Re: [bcn2004] Historical languages in historical countries- Linguisitcs of folk, grammarian, e

Dear Dr. Sastry and friends,

Merhaba (Nameste / Greetings).  First of all I want to thank you for your supportive thoughts regarding my "anagrammatizing" revelation being at the root of many languages. I see that you have some reservations to be worked out.  This is normal and expected.  Similarly  I also have reservations about your "reverse anabandha karana" theory.  I will try to explain my reservations in this posting.  I hope we will be able to remove some of the difficulties this time around.  I am sorry that  I could not respond to your writings earlier in time, because I had to respond to other postings and hence I could not respond to yours in a timely manner. As you know all these writings take so much time and energy. 

As I see it, Sanskrit is a convoluted language like the other Indo-European languages. It seems that it is just like the Greek language which has established itself through anagrammatizing texts from the Turkish language. It uses extraneous wrapping in the formation of words which name concepts, not that they want to safe-keep an idea so that it does not get distorted or lost, but rather to take an idea from Turkish and wrap it with additional layers made up from Turkic secondary words and/or suffixes so that it is not recognizable anymore as Turkish.  Now in the "reverse anubandha karana" technique that you are proposing, you are disrobing Sanskrit words from extra wrapping that you think is there for protection purposes.  But how would you know which layer to throw away and which one to keep in order to get to the core of the word?  Secondly why were those additional layers put there in the first place?  Were they there to hide away a "core" that was taken from another source? My discovery is that it is exactly that!  This I showed very clearly, for example, in the explanation of the name SARASWATY. Together with the name Saraswaty, I explained a number of other words that were shown to be from Turkish sources again.  Thus we cannot ignore them.  Please take a fresh look at them again because what I said in that paper is extremely important.  I am re-inserting its URL here so that it can be read again.

Even in this posting of yours, you touched on to some very interesting words which I will discuss right after your analysis.

Once more I want to emphasize that the technique of "anagrammatizing" of an agglutinative language is the simplest way of coming up with words for any new language that one wants to create.  The meanings have already been established in the existing model language, and the words and phrases have already been structurized. All one has to do is to break the order of the words or phrases and restructure them into new words with the same or similar meanings for the newly worked-out language such as all the Indo-European languages.  Let me give you a Greek word as an example:  

"BDELUROTES" meaning "hideous, abominableness, ugly".[Ref.: Divry's English-Greek and Greek - English dictionary, 1988, p. 452]. The first letter "B" is the Greek letter named "beta/vita" [Divry, p.10] and is read as "V" and as "B" because Greek alphabet has been designed on a duplicity principle.  In this case it is the letter "V". Almost all symbols of the Greek alphabet have more then one identity so much so that any symbol of the alphabet can be used in place of more than one Turkish sound or symbol. Thus this Greek word VDELUROTES, when rearranged as "DEV-USLETOR",  is made up from Turkish "DEV ÜZLÜTÜR" (dev yüzlüdür) meaning "he/she/it is monster faced" where "DEV" means a "giant, monster" and "ÜZLÜTÜR" means "it is with face".  Türkish UZ (yüz) means "face", suffix -LÜ means "with", and TÜR/TUR/TOR/TIR means "it is". 

Even if we were to separate the Greek word VDELUROTES in four parts, namely: VDE-LU-ROT-ES", we find that it is a rearrangement of the syllables of the corresponding Turkish phrase "DEV US-LU-TOR" (dev yüzlüdür).  it can be seen that: Turkish DEV became the 1st Greek  syllable "BDE / VDE", UZ became the 4th syllable "ES", LU became the 2nd syllable "LU", and  TUR (TOR) became the 3rd syllable in the form of "ROT" in this Greek word.  

Here in this example, we can see how the Greek linguists anagrammatized a Turkish source to come up with a "Greek" word where even the syllables in the Turkish source were displaced and restructured.

Now I will respond inline (in purple) to the other points you raised.

israbvk wrote:

Sub: Historical languages in historical countries- Linguisitcs of folk, grammarian, etymologist and encryptionist
The following post brings out very interesting points. Some are really appreciable.And some need debate. With my limitations in understand ing Turkish post, I have relied on the English version and the flow of debate in making the following points. The points I want to bring out through this discussion is summarized below and the details flow below:
********* Summary: (1) Dr.Kaya's line of thinking of `anagram approach-manufactured language approach in etymology is certainly a valid approach, especially when the `encryption –preservation' issues of classical languages and sacred languages in historic contexts are looked at.
While I have certain differences of opinion on the practical application of `anagram – manufacturing' technique, it is in harmony with the `Reverse anubandha karana' approach I have been presenting based on a well established mode for preserving veda-yoga-tantra in lands beyond Bharath ( which is geographically close to central asia; Scholars have been presented the movement of veda-yoga-tantra traditions and cultures from Bharath (India- Aryan land ,norh eastern mountain ranges, presently called meghalaya, Nepal, assam and the like range) to central asia (Turkish).
(2) Folk etymology can not be the sole basis of a dictionary or grammar or research in classical languages. These need to be supported from other studies, especially on the claims of historicity and `manufacturing of languages' claims. It is a complicated issue of multiple disciplines. It is true that `There are no rules and no limits in the etymological explanations of the "folk etymology". ( The fancy flights were seen in the Sumero Tamil presentations explaining the Rig-krit theory, which have fallen flat !)
 What Dr.Kaya is presenting or I am presenting are NOT folk etymology or currently known paths of linguistics. What we are presenting is `how preservation of a sacred language is made in a historic context using different mode of language –grammar related techniques. While all the materials needed for the `reconstruction' are available on hand, what is held back is the `process clue and glue' by which the magic of the original language (of magic or God - mantra) is recreated in present time. The eternality issue of `sacred/ God's langauge' is beyond the conception of historical and comparative linguistics! 

