Re: [hrl_2] Turkish and Greek ???

Dear Shanti,

First of all I find your response rather lacking in many ways. I wrote a very nice and explanatory response to your first posting.  I mentioned your name in the opening of my letter and closed my response to you with sincere best wishes.  I even thanked you for writing your views.  Yet in response to my letter, what you wrote was rather terse, unappreciative and discourteous.  With this attitude, you are not contributing to the "quality" of this group that you are complaining about.  

You said: 

" . . . this group is not concerned with the scientific
study of langauge and bases its claims on folk etymologies,"

By making such remarks you are only kidding yourself. Not only is this response of yours unfair but it is sophistry in nature. It tries to belittle what is going on in this group by way of bad-mouthing - when the reality is that big things are going on here.  What you are witnessing here is a unique and totally honest approach to understand and explain what has gone on in "linguistics".  I am presenting an approach that you have never seen before. To say differently is not an honest assessment.

"The folk ethymology" accusation is a concocted cliche distraction trying to pull away the attention of other readers from the things that I am saying.  I said what is needed to be said and it stands on its own merit no matter what you say. 

You said: 

"I will not give my opinions on what you have written and create a long
ciclical argument, rather, i shall simply leave you to your beliefs
and be done with it." But this means you are throwing your stones at me and then hiding behind a rock and do not want to get involved. If that is your wish then, you should perhaps not commented on my writings.
You refer to my "beliefs". Let me make one thing very clear to you. It is not my beliefs that are talking, but rather it is the Greek language itself opening up its secrets. The same goes for the other Indo-European languages. My beliefs have nothing to do with it. I have nothing against the Greek language or the Greeks. The Greek language itself is the evidence to the fact that it was made up from the Turkish language. But it has been so well disguised that its non-Greek Turkish origin is not easily visible. Since it was made up from Turkish it has also preserved the Turkish words or expressions that it was made from. Now I am only deciphering what has been restructured and disguised. This may not be in agreement with what you have learned about the Greek language or your own beliefs, but that is not my concern. Readers will eventually see the truth in what I am saying and get used to this new revelation. In the case of the "authenticity" and the makeup of the Greek, Latin a
nd other Indo-European languages, the world has been conned by a handful of very cunning and sophisticated people since the time of the Sumerians and Masarians.

You said: "I will not give my opinions on what you have written".  

Of course you won't, you probably had nothing more to say in view of my explanations regarding your "dialect" view.  If I may say so, you had only one arrow in your bag and after shooting it, there was nothing left to throw anymore. It was a "nice" try though! 

You said:

"Although in terms of advice I would recommend scratching the
langauge's surface a little deeper and try to look beneath the
orthography and the core vocabulary..." 

Firstly let me  make one thing clear to you.  I am the one who has gone way deep into the layers of Greek and other IE languages while you and many others have been skating on the surface.  Now you want to turn the tables around on me and tell me that I should scratch the "language's surface".  What do you think I have been doing?  You seem to be  echoing my words back to me.  If you remember, I was the one who wrote to you the following: "When one digs deeper, as I have, into the labyrinthine structure of Greek, there is another substrata there that is not Greek at all but rather is pure Turkish." I  am the one who went far deep into the heart of the words of so-called "Indo-European" languages and discovered that the Turkish language was at the core of these languages.  Secondly, I do not believe that you are in a position to give advice to me. 

You used the term ORTHOGRAPHY and VOCABULARY in your comments. Ok, let us do some "scratching" into the makeup of these two so-called "Indo-European" words.

The term ORTHOGRAPY is defined as being a "derivative of [ORTHOS right + GRAPHEIN to write], "art of writing words with the proper letters according to standard usage; correct spelling; also mode of spelling.

The "prefix "ORTHO" is defined as "A combining form meaning: a) "straight, as in ORTHOPTERAN"; b) "upright, as in "ORTHOGNATHOUS"; c) "correct, as in "ORTHODOX"; d) in correct realation", as in ORTHOCHROMATIC". (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 700). 

But what the linguists do not know or do not want to reveal is that the so-called Greek word "ORTHO" is really a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish word "TOHRO" (DOGRU) meaning "straight, correct, upright, fair, the one who is in the middle road". Thus this Greek word is not Greek in origin at all but rather is an intentionally distorted form of a Turkish word.  Now let us examine the word "orthography" meaning "correct spelling", that is, "correct lettering" of words. 

