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

Dear Clyde Winters,

Hi.  Please find my responses interspersed with your writing below. 

ulagankmy wrote:

--- In, clyde winters <olmec982000@y...> wrote:
Hi Polat Kaya
Thanks for your response, You make it clear in this
post that you do not believe in finding systematic
correspondence among lexical items when you use your
science to compare terms from different languages. I
must reject your method because as noted by Loga, you
are just making up lexical items to support your view.

Polat Kaya:  First of all, let me remind you that while I responded to your previous response to me line-by-line, you dodged all of my very valid points and now you are diverging onto something else. I get the impression that: a) you did not read my response properly, or b) you did not understand my response, or c) you read it and understood it but you have no comeback. I suspect it is a mixture all of these. Now you are rejecting my method because Loga noted and you are repeating, 
"you are just making up lexical items to support your view".  I must say that you are holding onto a straw floating on a sea.  How much protection can this give you from sinking?  Especially since your swimming is not up to par!

Yes I do not believe that you will find systematic correspondences of consonant arrangement between Turkish words and the so-called Indo-European words because the words of Indo-European languages are the mostly re-arranged, that is, re-shuffled form of Turkish words and phrases.  This is evident from the fact that the IE words are manufactured from Turkish.  The letters of the Turkish source text were shuffled around to disguise the Turkish source.  This was done so skillfully that only I was, by chance, able to discover it.  Thus, because of this action, the medium that you are trying to study is already altered from its original form.  The thing that you are studying is not the genuine thing anymore.  After this alteration, you say that what I see is two different things from the consonantal point of view and you reject what I am presenting.  Well Mr. Winters, you can reject my science for the rest of your life but your Indo-European and Semitic languages are still manufactured from Turkish. 

You are complaining that "I am just making up lexical items to support my view".  Let me give you one lexical item to see if you can understand that.  There is the so-called "Greek" word "AUTAPODEIKTON" meaning "self-evident", (Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Desk Dictionary", D. C. Divry, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1988,  p. 446).  This word is supposedly made up from Greek "AUTOS"  meaning "self" + "APODEIKTON" meaning "provable".   I say this is a bogus etymology.  Let me explain:

When the Greek word AUTAPODEIKTON is rearranged letter-by-letter as "OTO-APA-KENDITU", it is found to be the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "UTU APA KENDITU" (or "APA UTU KENDITU")  meaning "It is the Father Sun-God Himself" which is a perfect example of defining the concept of "self-evident".  There is nothing more "self-evident" (i.e., obvious) than the "SUN" itself.  This Turkish expression which has been used as the source text for this "Greek" word includes the Turkish words "APA" meaning "father", "UTU" meaning "Sun-God", "KENDI" meaning "self" and Turkish suffix -TU meaning "it is".  Thus in this Turkish expression there are all the elements of "self evidency" but all are in Turkish.  The following results are deducted from this re-construction:

-     the so-called Greek "autos" meaning "self" has no place in this word, hence "auto" is an artificially madeup bogus "prefix"; the meaning "self" attributed to it is coming from the Turkish word "KENDI" meaning "self".  Supposedly "APODEIKTON" meaning "provable" comes from the remaining of the Turkish expression "UTU APA KENDITU".  Thus it is unquestionably clear that this Turkish expression was abducted, restructured, disguised and separated into two parts one being "AUTO" meaning 'self" and the other being "APODEIKTON" meaning "provable."

-    All words having this "auto" prefix in the front and belonging to Indo-European languages are not authentic, and are deceptively manufactured from Turkish expressions and the "Greek" dictionary provided no etymological reference for these words - although we are told that most of them are said to be from Greek source.  This is a LIE.

-    As can be seen the source for the concept is a religous one since it used the ancient Turanian words UTU APA" (UT U APA) meaning "Father Sun-God" or "Father That Fire" in Turkish.   Thus the religion and language are working hand-in-hand to describe the Sun-worshipping beliefs of ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. 

After having demonstrated this crystal clear example, I can say that you, and many like you, who think they know how languages were made, are not even close to understanding the concept yet. You are misinformed and mis-guided in this regard.  