Polat Kaya:  Please explaine to what original language are you referring in above statement?  If the language was already established in plainly visible words, why is there need for reconstruction again? Was Sanskrit the language of magicians?  As is known magicians do not tell the secret of their "magical" acts!  What is the meaning of "Mantra"?  Is concept of God in Hinduism equated with "magic"?  You said:

(3) Regarding imagination in reconstruction by `process clues and glues'- the secret was no doubt held as a closely guarded secret by the `priests' and `temple personnel', kings and the select group. The reason is understandable. The secrets of magical chants are never revealed openly to the public at large and uninitiated. 

Polat Kaya: Since very ancient times, "priests" had a powerful position in the affairs of the king,  the kingdom and the people. N. K. sandars, ["The Epic of Gilgamesh", penguin Books, 1964, p. 15] writes:

"The temples were served by a perpetual prisethood, in whose hands, at one time, was almost the whole wealth of the state;  and among whom were the archivists and teachers, the scholars and mathematicians.  in very early times the whole temporal power was theirs, as servants of the god whose estates they managed."   

The richest religious organization to the present times was the Christian church who used to give tickets for hefty summs of money to tell people that they would go to "heaven".  In other words, people were being conned while the church was getting to be a world class economical power. 

 Thus "religion" or "cult" is a very good business indeed. On top of it, the priesthood would get the most respect from the public because of their perceived godly status.  They would be fed, clothed and provided with spacious quarters to live in while the public would be satisfied with the little precious that they had.  Mostly the priest groups would be the rulers and guiders of the people. In view of all this good fortune that priesthood brought to the priests, it would be most important for them to be very secretive about what they were doing behind closed doors. Because, if the public learned the true purpose of their "cults", the secrecy would be solved, mysticism would disappear, and the priesthood would lose all of their supposedly "hard earned" wealth and respect. Thus they kept their acivities with utmost secrecy and expressed their rituals with a language that could not be understood by ordinary members of the club or cult. So the public would always remain "awe-struck' as the ceremonies were performed.  Hence it is not deifficult to think that where there is secrecy, there is probably some nasty business going on behind the closed doors.  After all, if everything was on the up and up, there would be no need for any secrecy.

If the worldly language of the society, claiming a religious affiliation for a certain tradition picked up the key sacred words and preserved it in a distorted form in the live traition, they need to be `de-encrypted'.That is the exercise of `anagram – reverse anub andha karana' approach beyond `folk etymology'. As Dr.Kaya rightly says, the help from the `dictionaries' is very limited in this approach.More so when the current dictionaries are so deviant from the classical dictionaries; Online dictionaries are in need of critical reviews and updates.
(4)Invention of `written alphabet (=scripting, which incidentally is the hard evidence through inscriptions, numismatics and the like, on which reliance is made heavily)',- distinct from the `gramamtical sequence of spokne tradition of alphabets'- is an issue that needs to be looked at as a different issue from the `instructed natural divine order of alphbaets'. In the Vedic traditions, the `set of alphabets, the processes related to phoneme, the word processing' are all `attributed to the `sacred divine origin and are preserved as such over millennia with a perfect grammar rule base'. 
In other languages of the world (inclusinf the Turkish), to my limited understanding, the `phonetic ordering/sequnece of alphabets of the sacred language is an unexplained tradition'. This is the place where assumptions of `lingusitic historians are made with fancy theories of langauge'.And this percolates as a part of language teaching, dictionaries and later developments. The defects at the root are never addressed.Giving a `langauge, divining a scripture' does not necessarily lead to a `sequence of alphabets in the spoken order / natural order'. This is a unique feature for Vedic Sanskrit traditions.
(5)Dr.Kaya is taking reference of Turkish expressions-words and pointing how this is the referential point from which the languages referred to him are `manufactured/anagramitized using a certain technique'. The illustrations have not come out with any reference of significance in relation to the Vedic Sanskrit traditions. 

Polat Kaya:  I have not seen any reference in which it is stated that Turks were involved with  "Vedic Sanskrit traditions".  Hence it is out of question for me to make reference to such an imaginary source. 


My focus has been to look to a period behind the reference of `Turkish' and apply the `same logic' taking reference to the existing traditions and practices, which have remained unchanged over millennia in the Sanskrit domain. If the argument goes that Sanskritists preserved with extreme accuracy the `turkish model for manufacturing new languages, while Sanskrit itself is to be explained as a manufactured language from Turkish (under the classification of Indo-european lingusitcs model), the question begs the answer. If it is the other way round, as I am presenting, the Turkish language was arrived at with the Reverse anubandha karana process rules. Cluses and glues, which is historically an established tradition in Vedic Sanskrit to derive secondary languages for worldly use/ encryption (with a rule abse, well documented for different languages, technically called prakrits), then the proof for historicity of vedic Sanskrit beyond the claimed turanian 6000 BCE needs to be independently established.

Polat Kaya:  Historically movements of the Turanian peoples have been from Central Asia (Turan) towards all other directions.  In this movement, when Tur/Turk peoples moved out of Turan due to natural causes, they had their own language 
Those First Nation Turanians of the Americas, who migrated to North America some 15,000 or more years ago, did not first go to India to learn the Indian language and then anagrammatize it into some kind of "Turanian" langage before going on to North America. It just did not happen that way.  They had a language of their own which had nothing to do with the Indian language of Vedic Sanskrit tradition.  Additionally, Turanians also migrated from Central Asia down south into the Indian subcontinent.  Some stayed at different parts of India and some pushed even further south and south east Asia .  That is why the Indian languages got influenced with the Turkish language. 

