Re: [bcn2004] Fw: HITTITE-TURKISH

Dear Timur Kocaoglu,

First let me to tell you that what I say in my writings is "NOT AN OPINION" as you have put it.  They are all factual statements based on analyses of linguistic material belonging to the so-called "Indo-European" languages and others. Your villifying me does not change that fact.  

You said:

"Dear Polat Kaya,
The logic that you employ in your explanations of foreign words
as if originating from Turkish words is called "folk etymology"
in linguistics:"

Polat Kaya: No Dear Kocaoglu, you are mistaken again.  The logic that I employ in my explanation of foreign words is not "folk etymology".  On the contrary what I do is a most logical analysis that you and your linguistics have never heard of before, nor are they even ready to hear such a thing.  I have opened up a whole new horizon into the existing linguistic "cult" regarding the "etymology" of Indo-European and Semitic words. What I do is "decipherment" of words that have been encrypted from Turkish.  With the closed-mindedness that you are demonstrating you will never know what I am talking about.  You seem to insist on wading in your shallow waters. Somehow you are not ready to give up what has been taught to you and therefore you have to play the put-down game that is so frequently done by those who really have nothing to say in order to overcome the difficulties that my new understanding of "etymology" brings to many "linguists".  

Now that you brought the subject up to table,  let us understand what is meant by the terminology "folk etymology".  I have the definitions from two sources on the web for the convenience of the readers. However, if they wish they can do their own search on the subject.  Meanwhile, I also urge you to read my paper regarding words like etymology, agglutinativeness, and others at URL:

Now regarding the definition of "folk etymology", we have from URL:


"Folk etymology (or popular etymology) is a linguistic term for a category of false etymology which has grown up in popular lore as opposed to one which arose in scholarly usage. Folk etymology is particularly important because it can result in the modification of a word or phrase by analogy with the erroneous etymology which is popularly believed to be true.

In this case, 'Folk etymology,' is the trigger which causes the process of linguistic analogy by which a word or phrase changes because of a popularly-held etymology, or misunderstanding of the history of a word or phrase."

>and from URL:

"Etymology is a combination of word analysis (meaning the subdivision of words into their constituent parts, if they are compound) and the tracing of ancestral origin of the parts, the ancestors being called "etymons". Real etymology involves the study of literature across languages and across time. As rigorous as that study may be, it is still only a history, which means that some of the connective material is in the category of "best guess".

Folk Etymology refers to assigning meanings to words based on analysis of their syllabic structure, but not based on their history. You might say that they're analytically robust but historically challenged. Individual syllables are assigned meanings through mainly phonic connection. This is akin to taking the "best guess of an idiot" to an extreme. For example, if someone thought that Manhattan got its name from Man With Hat On then they would be doing folk etymology.

Or would they? According to Robert Beard (Dr. Language), Folk Etymology is not the analysis process by which we discover a word's history, but the process that actually yielded the word. For example, the word "woodchuck" is derived from an Algonquin word via folk etymology, that is, the process whereby Algonquin syllables were replaced by like-sounding familiar syllables in the (English?) language.

The tipoff is obvious: "folk" don't analyze; they just do."

Polat Kaya: The above definition of  "folk etymology" gives the example: 
"For example, if someone thought that Manhattangot its name from Man With Hat On then they would be doing folk etymology." 

Polat Kaya: Indeed if someone comes up with such a proposal, that is, MANHATTAN being from "MAN WITH HAT ON", I would agree with you that it would be nonsense.  In such a false etymology, there is nothing to connect the concept of "Manhattan" to the concept of "Man With Hat ON".  These somehow similar sounds have nothing in common with each other either conceptually or meaningwise. The given example is total nonsense, just like the "kamil" and "timur" examples that you wrote to Kamil in your last posting. What I present is not such "folk etymology" but rather a letter-by-letter decipherment of a given word and the Turkish source word or phrase that lines up with the analyzed word in meaning for the given context.  Thus "Folk etymology" and my "decipherment of words" are totally different pictures that you must read carefully, analyze and understand before you speak. 