Now you take the Greek and the Turkish source text and compare them for what you call "consonantal agreement" as follows:

Greek:        AUTAPODEIKTON        ==>    TPDKTN

Turkish:     UTU APA KENDITU"    ==>    TPKNDT

As you can see, the so called orderly "consonantal agreement", as you propose, does not exist because the first one follows TPDKTN and the second one follows TPKNDT.  But there is a disorderly consonantal agreement, as I explained in my last posting to you, that is, a 'mixed' mode. This is so because somebody manhandled the Turkish source text to come up with the "Greek" word.  If you notice they kept the meaning of the concept in a very vague manner.  They never explained in "Greek" what they mean by "self evident".  Yet the Turkish source text says that "IT IS THE FATHER SUN ITSELF" which is "self evident". It is logical, it is 100% correct and there is no if and buts about it. Sun is the most self evident object in our solar system.   You would never know in your life time that this "Greek" word was secretly referring to the "sun" in Turkish. And that is why I say that Greek, Latin, Sanskrit and all the rest of the Indo-European and Semitic languages have all been artificially made up from the Turkish language. Hence Turkish was the universal language that the "whole world spoke".   Thus I rest my case for you and for all in this subject.

You said: 


 As I said in the earlier post the ancient
Turanians were Kustites, not Turks. Central Asia was
called Kushiya in ancient times not Turkstan.According to Col. Rawlinson Iran was called Kushiya or Kushiva in the cuneiform literature. When the
Kassites, ruled Iran it was called Kashshu, and the
ruling people called themselves Kassites.

Polat Kaya:  You proved me right again!  Evidently what you do not know or you do not want to know is the fact that TURKS are also known by the names GOZ, GUZ, OGUZ, UZ, OKUS, KUS, US  peoples because these words are forms of the Turkish OGUZ name. For example, the names "OTOMAN" (UTU-MAN) meaning "Sun-God people", "OSMAN" from Turkish "OUS-MAN" meaning "Oguz people", "TURKMAN" meaning "Turk people", "KUS-HAN" (OGUS-HAN) peoples,  are examples of the usage of these names as applied to OGUZ/TUR peoples.  The name OGUZ is given to countless numbers of Turkish males in the Turkish world.

Thus when you have the Turkish words "KUS + HAN" (OGUS + HAN) in a title of a Turanian peoples meaning "LORD OGUZ" (LORD O-GÖZ) people, then you eventually end up with the distorted name "KUSHAN".  However, this alteration of joining Turkish "KUS" and "HAN" with each other does not change the fact that these "KUSHANS"  were Turks and Oguz peoples. You need to read my response to you very carefully without skipping a word of it, then you will see what I am talking about.  You, either knowingly or unknowingly, are playing deceptively with Turkish words, just like the ancient cabalist priests of all kinds did, in order to distance or alienate TURK (TUR)  from his OGUZ (OKUS, O-GUZ, O-GOZ, KUS) identity and vice versa.  

If Central Asia was earlier called by the name KUSHIA in ancient times, it was because of the Turkish name OKUS (OGUZ) of the Turkish peoples. The name KUSHIA is actually a distorted form of Turkish "KUS" + "ÖYI" (OGUZ ÖYI) meaning "Home of OGUZ" peoples, thus  referring to the ancient Turanian Oguz / Turk people". Even the name "ASIA" is from Turkish "AS + ÖYÜ" (BIR ÖYÜ) meaning the "home of ONE" referring not only to the ancient Turanian Sky-Father-God concept but also indicating that the religion of "ONE-SKY-GOD" concept was invented by the TUR/TURK/OGUZ/OKUS peoples of Turan.  Even the ancient "bull" icon of the Sky-God comes from these Turkish words.  In addition to the OKUS (OKUZ) meaning "bull", TUR, another name for the ancient Turanian Sky-God also means "bull". Let me explain it from another angle.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB), (1963, vol. 2, p. 767) under the entry of "AUROCHS", defines this name as:
"the extinct wild ox of Europe (Bos taurus primigenius or B. primigenius), from which cattle are descended.  It was mentioned by Julius Caesar as the "urus," and, known as TUR, survived in Jaktorow forest of central Poland until1627."