Similarly, when the Turanians went to ancient Misir (Masar) and so-called Mesopotamia and Anatolia, they did not first go to India to get linguistic schooling there before they went to these places.  They had their own Turanian language and Turanian civilization that they carried with themselves. Thus Turanian language of Turkish is in no way of "Sanskrit" origin.  If Sanskrit is very much like the Greek that they say it is, then it can be said without hesitation that Sanskrit is also made up from Turkish data base rather then Turkish being from the Sanskrit origin.  

Will Durant also writes the following  [Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, p. 405-406]:

"The language of the Indo-Aryans should be of special interest to us, for Sanskrit is one of the oldest in that "Indo-European" group of languages to which our own speech belongs.  We feel for a moment a strange sense of cultural continuity across great stretches of time and space when we observe the similarity-in sanskrit, Greek, latin and English- of the numerals, the family terms, and those insuniating little words that, by some oversight of the moralists, have been called the copulative verb.  It is quite unlikely that this ancient tongue, which sir William Jones pronounced "more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisetely refined than either," should have been the spoken  language of the of the Aryan invaders.  What that speech was we do not know; we can only presume that it was a near relative of the early Persian dialect In which the Avesta was composed.  The Sanskrit of the Vedas and the epics has already the earmarks of a classic and literary tongue, used only by scholars and priests; the very word Sanskrit means "prepared, pure, perfect, sacred." The language of the people in the Vedic age was not one but many; each tribe had its own Aryan dialect.  India has never had one language." 

Polat Kaya: It is quite natural for the Aryans to call the manufactured language of Sanskrit by the adjectives of "prepared, pure, perfect and sacred" because they manufactured the language for their secret aims.  Its being manufactured is already being admitted by the word "prepared" which is another way of saying that Sanskrit was manufactured. But from "what language", that is unknown.  I say that unknowing language was "Turkish" as it has been used by the Greek, Latin and the other Indo-European languages.  

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) [1963, vol. 19, p. 954] writes:  

"SANSKRITE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: The most important branch of the Indo-European family of languages in Asia is Aryan or Indo-European, with two main divisions:  Iranian and Indo-Aryan, languages belonging to the latter are spoken to-day by 250 million people in India, where they are the dominant languages except in the south, in Ceylon and the Maldive Islands, and throught western Asia  and Europe by colonies of Gypsies (see ROMANY LANGUAGE). As languages of administration they spread at one time far into central Asia, where now is Chineese Turkistan."

Polat Kaya:  This statement from EB, indicates that the original European Aryans were "Gypsies" who by their lifestyles are called in Turkish as "Çingene" (Kipti, gezginci, arayan) meaning "wanderer", from which the name "Aryan" has been generated. All European Romany Languages are broken up and manufactured languages.  Probably the oldest group of these ancinet European Gypsies who came to the lands of ancient Turanians in Europe and Asia Minor were the Gypsy Greeks (Rum, Roam) themselves who had nothing to claim for their name when the Turanian natives had already developed a settled civilization that has become the source for the present civilization of the "European Aryans". When they arrived, they found the native Turanians having a well established language of their own called "TURKI" or "OGUZ" language which they were using in the administration of their own  states and affairs.  But these Greek Gypsy colonies knew how to break the Oguz language  and manufacture a language for themselves. 

Similarly when the "Gypsy" colonies (missionaries) who probably went into Central Asia, the native Turks of Turkistan already had their language without the help of this incoming wanderers.  If anything at all, they usurped the native peoples' Turkish language by breaking and re-arranging its elements to come up with a broken up language for themselves.  Of course with that they also took over instantly the Turanian civilization expressed by that Turanian language.  


And this needs to be supported by evidence for the movement of cultures in to central asia from North eastern segment of India.Also, this needs to be comparatively supported with the live continuity of traditions. In this case, the Turanin (Turkish) links to India through `invasion' needs to be looked back as `home coming' `or `plundering wealth and traditions in search of the secrets of vedic magic'! This is an issue that needs to be researched and debated by a wider team. 

Polat Kaya:  Dr. Sastry, you do have a way of twisting things around.  What you are saying is that "Turks went to India, became indianized there, then went back tu Turan, and after a while they were coming back to India.  This is what your term of "homecoming" implies.  Or "Aryan" missionaries went to Central Asia and were coming back to India.  If this was the case, then all they left behind was some ficticious names such "BACTRIA" which in fact  was Turkistan, the homelands of Turks, as the name clearly shows that it was the Turkish name "BEK TUR ÖYÜ" (Bey Tur Öyü) meaning "Home of Lord Tur".  It is clear that these missionaries broke up the Turkish name and restructured it as a broken up "Aryan" name and claimed it as their own.  By this kind of name changing "trick", the Aryans had made a lot of unwarranted claims for themselves. 

Additionally, when you claim that 
"the Turanin (Turkish) links to India through `invasion' needs to be looked back as `home  coming' `or `plundering wealth and traditions in search of the secrets of vedic magic'! ", I say you are kidding yourself and others as well.  The "secrets of vedic magic" has really nothing valuable in them to offer to anyone let alone to the Turks of Turan.  Those "secrets of vedic magic" are good only for those "magicians" who make a habit of "conning" the people. Turks have not been in that business! Additionally,  Turanians have left behind magnificent monuments and constructions in India to their credit that cannot be denied. Furthermore even some learned Indians admit the influence of Turkish in Indian language and culture.  You cannot dismis it so readily. 