In the above definition of  "folk etymology" there is a considerable amount of sophistry, that is, "dishonesty": 

a)     Attaching a date for a word does not mean that its assigned "etymology" is correct. It just says that the word was used at such and such date.  Additionally, an etymology given in a dictionary again does not mean that what is given is the "correct" source of the word.  Still it does not say truthfully how the word was constructed. English language dictionaries are full of such vague definitions for the "etymology" of  words. For the writers of such dictionaries, life on earth starts with Greeks, Jews and the rest of the Aryans (Arayans) therefore their sources for words are only limited to these peoples and their horizon stops there. Yet the languages of these peoples have been very heavily dependent on the Turkish language contrary to all the denials and misinformations. Particularly, when they know the true source of these languagesas  being the Turkish language, they will do everything to avoid Turkish and distance themselves from Turkish.  That is what they have done and done it very well.

This "Folk etymology" concept is just a curtain to "cover up" the deceit that have been done in the past regarding the make up of the Indo-European aand Semitic languages and is used to discourage anyone from questioning the present linguistics and finding out what has truly taken place. 

b)     Stealers of the words and phrases of another language, such as Turkish, do not leave behind a "road map" explaining how they did the robbing.  It is up to the detective to find out and explain how the crime was committed. This is what I am doing.

c)    Cult operators never tell their clients the truth about their operations.  Only a limited number of the members know the real truth about their crafty operations.  The history of Aryan wanderers are full of all kinds of "CULTS" with utmost secrecy which have been mostly designed for "exploitation of people". Hence, the "cult" establishment of European linguistics will always direct the enquirer to go in the wrong direction (i.e., where the truth is not to be found). 

d)    In the so-called "folk etymology" supposedly there is no analysis provided as is done by the givers of of the supposedly "real etymology".  This is also a bogus statement.  Dictionaries are full of "false etymology" sold to the beginner as "true etymology".  Yet my decipherment of the restructured and disguised Turkish words and phrases into words of Indo-European languages is very straight forward and factual. I am not likening "sounds" to each other.  My guide is the meaning of the given word and its word structure.  There is no convolution in that.  On your part, classifying my analysis of European words as "folk etymology" is an obvious disregard of the truth, in other words, it is a misnomer at best and dishonesty at worst.  Everyone in this forum knows that I first give the definitions of words that I discuss and then do my analysis of them and give the resulting Turkish correspondence.  My descriptions are given in easy-to-understand language. The purpose of giving so much detail is to make sure that there is no room for misunderstanding. 

For example, when I gave the real make up of the so-called  Latin word "AQUAEDUCTUS" meaning "an aquaduct, a water channel, a water conveyor", as being manufactured from Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU", you conveniently ignored it. You notice that in this example I am deciphering the given word into its subcomponents and then re-arranging them into a Turkish word or expression that was used as source for the word being analyzed before it was encrypted. This is not "folk etymology" but rather "true" analysis of the make up of the analyzed word.  Additionally, there is no similarity between the pronounciation of the word "AQUAEDUCTUS" and the word "SU AKUTUCUDU". They are two different word structures but describing the same concept with the use of the same letters.  This is too much of a coincidence. 

You should be able to see this very important distinction. Some how you cannot or do not want to see it. I challenge you as a linguist, to tell me that Latin word  "AQUAEDUCTUS" is not related to Turkish "SU AKUTUCUDU".  You cannot!  Because if you do you will contradict yourself terribly. The Turkish term "SU AKUTUCUDU" is a descriptive expression defining an item which is designed to carry water from point A to point B by providing a water bed for the flow of water. It is so clear that even a child can understand it.  Finding these descriptive correspondenses in Turkish is not "folk etymology".  Many words of other languages have been manufactured in such a descriptive way, but only in Turkish.

As a linguist and scientist of words and their formations, it should be understood by linguists that there is almost zero probability that I should find this exact correspondence between Latin "AQUAEDUCTUS" and Turkish "SU AKUTUCUDU", that is, if Latin and Turkish are two independently developed languages.  If we are finding this kind of correspondence between these words, it means that there has been a hidden and secretive relationship between them. Surely the straightforward Turk did not even know what "anagrammatizing" was let alone excercising it on other languages.  The Turk in the easternmost end of Asia did not learn his Turkish language by way of anagrammatizing the words or phrases of Greek or Latin or English. It is the other way around as I have proven over and over again with so many examples. You, as a Turkish linguist,  should be able to see that "SU AKUTUCUDU" (SU AKITICIDI) is made up from Turkish words "SU + AKUT+U+CU+DU" where SU (water) + AKUT the root of the Turkish verb "akitmak" plus the vowel U connecting two adjacent consonants plus the suffixes CU and DU.  This is pure Turkish in its agglutinative format and is formed in accordance with the rules of Turkish language.  