When the word ORTHOGRAPHY is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TOGRY-HARPH-O" (where the bogus letter Y=U) and read phonetically as in Turkish, we find that it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "DOGRU HARF O" meaning "it is correct letter" or "it is correct lettering or spelling" which is exactly the same as the definition given above.  Turkish words "DOGRU" means as given above, "HARPH" (HARF) means "letter" and "O" means "it is".  It must be noted that the Turkish letter "F" has been represented as "PH" which is the Greek letter "FI". 

Of course this exact correspondence is not by coincidence but rather is due to the fact that somebody restructured the Greek word from the Turkish source expression.  It also shows that your "orthography" term is not a genuine Indo-European word but rather is a word that has a non-Indo-European Turkish text at its core. When linguists take such a word as reference for their explanations, a word that they do not know how it has been madeup, they are bound to make wrong judgements, or judgements that are intentionally  presented to the world as correct although they know that it is not so. In any case it is a word that has been plagiarized from Turkish, deceptively restructured and sold to the world  as "Greek" and/or "Indo-European".  

Additionally, the term ORTHO also embodies the Turkish word "ORTA" (dogru, adil, dürüst) meaning: a) the "middle", b)"just, right, straight, correct, judicious, trustable".  

After presenting this new identity of the word "orthography", now let us see the some of the words associated with the bogus Indo-European prefix "ORTHO". 

For example, in the above definitions of "ORTHO" the term "ORTHOGNATHOUS" is associated with the meaning "uprightness". As I see it, it has several very important meanings embedded in it.  Let us first dwell on the given meaning. The word "ORTHOGNATHOUS is defined as: "having straight jaws";  "not having the lower parts of the face projecting"(Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 701).   

a)    The word ORTHOGNATHOUS, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "TOHRO-GANH-USTO",  with English "G" and Turkish "C/Ç' being the same in sound, is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "TOHRU-ÇENE-YÜZTÜ" (dogru-çene yüzdü, düz-çene yüzdü)  meaning "it is straight jawed face" or "having straight jaws".  This Turkish meaning verifies the meaning given to this word. Correspondence is exact.  Perhaps linguists should explain the reason for this correspondence. 

But most importantly I see some other meanings embedded in this word as I scratch more the layers of this "Grecko-English" word.  When the name "ORTHOGNATHOUS is rearranged letter-by-letter as: 

b)     "TOHRO-GUNASHTO" is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "TOHRO-GUNASHTO" ("DOGRU GÜNESTÜ") meaning "upright is the Sun".  Indeed Sun is the most upright being in our solar system.  That is why the ancient Turanians called it the Sun-God (GÜN-TANRI). Sun rays are straight as arrow, and the sun radiates its light and heat equally in all direction into the space.  The Sun can be counted upon to appear in the sky every day in the same way.

c)    "TANRU-OGHOSTH-O" is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "TANRU OGUZTU O"meaning "it is the Sky-God OGUZ" which refers to the name of the ancient Turanian Sky-God OGUZ.  The Turkish word "TANRU means "God". The name OGUZ refers to the Sun and the Moon as "O GUZ" (O GÖZ) meaning "that Eye" which were regarded as the "eyes' of the Sky-Father-God.  Sky-God OGUZ was and still is the embodiment of "being good, upright, straight, just, correct", and many more. 

d)    "OGHOS-O-TANRUTH" is the restructured form of the Turkish expression "AGUZ O TANRUTU" meaning "Word is that god", that is, "Language is that god". This ancient Turanian understanding of the "word and language" being "god" is in line with the theological understanding that "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god". JOHN 1:1.  Similarly it is no wonder that the ancient Greek god  ZEUS, which in one meaning was the Turkish "SÖZ" (Word) and "SES" (voice), was a "god". This Turkish expression also implies that OGUZ language, that is, Turkish, is the O-GÖZ (SUN) language. 

It is most enlightening to find that the Turkish words "OGHUZ" (O GUZ, O GÖZ) and AGUZ (söz, ses, dil) meaning "word, voice and language", have been preserved in this "Greek" and "English" word for the last several thousand of years. 