As it stands the available evidence points clearly for the movement of Indian veda-yoga-tantra traditions to central asia and beyond. The debated issue is one of historicity. And obviously in this exercise of `hara-kiri of native traditions in bringing out the truth of Vedic traditions', no `nationalist adhering to abrahanmic traditions and linguists' would venture! That is the reason why all efforts are made to suppress the truth of `vedic traditions' through linguistic veil and misdirected presentations.

Polat Kaya:  Dr. Sastry you are making double talk.  If what you say, then how come Turks do not have "Indian veda-yoga-tantra traditions".  Who is "suppresing" your "vedic traditions through linguistic veil and misdirected presentations"?  If you are shadowily referring to me, I say you are terribly mistaken.  I had no idea about your "vedic traditions" until you and others talked about them in this forum.  I made some research about them, and what surfaced out of them was that they were  just like the Greek language and other Indo-European languages.  The words that I examined were made up from Turkish.  As far as you believing in your "vedic traditions", oh, please be my guest and carry on whatever you are doing.  It does not bother me in the list.  Please only read the citing that I have given below from Will Durant regarding the "vedic traditions".  It sounds very interesting!  

This is what exactly Dr.Kaya is charging on `modern lingusits from the relative position of `turkish language'! My own view: In search of truth, if the established historic views of `nationalistic religions' suffer,it should not be taken as a stigma. After all the `historicity does not change/bind the `faith' and `religion and spirituality'. They can still continue exactly the way the Vedic religions have been continuing in the three modes of a-
historic (=vedic), semi-historic (purana –sacred mythology model) and actual historic model ( like Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism) and still have a pride of existence and purpose. 

Polat Kaya:  What you keep calling "historicity" is a coverup for what has been done in the case of "Aryan languages". The dictionaries are full of evidences.  It does not make any difference at what time of "history" it was done, but the fact is that the Indo-European and Semitic languages have been made up from Turkish.  You may not be able to see this today.  But this fact will be recognized widely eventually.  Additionally I can assure you that I have no ill feeling towards you or the Indian people or anyone else.  Hence I have no reason to suppres your "vedic traditions". In fact some of best friends of mine were Indians.  So, my saying that Indo-European languages were made up from Turkish should not offend you.  Incidently I had already pointed out in one of my responses to Dr. Loganathan that the name "JAINISM" was made up from Turkish words "CAN" meaning, "life, soul" and "ISMI" meaning "its name". Surely explaining the make up of the Indian names, such as "JAINISM", in no way is intented to offend you ar anyone else. 

The misguided presentation of this is the note: -" The history of Aryan wanderers are full of all kinds of "CULTS" with utmost secrecy which have been mostly designed for "exploitation of people". 
(6) Regarding the observation, my approach is to look at the `eastern most end of Asia, which provided the base for the `manufacturing of Turkish language from the vedic yoga-tantra traditions'. Of course, this is a debatable issue due to the historicity. –

Polat Kaya:  Dr. Sastry, you are terribly mistaken when you say that 
"my approach is to look at the `eastern most end of Asia, which provided the base for the `manufacturing of Turkish language from the vedic yoga-tantra traditions".  This shows how little or nothing you know about the Turkish language. This I can understand because you had no need to know or no need to learn Turkish.  But saying that Turkish language has been made up from your "vedic yoga-tantra traditions" is totally misinformation and/or lack of information.  Turkish has not been made up from "vedic yoga-tantra traditions" or any other language.  In fact it seems that the Sanskrit language used in the Vedic traditions were manufactured from Turkish just like the sister languages Greek, Latin and other Indo-European languages were manufactured from Turkish. The wandering Aryan priests knew how to restructure the elements of Turkish, that is, an already established language for thousands of years earlier, and come up with languages that could be understood only by a few priviledged peoples  who used the made up language for their deceitful purposes. Turkish is a mono-syllabic, phonetic  and agglutinative language that probably was the most advanced language ever developed over thousands of years.  It is so mathematical that one may call it the "perfect" language.

Will Durant writes the following: 
[p. 116]

"The "Aryans " did not establish civilization – they took it from Babylonia and Egypt.  Greece did not begin civilization- it inherited far more civilization than it began; it was the spoiled heir of three millenniums of arts and sciences brought to its cities from the near East by the fortunes of trade and war.  In studying and honoring the Near East we shall be acknowledging a dept long due to the real founders of the European and American civilization."

Polat Kaya: This clearly explains that neither Greeks nor their other Aryan relatives were the contributers to civilizations.  In fact they did not inherit, they rather usurped the ancient Turanian civilization by way of confusing the existing Turanian Turkish language.  On top of it they were the destroyers of existing Turanian civilizations before putting something in its place with the knowledge that they acquired from the ancient Turanians. 

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) [1963, Vol. 19, p. 954] writes:

"Sanskrit, the literary language, although preserving the sound system of Vedic praactically unchanged, did not escape the influence of its descendants.  The grammar was considerably changed, chiefly in a simplifying and normalizing direction; meanings of words were altered and developed, and vast quantities of new words gradually absorbed after being given a Sanskrit form."

Polat Kaya:   In spite of the usage of laundering words, the meaning of this statement from EB is that  the SANSKRIT  is a manufactured language just like the Greek, Latin and the rest of the so-called Indo-European languages which are all manufactured from Turkish. The artificially made up language of Sanskrit was used by a limited number of population and the rest of the population used the so-called "old VEDIC" the nature of which is not defined.