Yet anyone trained with the knowledge of Turkish and with the intention of manufacturing words from Turkish for the so-called "Latin" language could have used this Turkish expression as a source, restructured it  and come up with the word "AQUAEDUCTUS".  Like millions of other people, you would not even be aware of it.

Do you think that those who made up the word "AQUAEDUCTUS" would leave behind a note telling us that the etymology of this "Latin" word was in fact from "Turkish"?  Please give this a long hard thinking before you speak about it!

I have noted that everytime I wrote a very detailed and fully explanatory response refuting your baseless "allegations", you have dodged what I said and went in a different direction in response to my writings or did not response at all. I presented about 35 medical terms that have been manufactured from Turkish.  You preferred to be lull on it.  In other words you avoided facing the questions "head on".  This kind of behaviour on your part is dodging the issue by way of changing the subject or avoiding it altogether hoping that it will go away.  But it does not go away.  Mostly what you do is sophistry, in other words, trying to suffocate my questions and/or explanations with irrelevant verbosity (i.e., Turkish "safsata").  You are most likely used to dispel students by way of giving off the cuff answers to them, and you think that you will get away with the same behaviour here also. Not so easily my "friend".  In this forum, everytime you speak you have to explain yourself as I do. 

Now I see that you are complaining about my identifying Turkish "YU EDER" with the English word "water". I must point out that Turkish "yu eder" for English "water" and Turkish "akuyor" for Latin "aqua"  meaning "water" are very much the same because they are two different aspects (qualities) of water (su).  One is using the "washing" aspect of water and the other is using the "flowing" aspect of water for the concept of "water". Both of them are in riddle form, that is, without mentioning the name "SU". This kind of trick has been used in the word formation of Indo-European languages in a countless number of cases. This you do not seem to understand  even after my explaining so many examples of them in this forum. 

Please also do not forget that Turkish "SU" (water) is in the form "SUI" in Chinese. Even the Japanese word for 'water' is very much the Turkish word "SU".  It was "SU" (ZU) in ancient Sumerian.  Plus SU has been altered into "SEA" in English.  Why do you think that this Turkish word is so wide spread in use from one end of the world to the other?

Furthermore, when you replace the letter "W" with the letter "S" in front of those IE words meaning "water" that you mentioned, you get names that are all related to the Turkish word "SU".  Take a look at the following  list after replacing the W with S:

"English "SATER" from Turkish (Tr.): "SUDUR";
Germanic "SASSER" from Tr. ??
Greek "SUDOR" from Tr. "SUDUR"
Old Indic "SUDAN" from Tr. "SUDAN" Russian "SODA" from Tr. "SUDU"
Gothic "SATO" from Tr. "SUDU".

Why is it so?  Please think about them long and hard, you may be able to come to a conclusion!

Here I also want to respond to your latest response to Kamil.  First of all I want to thank Kamil Kartal for his most understanding and passionate expressions in defence of my writings. That shows his deep understanding of what i am talking about.  I say thank you Kamil for the "kamil" (mature) understanding that you have demonstrated for the things that I have been saying.  With you and with many other scholars in the waiting who will understand what I am saying, I am sure that a new horizon of linguistics will open up in all directions with clarity and with new understanding.

After this acknowledgement, I now return back to your writing; you said:


"English translation: There are no rules and no limits in the etymological
explanations of the "folk etymology". It is up to your imagination and
the interpretations of various words just how they sound to your ear!
You can claim that the Arabic word "Kamil" is anagramatized from the
following two Turkish words: "kam" (religious leader" and "il" (land, country).
So, The Turkish phrase "il kam" (counry's religious leader) became
"kamil" in Arabic when the ancient Arabic (Semitic) priests turned "il kam"
into "kamil".
Or an Englishman can also claim that the Turkish name "Timur" (meaning "İron")
can be forged from the English "iron it" (to make it iron) by reading it from
right to left: iron+it > nori+ti > ti+nori > ti-mur
This method is called "folk etymology" in linguistics, because they are
not based on sound explanations, but just on one's owm imagination."
Polat Kaya: There must be a limit even to what you call "folk etymology" unless one wants to be intentionally silly. You gave some examples for "folk etymology" that are indeed silly arrangements of words that had nothing to do with each other with respect to their meanings and verbal formations. Evidently, you have no idea what has gone on in linguistics.
First of all, the name "Kamil" has no meaning related to the concept of "countries religious leader", therefore your thinking along this line is wrong, even if it may be for the purpose of an "example". Secondly, the name "Kamil" has nothing to do with the Turkish words "IL" (country) and "KAM" meaning "shaman". But the word "kamil" having the meaning "matured" ("ermish" in Turkish) has the meaning related to "ILIM" (bilgi),that is, "knowledge". But you are not even comparing "kamil" with "ilim"; you arbitrarily compare it with anything that comes to your mind. Hence the result is a silly game and you are totally wrong to make such a comparison. You are not even comparing "apples" with "oranges" which at the very least they are both "fruit".
Similarly, your comparison of English "iron it" with "timur" does not make sense either. "English "IRON IT" would correspond to Turkish "ÜTÜ YAP" meaning "to take the wrinkles out of some clothing with an "ironing" device - which has no relation to "timur" in Turkish. Surely the name in TIMURLANE had nothing to do with "iron it" or "ironing". Therefore any sensible linguist would not even consider giving such an "etymology" even if it may be for the purpose of "example. The English expression "iron it" does not mean anything near to the meaning of "timur" or "temir" or "demir". If anything at all, you could compare "iron" and "timur" with each other. But even then you would have trouble in matching them. Additionally, English "IRON IT" does not mean "to make it iron" hence your comparison is baseless and wrong.  
If you can isolate yourself from your irrational adverse feelings towards what I am saying, you will find that what I have been demonstrating so far in this forum cannot be categorized with your "folk etymology" concept unless you think that anything goes in this debate in order to win the debate. Such a game is not my view in this debate. You may not like me or my views, but at least for the sake of being fair you should be truthful to yourself, to your readers and to my writings that you are classifying and/or critizing.  

Dear Timur, of course you are free to speak your opinion. No one is stopping you from doing that.  The only problem with your "opinions" is that they are just "opinions", that is, they are spoken without much indepth thinking supporting them.  Yet, you are a "linguist" and not anybody from the street.  Your pronuncements have to be much more measured than that of anyone else who may not care about the linguistic discussion that is going on here.  Yet you are not showing that quality.  I have already wasted a lot of my valuable time trying to respond to your endless and baseless arguments.  In spite of this, I will give you one more chance to study the  following decipherments with respect to the Latin and Greek words that I list below.  Your response must be only and only with regards to these words and their correspondences in Turkish.   Please do not forget that everyone is watching you here in this discussion.

1.    The Latin word AQUAEDUCTUS  versus the Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU".  

2.    Greek word ANTHRWPISKOS,  meaning "dwarf; little man", with W=UU, and rearranged letter-by-letter as "SHOK-PUTUR-INSA", is from the Turkish source expression "CHOK BODUR INSAN" meaning "very little man".

3.    Greek word THEMELITHOS, meaning "foundation stone", rearranged as "THEMEL-TOSHI", is from the Turkish expression "TEMEL TASHI" meaning "the foundation stone" where "temel" means "foundation" and "tashi" means "the stone". 

4.    Greek word THEMIS, meaning "justice" and also the mythological name of the goddess Themis representing "justice", is from the Turkish source word "TEMYIZ" which is the name of the "highest court of appeal" in Turkey". Thus the Turkish name TEMYIZ has roots extending thousands of years beyond B.C. years.

5.    Greek word THEOGENNETOS, meaning "born of God", rearranged as:

a)  "GONESTEN-TOHE", is from the Turkish source expression "GONESHTEN DOGU" (Günesten dogu) meaning "born from Sun" where "GONESH" means "Sun", "-TEN" is the suffix  meaning "from" and "DOGU" means "born".  Expression in Turkish defines the Sun as the "creator deity" which it is. 

b)    "O-GESTEN-TOHEN", is from the Turkish source expression "O GÖZDEN DOGAN" meaning "born from that eye" referring to the Sun as the creator fire eye of the ancient Turanian Sky-God. 

c)    "OGESTEN-TOHEN",  is from the Turkish source expression "OGUZ'DAN DOGAN" meaning "Born from God OGUZ" referring to the ancient Turanian Sky-God OGUZ. 