This is a very interesting entry in the EB about the name "AUROCHS".  The amazing thing is that they seem to know so-much detail, yet when the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples are in question, they do not know anything or they are not "sure".   When the name "AUROCHS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "OCHUS-AR", where CH is replacement for either "K" or "G", it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish name "OKUS ER" ("OGUS ER") meaning, in one sense, "ox man", that is, "bull" or "man with cattle".  This entry of EB verifies that TUR and OKUS names for "cattle bull" were one and the same and that they are all Turkish words.  Additionaally these names are the names of ancient Turanian Sky-God deities and also the name of OGUZ TUR peoples.  Ancient Turanian TUR/TURK/OGUZ peoples were the domesticators of the cattle, sheep and horse. And since ancient times to this day, OGUZ/TUR peoples had a "cattle, sheep and horse" based economy. Hence most liekly they have also called themselves with these names. 

The "Bull", represented by both names TUR and OKUS, was the icon of the Turanian Sky-god deities.  Even the English word "OX" is a disguised form of Turkish word "OKUS" meaning "ox". It is a Turkish word stolen into English!

The saying that AUROCHS ("OKUS-ER" / "TUR") the 'wild ox' is extinct in Europe is also a "double talk": its obvious meaning refers to the extinction of the wild bull "TUR" in European forests, but more importantly, its hidden meaning refers to the extinction of the native TUR (OGUZ) peoples in Europe. That is, the TUR (OGUZ) peoples were in Europe before the Aryan (Arayan) settlements in Europe.  The Aryan Europeans'  destructive culture does not give room for peaceful coexistance with anyone else.  They did the same thing with the Turanian Native Peoples of the Americas. With the forceful and deceitful spread of Christianity in Europe, all ancient Turanian native peoples of Europe were annihilated and/or assimilated. 

The name "JACTOROW", so-called name of a "forest' in Poland where lots of TUR (Aurochs) lived, is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "ÇOK TUR OVU" meaning "home of many TURS" or "Home of Many Okuz" which again has a double meaning double talk. It refers to the home of the "wild bull" TUR in the "Jaktorow" forest and also to the native Ogus/Tur peoples who lived there. 

Thus you see, so-called "history" is infested with "LIES" and deceptions. 

I now turn to the name "KUSTITES" that you mentioned for the ancient Turanians. The name "KUSTITES" is the distorted form of the Turkish expression "KUSS-T-ITE", where SS is either "Sh" or "Z",  (KUZ ATA ITI, KÖZ ATA IDI, GÖZ ATA IDI, OGUZ ATA IDI) meaning they were "Father Oguz people" meaning that they were Tur/Turk peoples, meaning that they were "Sun, Moon and Sky-father-God worshipping peoples".  Thus they were OGUZ PEOPLES and TUR PEOPLES - AND THEY STILL ARE TUR/TURK PEOPLES. 

You said:


"According to Col. Rawlinson Iran was called Kushiya or Kushiva in the cuneiform literature. When the Kassites, ruled Iran it was called Kashshu, and the ruling people called themselves Kassites."

Polat Kaya:  The geography presently called "IRAN" was one of the homelands of the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples, by another name the OGUZ peoples.  This is well talked about in the AVESTA or in "Shahname" by Firdevs. This distorted name KUSHIA is the Turkish name "KUS + ÖYÜ" (KUS/GUZ ÖYÜ) meaning again the "home of Oguz" people.  EB dictionary, 1963,  page 1353 says that TURANIANSTHEORETICALLY ANTEDATED ARYANS IN ASIA AND EUROPE.

KASSITES  were Turkish peoples.  Even their King names indicate this fact.  When the name "KASSITE" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KASS-ITE" it is the distorted form of the Turkish expression "KAZ/GUZ-ITI" (GUZ IDI, GÖZ IDI, OGUZ IDI) meaning again that "they were Oguz people", that is, Tur/Turk people.  

So you are again wrong and misinformed about Tur/Turk peoples because you do not know that Tur/Turk peoples are also called "OGUZ" people. 