In your item (3) above you said:


"(3) Regarding imagination in reconstruction by `process clues and glues'- the secret was no doubt held as a closely guarded secret by the `priests' and `temple personnel', kings and the select group. The reason is understandable. The secrets of magical chants are never revealed openly to the public at large and uninitiated." 

By this you admit that the Vedic cult activities had utmost secrecy that people could not have access to it.  Now, you are somehow forgetting this and labeling me as "misguided" creates a "contradiction" on your part.  Let me give you another citing from Will Durant.  He writes the following  [Will Durant, "The Story of Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, New York, 1954, p. 405]:

"In the earlier Vedic religion there were, so far as the evidence goes, no temples and no images;  altars were put up anew for each sacrifice as in Zoroastrian Persia, and sacred fire lifted the offering to heaven. . . . . The usual offering was a libation of soma juice, and the pouring of liquid butter into the fire.  The sacrifice was conceived for the most part in magical terms;  if it were properly performed it would vin its reward, regardless of the moral deserts of the worshiper.  The priests charged heavily for helping the pious in the ever more complicated ritual of sacrifice: if no fee was at hand, the priest refused to recite the necessary formulas; his payment had to come before that of the god. Rules were laid down by the clergy as to what the remuneration should be for each service-how many cows or horses, or how much gold;  gold was particularly efficacious in moving the priest or the god.  The Brahmanas, written by the Brahmans, instructed the priest how to turn the prayer or sacrifice secretly to the hurt of those who had employed him, if they had given him an inadequate fee. Other regulations were issued, prescribing the proper ceremony and usage for almost every occasion of life, and usually requiring priestly aid.  Slowly the Brahmans became a priviledged herediteri caste, holding the mental and spiritual life of India under a control that threatened to stifle all thought and change."

Polat Kaya: Now Dr. Sastry, if this is not deception and exploitation then nothing is!  As anyone can see, what is being described by Will Durant is a deceitful "business" establishment under the guise of "religion".  Thus their "deceit" eventually brings them to the very top of the society and gives them the full control of people in every sense.

It was also the same with the Apollo and Dionysus cults in ancient Greece and many other cults that were operated by the ancient Greeks. Thus you see that I am not "misguided" as you put it.  

Encyclopaedia Britannica [1963, Vol. 19, p. 954] writes:

"The most archaic of these texts is the Rig-veda, a collection of liturgical hymnes; this is followed by the Atharva-veda, consisting chiefly of magical formulas, of prayers, curses and incantations."

Thus what the client was getting was a bagfull of empty words, curses and singing in return for his horses or cows that he was paying for the "religious services".  Thus you see, I am not misguided at all.  Unfortunately this kind of religious business practices have come up to the present times. Religion is a very big business!


<<Dr.Kaya: Surely thestraightforward Turk did not even know what "anagrammatizing" was letalone excercising it on other languages. The Turk in the easternmost end of Asia did not learn his Turkish language by way of anagrammatizingthe words or phrases of Greek or Latin or English… This is pure Turkish in its agglutinative format and is formed in accordance with the rules of Turkish language. 
( 7) In the word identifications like `su'= water, in my view, reverse anubandha karana from the Vedic Sanskrit word `Apsu' meaning `In the water, APSU > (AP) SU = (In the) water is clearly explainable. But the reverse anagramtizing to the grammatically formed `APSU' from the given base of `SU' and the identification of rules for such `manufacturing needs to be elaborated by Dr.Kaya. 

Polat Kaya:  Dr. Satry, if in vedic Sanskrit "APSU" means "in the water", then most assuradly AP-SU is a composite word made up from two Turkish words: Turkish "SU-DA' means 'in the water" which is made up with the root word "SU" meaning "water" and the suffix "DA" meaning "in the".  It is quite obvious that Vedic sanskrit "AP-SU" is a restructured form of Turkish "SU-DA". 

Additionally, for the information of readers in this forum, I have noted and claimed repeatedly the term "APSU" in the Sumerian texts that it was the Turkish word "APA-SU" meaning "Father Water" just like the Sumerian "EN-SU" (EN-ZU) is the Turkish expression "HAN SU" meaning "Lord Water". This is so because "water' was one of the most important deities of the ancient Turanian world.  That is why the name of one of the six sons of OGUZ KAGAN was "DENIZ HAN" (SU HAN) meaning "Lord Sea" or "Lord SU".  Now you are coming up and saying out of blue that that Turkish word "SU" for water is derived from Sanskrit "APSU".  That does not make sense!  If the relation is correct, then it is the Sanskrit that took the Turkish word "SUDA" and converted it into "APSU" and disguised it into a form called its own. 

I place some more words from Vedic Sanskrit and show how Turkish expressions come out with the simple approach of `reverse anubandha karana' – as a simple, effective technique of `encryption', which needs to be deciphered!
>From this link, the emerging pattern of historic geographic movement of lanaguages would be `Vedic Sanskrit in yoga-tantra traditions (and of course coupled with the Sarsvati civilization historically and geographically to the northern part of India) – proximate movements to Central Asia and beyond as one stream; China and east in other stream. Each following a different convention of `anubandha karana (in your words- anagram technique/ encryption techniques, which need different approach for decryption and understanding, which is not covered in the current linguistics!).This seems to provide a new dimension of linguistics and the understanding of ancient cultures, lanauge, and a way to look at the available evidences in Egypt, summer and else where from the vedic traditions perspective.
( 8) coming to specific words :
- (a) "TEMYIZ" – THEMIS - "justice"- "highest court of appeal" – The Sanskrit word would be from vedic Sanskrit expression `SATYAM IISHAH'= (= Truth is God, God is the highest court of appeal). Applying reverse anubandha karana, SATYAM IISHAH > (SA) TYAM- (I)IS

Polat Kaya:  Dear Dr. Sastry:  First of all in Turkish we also have a similar belief. It says in Turkish: "Son karar Tanrinindir" meaning "The last judgement belongs to God".  Additionally, when a person is distressed from the injustice that he/she has been subjected to and he/she is unable to do anything to correct the injustice done, he/she may say to the offending side, with some satisfaction, that: "Sizi Tanrinin takdirine birakiyorum" meaning "I am leaving you to the judment of God".  Implied and as well understood from this tradition is that "God is the final judge who punishes or rewards the person in accordance with his/her deeds". So it seems that this concept is expressed in the same way both in Turkish and Hinduism.  

