in the Tamil version and the Sumerian letter "m" in the Sanskrit version.  You cannot do such arbitrary shifts or droppings unless you are admitting that Tamil, like the IE languages, is also a language that has done alterations of Sumerian and/or Turkish words.  From the information you provide I see this kind of situation considerably in Tamil with respect to Turkish.  As a Dravidian (from Turkish "TUR EVI" meaning "Tur houses")  I can understand the presence of Turkish words in Tamil, but finding "altered" Turkic words is someting else. 

In concluding let me say that there seems to be a lot of commonality between Turkish and Tamil that needs to be carefully studied and analysed.  Presently, your rules of finding 'roots' are much too loose. Hence what you say is not convincing.  

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

K. Loganathan wrote:

Dialog Loga- Polat Kaya-6 : The Place of Scientific Objectivity  in Historical Linguistics

Dear Polat Kaya and Friends

As I read such techniques as Polat Kaya Dr Sastry Dr Legner and so forth, it becomes quite clear to me that what are being played are various linguistic games and which do not impress me as scientific. They are not materially different from the phonological games IE linguists play to PROVE the presence of PIE and so forth. I want to highlight such issues for the consideration of Polat Kaya and others and leave the matter to their best judgment. I bring out the essential differences in the methodological issues  so that we can think collectively and come to a consensus. The Veer Linguistics I practice is incompatible with that Polat Kaya and others and hence there is a need to weigh the matter carefully and a decision made


The following is the way Polat Kaya explains his technique:


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. 

So be it. So can be the techniques of Reverse Anubhanda Karana and that of Dr Legner . All such techniques are motivated to PROVE a certain view and which is NOT the truth. Polat Kaya wants to trace every significant word to Turkish, Dr Sastry to Sanskrit and Dr Legner to some sub-saharan language. The point here is that all these techniques are simply many interesting linguistic games and which are mutually exclusive. One technique cannot be shown as the  technique that will bring out the TRUTH of the matter. And there can be other scholars with other techniques where they will show that another language , say Greek,  is the source of all major world languages and so forth.  Such games can be endless and one can  pursue and enjoy some joys but quite closed with respect to other  techniques. These techniques cannot DISAPROVE one another  and place one  as THE technique that ought to be pursued by all in search of truth. For the fact is all such techniques are NOT concerned with TRUTH at all but only PROVING some preconceived notions such as  Turkish is the source of many world languages or Sanskrit  and so forth

Now let me point out that this is NOT the case with Veer Linguistics where a CW is taken and analyzed into the ROOT words and with that establish to what language it may possibly belong to . Thus I claim  that Zaratustra and so forth. having roots which are attestable in Sumerian is possibly a Sumerian word just as Ubartutu, Jiu-sudra and so forth. Now this claim is NOT simply a game I play  but  a truth-claim  and hence something that can be refuted or deconstructed by showing the various facts of the matter. For my claim remains OBJECTIVE and various historical linguistic facts can be brought to refute and replace it with another and better derivation.


Now let me come to the second point in relation to such observations of Polat Kaya  as below:


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  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.


Now it may be the case that Su, sam, sum also parallels the Turkish “CEM and so forth. But what follows from this? That Sumerian language  borrowed the Tr. Cem and transformed it into Sum, Sam  and the same was done by the speakers of Sk who created ‘samajam’ out of it? 

Now the question is : Why it cannot the other way  that Turkish language borrowed the Su, sam, sam and transformed it Tr.cem and so forth?

This is very likely for historically Turkish is a late language which could have been deeply influenced by Sumerian which was the model of high culture in the 3rd Millennium world with widespread influence in the whole of ancient middle East. Furthermore Polat Kaya uses the CURRENT Turkish language to make his claim and WITHOUT providing any textual evidences for Turkish language in the 3rd Millennium world or even earlier. To substantiate that claim that Turkish Cem is the source of Sumerian sam, sum, he has to SHOW the presence of this word in a Turkish text contemporary to Sumerian or anterior to it. In all his publications Polat Kaya has failed to provide such evidences to substantiate  his claims. Thus his claim remains simply a wish with no historical evidences which can transform it into a TRUTH that everyone has to acknowledge no matter what their opinion is.

Now when I claim that Su, sam, sum is the origin of C.Ta and Sk particle of co-ordinate conjunction ( in addition to many others ) with sum> Ta. um and Sam > Sk sa, we can PROVE this on the basis of various kinds of textual evidences for Sumerian and how  such deletion  processes  are widespread. Thus my claim remains a scientific claim where a detailed study of Sumerian texts are used quite extensively

The historical situation is like this : while C.Tamil is a historical continuation of Sumerian, Sk and Turkish may be branch languages and which have SumeroTamil as its basis.

This is more consonant with the historical  situation of the Ancient Middle East where, as far as we know, the Sumerians lived with the Akkadian speaking  Semitic people but not all with the Turkish speaking Turanains orTurks. The Turks came very late into the picture and are more likely to have been influenced by the Sumerians than the other way around. There is no evidences, as far as I am aware that, the Turkish people co-existed with the Sumerians and with a literary culture quite superior to them and because of which they borrowed  heavily from the Turkish language.