The word KASHSHU as an earlier name of Iran indicates that the earlier people of Iran were Turkish OGUZ people.  Even at present times, half of the Iranian population is made up of Turkish peoples.  And still there are Turkish peoples called "KASGAI" or "GASGAI" living on the Zagross mountains famed for their Turkish carpets and horses with a "white spot" on their foreheads which is also called "GASHGA" in Turkish. 


  Anatolia was also called Kush. The people ruling
the area before the coming of the Hittites were the
Kaska and Hattian people. The gods of the Hattic
people were Kashu and Kusuh.

Polat Kaya:  The ancient Anatolian Kasga and Hatti peoples and the Turkish Kashgai peoples on Zagross mountains of Iran must be the related peoples. The name HATTIAN, when rearranged as "ATTI-HAN", is the Turkish word "ATTA-HAN" meaning "Father Lord" - referring to Sky-father-god worshipping people.  After all, even the so-called "Hittite' word "ATTA means 'father' - same as Turkish "ATA" meaning "father".  Additionally, the name "ATTI-HAN" means "ATLI HAN" meaning "Lord with horses".  The Hatties and later on Hittites are also known for their horse owning.  Thus these Anatolian peoples were Turanian Turkish "OGUZ" speaking "TUR/OGUZ peoples contrary to all the disinformation.  

Of course Anatolia was also called "Asia Minor" indicating that the native inhabitants of Anatolia were Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.  The very fact that there was the so-called name "TROY" is nothing but the distorted form of Turkish expression "TUR ÖY" meaning "Home of Tur/Turk".  So the native Anatolians were also Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.   The Greek names "ANTIOKUS" (ANTIOCHUS), which many Greek kings used as a "title", is nothing but the Turkish expression "OKUS ITAN" (OGUZU ITEN/ATAN) meaning "he who rejects Okus" or "anti Oguz" indicating that the native Anatolians were OKUS (OGUZ) peoples and the Aryan (Arayan, gezginci) Greeks wanted to get rid of the native Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples out of Anatolia.  After the invasion of Anatolia by Alexander the Great, a full scale genocide and assimilation was applied to the native Turk/Oguz people of Anatolia.  Hence the remaining Turk/Oguz people were forced to forget their Turkish/Oguz identity in order to survive. 

If Anatolia was also called "KUSH", this was not due to Sudaneese and/or Ethiopian KUSHITES (dark skinned) living in Anatolia, but rather due to the fact that "KUS HAN" (GUZ HAN) Tur/Turk peoples were living there.  "The gods of Hattic people being "KASHU" and "KUSUH" are also evidence that their god was the Turkic "KUS-U" ("KÖZ U" or "O-GUZ/O-GÖZ").  Hence the natives of Anatolia were again Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and the name "KUSH" for Anatolia represented the Turkish name OKUS/OGUZ.  It's as simple as that!

You said:

 The major rulers of Central Asia were the
Kushan> Kus> people. You called these people
Tokarian. This is the Hindu name for the Kushan
people. We refer to these people as Kushana. The
Kushan ruled Turkestan until the 8th Century, when
the Uighurs invaded the area. The Uighurs destroyed
the Kucha and Karasahr empires. 

Polat Kaya:  For your information Turkish states had a lot of in-fighting among themselves.  This does not mean that they were different peoples.  On the contrary, they were the same Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples but each wanted a supremacy among the rest.  Furthermore, I did not call the people of Central Asia as "Tokarian".  I only commented on the name "TOCHARIAN" which is an altered version of the Turkish expression "TURK HAN OYI" meaning "the home of Lord Turk". And I also told you that that name was nothing but a Turkish name for a place which is known as the homelands of Turks. 

Additionally, if the major rulers of Central Asia were KUSHAN > KUS>, that is also understandable because Central Asian Tur/Turk peoples are also known as GUZ , OGUZ, and  UZ peoples.  Hence, the name "KUSHAN" is nothing but the distorted Turkish name "KUS-HAN" (GUZ HAN, OGUZ HAN).  Thus your source has played tricks on the names that the Turks are known by throughout history and you have been conned by mis-information. 