After having said that let us now turn to your "SATYAM IISHAH" expression meaning "Truth is God".  You applied your "anubandha karana" procedure and come up with the name TEMYIZ.   

-    As I have already explained when you first mentioned it, the expression "anubandha karana" is a "disrobing" concept applied to a Sanskrit word that has been anagrammatized from Turkish.  It is an expression like the term "anagrammatizing".  The very fact that you are appliying it to Sanskrit words, implis that words of sanskrit language have already artificially made up from something else.  If we take the expression "anubandha karana" and rearrange it as "KARAN-HAA-BAND-ANU" is very much the Turkish expression "KIRIN U BEND ONU" meaning "break and connect it (again)" which is the concept of "anagrammatizing" which itself is from Turkish expression "GIRMA YENI DIZME" meaning "breaking and re-arranging". 

Thus the expression "anubandha karana" is very much the same concept as the "anagrammatize" and its linguistic source is from Turkish.  Afterall, Aryan Greeks used the technique to come up with the Greek language,  why would not those Aryans (Arayan) who went to India use the same technique in coming up with a language called "Sanskrit"?    After all it is the easiest method of coming up with a language of your own.  Turkish is there.  One uses it and no one will know the difference.  After having made this point clear, I would like to ask you the following as there are some difficulties here in following you.  I would like youplease to explain:

-    What is the literary meaning of the Sanskrit words SATYAM and IISHAH?  which one is "GOD" and which one means "TRUTH"?  In my wildest dreams , I could not imagine that Turks could or would strip the layers of this Sanskrit  expression and come up with the word "TEMYIZ" as a name for "justice" and "highest court of appeal". After all Turks themselves are known for their "just" behavior towards anyone and everyone without discrimination.  

-   How did you know that you should strip the layers as you did?  What indications do you have that tells you that you should throw away the (SA) part of SATYAM and then (I) and (HAH) parts of the second word and then join the remaining parts to come up with the word "TEMYIS"?  

-    Is there a word in the form of TEMYIS or TYAMIS in Sanskrit meaning Justice?   If there is one such a word, why was it necessary to wrap that word with additional layers of verbosity?  

If you tell me that those Vedic traditionalists wanted to preserve the word "TEMYIZ"  in a disguised form, that is hard to accept also.  The only thing left to think about the disguise is that the source for "TEMYIZ" was Turkish, and "they wanted to hide it." They added additional words and/or lettering to disguise the core of the word.  Greek, Latin and English languages are full of this trick. They add to the main Turkish word that they want to hide, other additional non essential Turkish words and then restructure everthing together to come up with the new word that they then call their own. 


- (b) DOGU = born; DOGAN = born' - relate to the Vedic Sanskrit expression `UDAGAAT' Which is a grammatically formed word with two parts- UT = From above, higher source , origin + AGAAT = Emerged, come out. This in Sanskrit grammar technicality is called a upasarga modifying the meaning of a `verb declined for the past tense meaning'. There are well laid out rules to explain this dating back to Vedic grammar traditions of beyond 6000 BCE (these rules are called shiksha nirukta and vyakarana vedanga sutras). UDAGAAT > (U)

Polat Kaya:  I take the sanskrit expression "UDAGAAT" and rearrange it letter-by-letter as "A-DUGTA", I find that it is a form of the Turkish expression "O DOGTU" (O dogdu) meaning "he was born", additionally if I rearrange it as "DUGATA", it is a form of Turkish expression "DOGATI" meaning "it is nature" where everything gets born and dies.  

Thus the source for these expressions is the Turkish verb "DOGMAK" meaning "to be born".  The rest of the attachments are Turkish suffixes that give different meanings to the words made up from this root word.  If you notice, I did not have to throw away anything from the Sanskrit expression "UDAGAAT", I only rearranged it, that is, I decrypted (deciphered) it. 

Incidently, even the English term "NATURE", when rearranged as "ENATUR",  is also from Turkish expression:

a)  "ANATUR" meaning "it is mother". This is why Nature is often referred to as Mother Nature.  "Nature" is mother to all things that we see around.  

b) Similarly, when we re-arrange it as "ANU TER", it is the Turkish expression "ANU TUR" meaning  "it is the creator Sky-God ANU" or "TUR is the Sky-god ANU" both of which make up the word "NATURE";  

c) when "NATURE" is rearranged as "TANRUE" it is the distorted form of Turkish TANRU meaning SKY GOD.

Thus it is clear that there was really no need to hide away or preserve between wrappings the word "DOGU" in the first place.  Since they used extra wrappings, they did it because they wanted to hide away the Turkishness of the core word. 


- (c) "GIShI means "person" – Relates to `G(u)r(u)-(R)ishi'> (GURU-
RISHI> GISHI- Teacher – Searcher. The persons who ahd the knowledge of the plants and the medicinal herbs for ritual/medicine were considered as ayurvedic Rishis. 