Finally the word ORTHODOX, meaning "1. sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, specifically, holding the Christian faith as formulated in the great church creeds and confessions. 2. Of, or pertaining to, or designating a church (Orthodox Church). [from Late Latin "orthodoxus", Greek "orthodoxos", from "orthos" right, true + "doxa" opinion".]  (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 701).

Of course this etymology is not truthful. 

When the name "ORTHODOXOS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "TOHRO-D-OXOS",  with Greek  X being "KH"  being equivalent to Turkish "soft G", it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "DOGRU OD OKHOS" ("DOGRU OD OGUZ") meaning "straight, upright, correct Fire OGUZ".  This Turkish expression, restructured into Greek, describes the name of the ancient Turkish and Turanian Sky-God OGUZ which refers to Turkish "GÖK-ATA-TANRI" (Sky-Father-God), "GÜN-TANRI' (Sun-God) and "AY-TANRI" (Moon-God).  

Evidently, the Greek Orthodox Church founders usurped this ancient Turanians Sky-God's name in Turkish and made a name for itself and then sold it to the world as its own.  Hence by way of anagrammatizing Turkish words and expressions, not only was the ancient civilization of the Tur/Turk peoples usurped, but also by way of sophistry and propaganda, the ancient Turanian world-wide sky-God religion was destroyed and obliterated.  The same thing was done in the ancient city of Babylon where cabalistic priests took and altered everything of the Turko-Sumerian pantheon. This is clear cut verification that Judeo-Christianity took all the tenents of the so-called "PAGAN" religion, meaning the religion of the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples, while denying that civilization.  Evidently they even plagiarized the Turkish Sky-God's name OGOZ as OXOS. 

As you can see, these revelations are not due to my preconceived "beliefs" but rather due to the artificially manufactured Greek language shedding its secrets.  

Now let us examine the word "vocabulary" which you used in your comment. 

It is said that "vocabulary" comes from the Latin VOCABULARIUM, VOCABULARIUS derived from latin "vocabulum" meaning "a word; term, name" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 1124). Vocabulary is defined as "a collection of words or phrases collected and explained in a dictionary or lexicon."  It is also my view that  "vocabulary" also refers to the total number of words  collected in the human memory in time since childhood. In this context,  human memory, that is, the "human head" is the most natural "dictionary". After all what is written in dictionaries and lexicons comes from the human head and mind. 

The latin term "VOCABULUM", when rearranged as "COLUMA-BUV", where C=K, is a restructured and wrapped form of the Turkish word "KALUMA" (KELIME) meaning "a word; term, name". Hence again the source is Turkish.

Similarly the Latin term VOCABULARIUM, when rearranged letter-by-letter as "BU-CALIMA-VORU", here C=K and V=Y, is the restructured form of the Turkish expression "BU KELIME YERU" (bu kelime yeri) meaning "this is place of words" which is a dictionary or a lexicon or the human mind.

In the case of the term VOCABULARY, the letter B is really a replacement for an M.  Substituting the original M back in, we get VOCAMULARY.  Now, rearranging VOCAMULARY as "CALUMA-YORV, we see that it is the altered form of the Turkish expression KELIME-YERI meaning "place of words" - which refers to the mind or a dictionary.

As you can see the more I scratch into the Greek and Latin languages the more I find unending revelations in Turkish. My "scratchings" deep into these Greek and Latin words have brought into the sunlight many hidden truths regarding Turkish embedded in the so-called "Indo-European" words. Evidently those Greeks and Latins, like the Akkadians, who made these linguistic alterations from Turkish knew Turkish very well. Also it says that Turkish was the model language for all of those manufactured languages, and the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages did not exist before. Therefore they had to use the Turkish language as the model and source for their fabricated languages. This fact has been denied and has been kept secret for thousands of years. 

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

Shanti wrote:

Yes your post, which by the way I did read fully, has clarified
certain things... this group is not concerned with the scientific
study of langauge and bases its claims on folk etymologies,
coincidental lexical similarities and orthography...
I will not give my opinions on what you have written and create a long
ciclical argument, rather, i shall simply leave you to your beliefs
and be done with it. Although in terms of advice I would recommend scratching the
langauge's surface a little deeper and try to look beneath the
orthography and the core vocabulary... Shantixxx