6.    Greek word BOTANOLOGOS, meaning "botanist", rearranged as "OT-BOLAN-GOS-O", is from the Turkish source expression "OT BILEN GÖZ O" meaning "the eye that knows the plants";  or "OT BILEN GIShI" meaning "person who knows the plants"; or  "OT-BULAN-GIShI" meaning "person who finds plants".   All of these meanings in Turkish are applicable to any botanist.  Turkish word OT means, "grass, plants", BILEN means "he/she who knows", GÖZ means "eye", O means "he/she/it", BULAN means "he/she who finds", "GIShI means "person".   

Even the word BOTANIST, when rearranged as "OT-TANISB",  is from Turkish expression "OT-TANIShIB" meaning "knowing plants". TANIShIB is from the Turkish verb "tanishmak" meaning "to get acquainted", "knowing".  A BOTANIST is someone who knows plants, grass, etc. 

7.    Greek word THARRETOS,  meaning "bold, couragous", rearranged as "SHORATTER", is from the Turkish source expression "CHORATTER" (CÜRETTIR) meaning "it is courage", "it is boldness" where Turkish word "CÜRET" means "bold", and suffix -TIR, -TUR means "it is". 

8.    Greek word THARRALEOTES, meaning "boldness, courage", rearrangd letter-by-letter as "SHORATLETER-A", is from the Turkish source expression "CÜRETLIDIR O" meaning "he/she is courageous". In this case an additional Turkish infix -LE/LI (ILE) meaning "with" is added to the Turkish source expression. 

9.    Greek word PERISTROPHIKOS, meaning "rotary, revolving", rearranged as "TOPOS-SHEPIRRIK", is from the Turkish source expression "TOPACH CHEVIRIRIK" meaning "we rotate top".  Turkish name "TOPACH" meaning a "top" is a toy that children set into rotating motion with the use of a string, at least that was the way I used to do in my childhood, and it shows "gyroscopic" rotating movements.  Thus this Greek word PERISTROPHIKOS has been made up from this Turkish expression.

10.     Greek word PERISTREPHOMAI, meaning "to gyrate", when rearranged letter-by-letter as  "TOPASHMI-EPIRER",  with V/P change, is from the Turkish source expression "TOPACIMI EVIRER" (TOPACIMI  CHEVIRER)  meaning "he/she rotates my top".  Turkish "EVIRME" and "CHEVIRME" both mean "rotating". Even the Arabic vendor who serves Turkish "döner kebap" to his customers has given it the name "SHAWARMA" which is a distorted form of Turkish "CHEVIRME" to "DÖNER" indicating that he has a better understanding of the Turkish language. 

These above ten words are supreme examples of Greek and Latin have utilized Turkish language in manufacturing word for these languages. These examples verify that Greek and Latin are not authentic languages.   The rest of the Indo-European languages have also been manufactured in the saame way. From these examples,  it is seen that there has been alterations in the restructuring and disguising of these Turkish expressions into so-called "Greek" and Latin words.  The source texts used in manufacturing these words are unquestionably from Turkish. They have been anagrammatized, that is to say, the strings of letters in Turkish expressions have been broken and then re-arranged in a different format.  By now, it should be obvious even to you who has taken such an hard-line attitude.  Now please do not forget, you will stick to these words as I have indicated above.  Nothing else!