Polat Kaya:    There is really no need to strip the Sanskrit GURU RISHI as you did in order to come up with the Turkish word GISHI meaning "person".  Furthermore Sanskrit "GURU RISHI" is already from the Turkish expression "GÖRÜ eRHISI"(Görü Ergisi) meaning "man-person who sees it", "man-person who has knowledge".  Hence the source for this Sanskrit word is already Turkish without stripping anything from it.  Turkish "ER-GIShI" means "man person".

Additionally, the so-called word "GURU"as used to describe people who are knowledgable, that is, can see things to be happening ahead of others, is the altered form of the Turkish word "GÖRÜ" meaning "he who sees it" and hence, "he who is a teacher or searcher".   The word GÖRÜ or "GURU" comes from the Turkish verb "Görmek" meaning "to see".  Thus again the root comes back to Turkish language. 

Thus I say your "anubandha karan' claim has no effect on the formation of Turkish words and expressions.


In my opinion, let us focus on the first phase of Turkish language centric studies and its relation to the other European languages, rules of linguistics and the hsitoricty. Once this is established, the next phase of going to a historical period prior to turanian ( whether it is Vedic or other wise) would be meaningful. Regards.
BVK Sastry

Polat Kaya;    Dear Dr. Sastry, this is what I have been objecting to all this time.  That is, the European languages are false or artificial languages made up from Turkish so they cannot be used as independently developed reference languages with which Turkish should be compared by linguists. I have already discovered that they are made up from Turkish. The language that is made up from another language cannot be earlier in time than the model language. The father and the mother are always antedate the children in time.  Now in your paragraph above, you are telling me that we should start all over again and compare all these languages and see how Turkish is related to them.  This is a wrong scenario.  I have already proven that the rules of linguistics and historicity of the European languages are artificial, and have been designed by those who want to cover up an act of usurpation of Turkish language. 

Before I forget, I want to ask you and the readers the meaning of the word AGASTYA which seems to be an important word in Hinduism.  Please give me its literary meaning if you can and whatever else it may mean.