 The Kushan people were originally Dravidian
speaking people. The Tokarian language was a trade
language which allowed the diverse ethnic groups to
have a lingua franca for purposes of communication.
This is obvious when we compare Dravidian and Kushan
terms. Below we compare the Kushan, Dravidian and
Mande ( an African language)
Village Cow Son Chief, King
Dravidian uru kode, naku curral mannan
Mande furu knogo,gunga Si, Sey mansa
Kushan por ko Se maha

Polat Kaya:

Village;        Tr.  köy, örü meaning "villaage", "woven". 

Cow            Tr. INAK /INEK vs NAKU from Turkish "INAK U" indicating that word has been restructured from Turkish.

Chief; King:    Turkish: HAN (MEN HAN), MANAS (Men As), AHA all meaning "lord"         

 Plow, hoe high official,sage land of
Dravidian kari, pari gasa(n) kalam
Mande para gana ga
Kushan aare Kassi tkam
These terms show analogy, they are not made up of
terms like the ones you present in your post. They
show that Dravidian speaking people lived in Central
Asia, long before the Turks came into Central Asia in
the 5th Century.
You claim that no Dravidian place names exist in
Central Asia, this is false. There are many Dravidian
place names in Central Asia, the most common Dravidian
place names are associated with names for mountains
i.e., sand, and kara for cities and bodies of water.
Other Dravidian toponyms in the area were formed by
mal, and ar , according to Lahovary.

Polat Kaya:  If you are referring to the central Asian "KARA KUM" desert its name is pure Turkish.  KARA means "black" and KUM means "sand".  If you are referring to lakes such as "KARA GOL" again it is Turkish. GÖL means lake.  The English word LAKE is a reversed distortion of the Turkish word "GÖL or "KÖL".

 Mr. Polat Kaya I must reject your method of
research. It lacks internal and external validity
because it is not founded on analogy and systematic
correspondence of the consonants that form the words
under review. This means that you can say any word you
wish is analogous to another word in a different
language eventhough they are formed by a different
consonantal pattern. 

Polat Kaya:  You are wrong again.  On the top of it you have not read and understood what I wrote about this concept in my response to you.  Please read carefully! 

To illustrate a unity between
terms we must find regularity within the pattern of
consonants for the words under examination :
Mountains boat road horse deluge Dravidian kunru kalam calai pari amaru
Sumerian kur klam sila paru `mule' maari
Mande kuru kulu sila pari mara `zone of
Above we see regular consonantal agreement for the
terms compared above. None of these terms have to be
reconstructed by the linguists, like the terms used by
Mr. Polat Kaya. Mr. Polat Kaya , I must reject your
research method. They show none of the systematic
consonantal agreement used by Loga , other linguistics
and myself.
--- "K. Loganathan" <ulagankmy@y...> wrote:

Dear Clyde Winters,  you are not only misinformed about Turkish language but also misguided about the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples and their identities. By playing on words, e.g., KUSH vs TUR/TURK,  you and your references are trying to push the false view that the ancient people of Central Asia, ancient Masar, Anatolia, Sumeria, Tyria (Syria) and  Persia were Turanians and "Kush" peoples, but these ancient Turanians were not TUR/TURK/OKUS (OGUZ) peoples.  Not only this view is a LIE but it is also intentional misrepresentation of Turkish history and Turkish identity.  This kind of "willful suppression" of the name of Tur/Turk peoples has been done since the ancient times.  It has been done so in reading the Sumerian texts by suppressing the TUR name and replacing it with "MAR" or "AMAR".  Such behaviour should not be the choice of the so-called modern "scholars". Those peoples whom you and your reference sources classify as "Kushans" and "Turanians" were all Tur/Turk/Ogus peoples. That is why they are known as "TURANIANS" and "KUS-HANS".  As a final note for your information, I am reinserting here the definition of the term "Turanian" from "The Concise Imperial Dictionary" by Charles Annandale, 1901: "Turanian, a name for the Turks and their kindred races."  This definition represents the truth about the Turks being the Turanians since very ancient times and is non-debateable!

Best wishes to you and all,

Polat Kaya