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat  Kaya



Dear Polat Kaya,
The logic that you employ in your explanations of foreign words
as if originating from Turkish words is called "folk etymology"
in linguistics: for example, you take the English word "water"
and try analyze this word by picking two different words from
Turkish such as "yu-" and "eder" which contain a kind of
similar sounds.
It is absolutely very imaginative and highly speculative what you
suggest. The main problem stems from your hypothesis that some
people (priests) have sat down around the table and created these
words (such as "water") from these two Turkish words (yu+eder)
through anagramatization. Your following examples shows very
clearly how you make up this kind of "etymologies" just based
on finding words with "similar and familiar sounds": "English "WATER" from Turkish (Tr.): "yu eter";
Germanic "WASSER" from Tr. "yash eter";
Greek "HUDOR" from Tr. "yu-idor" (yu- eder):
Old Indic "UDAN" from Tr. "yu eden";
Russian "VODA" from Tr. "yudu" (yu'du, yikamadi, temizlemedi, yu etmedi);
Gothic "WATO" from Tr. "yu'du" or "yu adu, yu adi)"
(the above examples are from Polat Kaya)
Dear Polat Kaya, I respect your above efforts and your own hypothesis that
"Turkish is the main natural language of the world and all other languages are
just artificially created by priests who have taken the Turkish original words
and by playing with these words in order to conceal them through anagramatization,
they have artificially created the words which are now being used in various
languages around the world"
This is your hypothesis and you are free to defend it as you wish. I do respect
you and your opinion. At the main time, however, I must also let other people
to know my opinion on this issue. I do not agree with you and I don't believe
that the words of other languages were artificially created by playing with
Turkish words in any period in history. Yes, Turkish is one of the oldest
languages of the world and it is indeed very beautiful and productive language.
But, we don't need to "make up" unprovable and highly speculative "folk
etymologies" to prove that Turklish is the single natural language of the
world and all other languages are created artificially from Turkish.
No one will buy this kind of hypothesis.
With all my respect to you and your own opinion on this issue, I must also
say I don't agree with you. We are all free to express our own opinions.
tntr@... 26.07.2005 23:51:04 >>>
 Dear Timur Kocaoglu,
I am afraid you are very mistaken. First of all, when somebody wants to create a word for himself in the form "WATER", he does not particularly care whether he is sourcing correct Turkish or not. His interest is to gain a word to English or another European language for the "water" concept. Evidently he could not use the Turkish word "SU" for "water" because it would not be easy to camouflage although they did use Turkish "SU" for "SEA" meaning "DENIZ" in Turkish. So they had to use another Turkish expression that still means the same thing. In Turkish, one of the functions of "SU"(water) is "to wash" that is, "YU EDER" meaning "it does wash" or "it does clean". Additionally, he is defining something that "does' someting. In this case it is "water" (SU) which "does washing" or "is used in washing". Furthermore, he is using "a riddle" format,. in other words, he says in a riddle form that "this thing is something that does washing" (i.e., yu eder). It is very much the same as saying "TEMIZ EDER", "PAK EDER", "AK EDER", "YIKAR" without giving or mentioning the name "SU". This is so logical, especially when you want to make a word out of a Turkish expression and you want to hide its Turkishness readily. In actuality, the "EDER" part is used just for linguistic wrapping (if I may use the term, "kundak bezi") the word for the main concept. They have already used the Turkish word SU for SEA. But if they had done the same for ordinary "water" then they would have been known as using Turkish word "SU" directly which would be evident to all and it would not be in their best interest. I think on the part of the anagrammatizer, it was a brilliant idea to use Turkish "YU ETER" for water". This way it was very easy to hide it. Additionally, what you do not see or ignore to see is the fact that the words: "English "water" and West Germanic "wasser", Greek "hudor", old Indic "udan", Russian "voda", Gothic "wato" and others such as "watar" and "wazzer" go back to "*aud-", "*ued-", "*ud-" (water)" they al have "Turkish word "YU" or "YUV" in them. After all, letter "U" is vocalized as "YU". How do you know that this letter "U" (YU) is not Turkish "YU" or "YUV" meaning "to wash" but rather a totally different word meaning "water"? In these words I see the following, consider the fact that W = UU, VV, YY, or any combination of U, V and Y. and similarly, V=Y=U and U is vocalized as "YU":
English "WATER" from Turkish (Tr.): "yu eter";
Germanic "WASSER" from Tr. "yash eter";
Greek "HUDOR" from Tr. "yu-idor" (yu- eder):
Old Indic "UDAN" from Tr. "yu eden";
Russian "VODA" from Tr. "yudu" (yu'du, yikamadi, temizlemedi, yu etmedi);