My very best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya



========== original message ======= There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
2. Invention of the Alphabet
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
3. Voynich Manuscript / The Etruscans / The Lydians / Greek Inscriptions from Sardis
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
4. Politics and the English Language
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
5. List of countries' copyright length
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
6. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: "TIMUR KOCAOGLU" <tkocaoglu@...>
7. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: "TIMUR KOCAOGLU" <tkocaoglu@...>
8. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
9. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: "TIMUR KOCAOGLU" <tkocaoglu@...>
10. Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
From: "Kamil KARTAL" <allingus2001@...>
11. Indo-European Origins in Southeast Europe
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 14:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
Subject: Re: folk etimology (halk etimolojisi)
Timur Bey,
Burada bir hata var. Olasilikla sizin tarafinizda bir yanlis anlamadan kaynaklaniyor ve bunun nedeni, sadece makaleleri degil, konuyla ilgili dogrudan sahsiniza yoneltilen sorulari da okumaya deger bulmamanizdan kaynaklaniyor. Muthis agir ve kat'a onune gecilemeyecek turde bir onyarginiz var. Yanit olarak verdiginiz modelleme o kadar dar bir gorusu temsil ediyor ki, sorumu tekrarlamamin bile bir faydasi olabilecegine hic umut birakmiyorsunuz!
Soruma bahis olan makale, sayabildigim kadariyla 18 tane bilimsel referansi acik adres gostererek vermis. Irdelenen sozcuk ve kavramlari, M.Ö. 1. binden gunumze varan evrimsel bir cizgi icinde, farkli bir pencereden bakabilme kaabiliyetini bizlere sunuyor. Verilen referanslarin tumu muteber kaynaklar. Makaleler dizisi, diger deyisle soylemin butunu, kendi icinde hem de cok keskin bir tutarlilik sergiliyor.
Soylemin temel malzemesini olusturan unsur, eger Turk dili, Turk tarihi, Turk kulturu, Turk inanislari olmasaydi, buyutecle bulmaya calistiginiz o keyfiyeti belki bu kadar zorlama teviller arkasina saklamak zorunda kalmayabilirdiniz. Ancak, yazar tarafindan ""cozumlenen"" veya haydi daha orta yollu bir deyisle, ""cesitli cozum onerileri sunulan"" sozcukler ve gosterdikleri kavramlar, cok yalin ve anlasilir sekilde, ornegin, OGUZ, GUZ, GÖZ, AGUZ, US, SOZ, SES KUR, KOR, KÖR, TUR, AL, ALA, HAN, KAN ve diger pek cok denklikleri karsiliyor. Simdiye dek, burada soyleme karsi cikanlarin hicbiri, irdelenen sozcukler ile C ve V denklikerini matematiksel olasilik yonunden izah edemedi. Bakiniz, dort yili askin suredir Sumerce, Eski Misirca, Akadca, Mayaca, Sansktirce, Grekce, Latince, Ingilizce, Almanca, Italyanca, Fransizca, Arapca, Ibranice, Japonca, Cince ve Tamilce gibi farkli super ailelerden ve uzak cografyalardan ikibine yakin sozcuk ve ad, ayni kurgu ve dizge icinde filolojik, antropolojik, etimolojik acilardan TURK DILI ile karsilastirmali olarak incelendi. Tekrar dikkatinizi cekerim ki, bu C ve V denklikleri kimse izah edilemedi, siz dahil!
Isin merkezinde ANAGRAM oldugu gercegi ise, siz bunu ne kadar inkar etseniz de, eldeki en eski orjinal nushasi M.O. 500'lu yillara ait olan Tevrat'in ilk bes kitabindan biri konumundaki Genesis'te acik-
secik, sansursuz olarak yazili olarak bulunuyor. Bunu Polat Kaya farketmis veyahut o gorememis de sen gormussun, ne farkedecek? Biri yaptigi isi acikca itiraf etmis. Siz, hangi akla ve mantiga dayanarak ve nasil bu derece koyu bir siddetle kalkip onun savunuculugunu yapabiliyorsunuz? Bu cok uzatilabilir olan soru da, mesaj ipligimizin hep dugumlendigi noktalardan biri farkindaysaniz. Nedir, sizin o kisiye bu derece bir husnu zanla yanasmanizin nedeni? Kisiyi sahsen taniyor olmaniz olasilikla 4 bin yillik zaman farkindan oturu imkansiz ama sanki aile fertlerinizden birini koruyormus gibi sicak ve kesin bir guvenle hayir benim kardesim bunu yapmis olamaz der gibi bir duygusallik sergiliyorsunuz. Adam kendisi soyluyor, ben yaptim diyor, sevgili Timur Bey; bak, ben bu ilk ve kok olan dili kirdim, diyor. Biz de peki madem ki yaptigini iddia ediyorsun, o halde bunu bir inceleyelim diyoruz. En basite indirgenmis sekliyle soylemi incelemeye deger bulanlarin durusu budur. Bunun neresini aliyorsunuz ve nasil hayal gucu ve keyfiyete bagliyorsunuz? Diger yanda ise, siz Timur Bey, sorgusuz sualsiz sekilde, hayir asla sen boyle birsey yapmadin; boyle bir sey yapmis olamazsin, diyorsunuz adama. Herseyin bu kadar saf ve temiz bir evrimden gectigine olan duskunce bagliliginiz, inanilir gibi degil! Aslinda cok Turkce bir baglilik bu. Biz hep boyle saf ve kolay kanan insanlar olmusuz. Gozlerimizin icine baka baka elin oglu gelip dibimizi oymus ta oymus, biz yine de, sizin evlatlariniz bizim evlatlarimizdir ve onlar artik birer sehit olmustur, demisiz... Tam bir Turk gibi dusunuyorsunuz. Ama biraz da uyanmak lazim, degil mi Timur Bey!
Butun denklikler ve bu iskelet duzeyindeki karistirilmislik, kafanin bacaga, bacagin da kafaya takildigi omurga carpikligi, tam da adamin o 'yaptim!' dedigi seyi onayliyor. Kantilar, tarihi belgeler, bunlarin Polay Kaya tarafindan, --her ne kadar ilk etapta siradisi gelse de-- dogru bir mantik cercevesinde ve tutarli sekilde yorumlanmalari adeta, "armut pis, agizima dus!" dercesine bir tastamamlik icinde onunuze sunuluyor Timur Bey. Kus sutu bile eksik olmayan muazzam bir sofra... Gelin, yapmayin! Birakin bu onyargilarinizi artik bir kenara. Sizin bana modellediginiz "Kamil" ve "Timur" ornegi tam bir halk etimolojisi olmus gercekten de. Ici bombos, yere boylu boyunca uzanmis kof bir kutuk gibi. Hicbir referans vermemissiniz. Hicbir tarihsel boyut katmamissiniz. Muteber bir kaynak gostermemissiniz. Sadece iki paragrafta misal olsun diye birseyler karalamissiniz.
Boylece, Polat Kaya'nin makalelerinin ne kadar da bilimsel olduklarini bir kez daha onamis oldunuz. Gerci icimde ufacik bile kuskum yoktu ama sizden bu onayi almak daha da bir heyecan katiyor simdi.
Kamil TIMUR KOCAOGLU <tkocaoglu@...> wrote:
Kamil Bey,
Evet, bir dildeki kelime ve terimlerin baska bir dilden bozularak alindigini dayanaksiz olarak keyfi olarak aciklamaya "folk etimoloji" (halk etimolojisi) denir. Mesela, diyelim sizin adiniz "Kamil"i alarak, "kam" Türklerde din önderidir, "il" de ülke demektir, ya'ni Arapca "Kamil" kelimesi Türkcedeki "ilin kamili" (ülkenin din önderi) kelimelerinden anagram ile yapilmistir dense, iste buna halk etimolojisi denir. Veya, diyelim bir ingiliz de ayni yöntemlerden hareket ederek söyle derse: "Timur" adi Ingilizcedeki "iron it" (demirle) kelimelerinden anagram ile söyle Timur haline getirilmistir: "iron"daki "ron" ters cevrilerek "mur" yapilmis ve bu da "it" (yapmak)'in ters cevrilmis sekli olan "ti"nin sonuna eklenerek "timur" meydana
getirilmistir: iron+it > nori+ti > ti+nori > ti-mur
Iste yukardakileri iddia etmek bir halk etimolojisi örnegidir. Halk etimolojisinde kural yoktur: senin kulagina hangisi hos geliyor ve kafana hangisi uygun ise, onu öyle aciklayabilirsin. Bu yöntem ile herkes baska dillerdeki bütün kelimelerin kendi anadilinden anagram ile bozularak yapildigini ileri sürebilir. Buradaki SINIR yalnizca insanin genis hayaline kalmistir. Timur
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.
allingus2001@... 31.07.2005 13:40:25 >>>
Selam Timur Bey,
"folk etimology" ile kastiniz kavram, bu makale ile ortusuyor mu acaba? Yani bu makalede yapilan aciklamalar bir "folk etimology" ornegi midir?