Gothic "WATO" from Tr. "yu'du" or "yu adu, yu adi);
and your so-called "*aud-", "*ued" and "*ud-" (water) all have Turkish "YU" in it. Please take note of them!
These are just like the Latin word "AQUA" meaning "water"which is a misnomer. It is actually a Turkish word describing the "flowing" aspect of "water", that is, in Turkish "AKUYO" (akiyor). With this in mind, please consider the Latin word "AQUAEDUCTUS" meaning "an aquaduct", that is, a 'water conveyor" is from Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU" meaning "it is a water conveyor" or "it is water carrier". This you will see clearly, when "AQUAEDUCTUS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SU-AQUTUCADE" which is nothing but the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU". Thus it is seen that Latin word "AQUA" meaning "water" is not a truthful definition and it is from Turkish word "akuyor". I hope wou will examine this and respond on it. Please check it very carefully!
You siad:
"In several world languages, the words for water has the dental fricative sound
of "s" and "t" like the Turkish word "su" (water). In some languages though, it seems that the fricative consonants of "s" and "t" has been dropped and only the vowel "u" is left after a long process of changes such as the Chitrali (a language spoken in the Pamir area of northern Pakistan) "u" for water." Polat Kaya: If what you say correct, than add the letter "S" to the front of the above given Indo-European words, then you will most likely end up in the Turkish word "SU +". Even the Chitrali word "u" for "water" becomes Turkish "SU". I wander why did they drop the "S" or "T"?
Dear Timur, it is not a matter of dropping "S" or "T", it is a matter of how the languages have been man-handled as I showed you in above examples. Consonants make the "skeleton" (the back bone) of words, yet vowels add the "flesh" to them. When one breaks the "bones", then permanent distorsions are bound to take place in words, just like body structures of humans. In concluding, I say you are mistaken thinking that in the present day Turkish you would not use a definition for "water" (SU) in the way that these European linguists have done. By thinking along the line of "correct" Turkish, you are limiting yourself. Those who use Turkish to come up with words for artificially made up languages, do not care about your "correct" Turkish diction. They are only interested in easy and disguiseable word making. He is not using Turkish as spoken in the present day Turkish Universities or everyday Turkish as spoken in present day Istanbul or Ankara, but rather Turkish as used in the ancient Turkish towns and villages. Hence he does not care about the "correct" Turkish. Best wishes to you and to all,
Polat Kaya
Dear Polat Kaya,
Your suggestion of "YU-ETER" (YIKAR) is not possiple in Turkish language,
because as you point out "Turkish YU" already means "to wash".
The Turkish auxiliary verb "et- (etmek = to do)" only comes after the the nouns
such as "gözet- < göz+et-" (meaning "to watch" from "göz" meaning "eye" and
the auxiliary verb "et-" meaning "to do").
Since Turkish already has "yuv- (yuvmak)" as a verb stem, there is no need
to add "et-" after that verb stem. "Yuv-" already means to "wash" and it has
also the form "yuvar" (it washes). Therefore, your suggestion of "yu+etar"
is grammatically not possible in Turkish language!
In light of the above explanation, your initial suggestion of
"Water = yuater < yu+etar" is also wrong and is not possible!
English "water" and West Germanic "wasser", Greek "hudor", old Indic "udan",
Russian "voda", Gothic "wato" and others such as "watar" and "wazzer" go
back to "*aud-", "*ued-", "*ud-" (water).
In several world languages, the words for water has the dental fricative sound
of "s" and "t" like the Turkish word "su" (water). In some languages though,
it seems that the fricative consonants of "s" and "t" has been dropped and only
the vowel "u" is left after a long process of changes such as the Chitrali (a language
spoken in the Pamir area of northern Pakistan) "u" for water.
When I was very young living in Pashawar city in Pakistan, we had a maid who
was from Chitral and he also spoken Chitrali. He taught me several phrases
in Chitrali. I still remember the following phrase in Chitrali:
"U angi, shepik jebi" ("water drink, meal eat" = Drink water, eat meal!).
He is describing for you two different concepts:, that is, "drink water" and "eat meal" which has noting to do with the concept of "water" (SU).
tntr@... 16.07.2005 06:32:10 >>>
 Dear Tonyukuk Kagan,
You are absolutely write in identifying "water" with Turkish "YU" meaning "to wash" Water is used in "washing". When the word WATER, where the bogus letter W = Y+U, makes the word "YUATER", is the rearranged "YU-ETAR, it is the Turkish expression "YU-ETER" (YIKAR) meaning "it washes" which is a riddled way of describing 'SU' (water). I have known this relationship for some time but did not have the time to write about it. You did it and I congradulate you for it. This is another Turkish expression that has been abducted into English.
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya