Re

Re: [hrl_2] Reply to Turkish origin theory

David,

Thanks for responding to the previous correspondence on the subject. While I appreciate your response, I also think it requires further comments.

1. You said:

I agree that many of the correspondences that Polat Kaya are correct, a great many of them, in so far as those I am familiar with or can verify. I think all of these Hebrew correspondences are correct, though I do not recognize the Hebrew word for sister (I simply do not recall the Hebrew word for sister).

Polat Kaya: Thank you for being a "recognizer" of the fact that my decipherments, hence Turkish correspondences, are correct. You will also agree that this establishes the fact that there is somehow a linguistic linkage between Semitic "HEBREW" and the Turkish language. But that linkage, as I have been pointing out all along, is not due to a genetic relationship between them, but rather due to the fact that the ancient Semites (and many other wanderer groups) used ancient Turkish words and phrases as source material for languages that they artificially manufactured from Turkish. The "anagrammatizing" technique was the perfect tool invented by the Akkadians and other Semitic wanderer groups to come up with new languages for themselves. The following reference from Ghil'ad Zuckermann is very informative.

Author Ghil'ad Zuckermann in The Linguist wrote in url:
http://saussure.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/pubs/diss/browse-dis-action.cfm?DisslD=839

"Abstract: Hebrew was a comatose, one might even say clinically dead, for approximately 1,750 years, going unspoken from the second century AD to the beginning of the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century an attempt was launched to revive Hebrew, resulting in the formation of the language referred to in this dissertation as Ivrit. The revivalists sought to fill lexical voids arising from the paucity of texts in various disciplines. However, they ensured that this was not achieved by the direct transfer of loan words. One of their most prevalent methods of lexical enrichment has been what I call 'folk-etymological nativization'. The latter is a technique by which a foreign word is reproduced in a target language, using pre-existing native elements that are similar to the foreign word both in meaning and in sound. Thus, the English word 'dummy' was transformed into Ivrit as d' (cf. tank d' 'dummy tank'), making use of the Hebrew root d.m.h. 'seem alike' (cf. Biblical Hebrew d.m.y., which is etymologically unrelated to 'dummy'. Folk-etymological-nativization is an ideal means of lexical enrichment because it conceals foreign influence from future native speakers, recycles obsolete roots and words (a delight for purists) and facilitates initial learning among contemporary learners and speakers.

Linguists have not studied such camouflaged borrowing systematically but rather given it dismissive treatment. The traditional classifications of borrowing ignore this phenomenon (e.g. Einar Haugen's The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing', Language 26: 210-31, 1950). Furthermore, these classifications categorize borrowing into either substititions or importation, whereas folk-etymological nativization involves simultaneous substitution and importation. This oversight maay have been excusable had folk-etymological nativization existed only Ivrit. However, as demonstrated in this dissertation, the phenomenon is widespread in three key categories of language:
(i) languages using phono-logographic script, e.g. Chinese and Japanese,
(ii) 'reinvented languages, in which language-planners attempt to replace undesirable loan-words, e.g. Ivrit and Revolutionized Turkish, and
(iii) minority languages, in which language-planners, e.g. Yiddish and languages spoken by Roma (Gypsies)."

Polat Kaya: There is a lot to be said about the contents of this citing. In the above, the term "camouflaged borrowing" used by Mr. Zuckermann actually means "stealing from a foreign language". Mr. Zuckermann was bold enough to state this kind of linguistic activity in such bold statements. Of course he is also justifying the act of stealing from one language into another as a convenient and most efficient method of "language engineering". This is what I have been saying all along in my writings, that is, the act of "anagrammatizing" (i.e., encrypting/altering and wrapping/camouflaging) is the most perfect way of stealing the language and civilization of another people. This kind of linguistic plagiarism is not a new phenomena, but rather one that has been going on since the Semite Akkadians infiltrated the Turanian Sumerians. In all this so-called"camouflaged borrowing", "Turkish" was the target source-language from which continuous stealing was perpetrated into so many "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages. The act of stealing from a foreign language has been laundered into clean-and-innocent sounding verbology by using euphemism terms like 'folk-etymological nativization', 'substititions' or 'importation', etc.. In actuality linguists not only ignored the phenomena but also invented distractions to alleviate any finger pointing. In my writings I have put this so-called "camouflaged borrowing" (i.e., pirating) from Turkish into daylight.

By the way, in the above quotation, Zuckerman classifies Turkish as "Revolutionized Turkish" and implies that Turkish is a "reinvented language" as his "Ivrit" is. Nothing can be further from the truth. Turkish does not take words from other languages and then alter or anagrammatize them as Zuckerman wrongly claims. Zuckerman does admit though, that what he artificially calls "Ivrit" (that is, revived Hebrew - after being clinically dead for 1750 years) is a manufactured language that does "camouflaged borrowing". Also, one wonders why they did not speak Hebrew for 1750 years if it was their own language?

Many other writings of Ghil'ad Zuckermann can be found under his name in the internet. For example, from url:
http://www.zuckermann.org/print/research_print.htm we get the title: "A New Vision for 'Modern Hebrew': Theoretical and Practical Implications of Analysing 'Israeli' as a Semi-Engineered Semito-European Hybrid Language."

http://www.filol.csic.es/lenguas/botones/cvitae/zucker.htm

Now after referencing Mr. Zuckermann's writings regarding Hebrew and other languages above, let us turn to your comments.

You said:

My position is that I agree with correspondences of the formula abc cba. These are transpositions, simple transpositions where the right to left reading is the same as the left to right reading. But I do not think that btk > ktb, rather I think that ktb > btk.

Polat Kaya: I can understand your position saying that you think ktb is the source for btk and that you do not think that btk is the source for ktb. Evidently you are trying to keep the assumed "Semitic" identity of this word. However this position of yours is very limited and also not true. If someone was going to steal another language in a "camouflaged borrowing", why would he limit himself in reading abc to just cba? He wouldn't! He would alter it in all forms of the permutations because they are all available to him. When it comes to anagrammatizing the words and phrases of another language such as Turkish, the rule would be "no-rule" at all. In other words, any alteration is ok. This has been done in Greek, Latin and all other Indo-European languages, so why should the Semitic languages be any different than the others with whom they have held hands with. On the top of it there is no rule to stop anyone from altering Turkish "BTK" (BITIK) meaning "book" into "KTB"(KITAB) meaning "book". In this regard, let us see the following from an online Hebrew Lexicon:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=write&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

Home > Lexicons > Hebrew

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 5 entries matching: write

	English Translation	Original Word	Transliterated Word
03789	write	btk	kathab
03789	write up	btk	kathab
03790	write	btk	k@thab (Aramaic)
05608	writer	rpo	caphar
07560	write	~Xr	r@sham (Aramaic)

The interesting thing to note is that in the above "Hebrew" entries for "write" the word is given as "KTB" (kathab) as read from right-to-left which is "BTK" (BiTiK) as read from left to right meaning "book" in Turkish. Yet the Hebrew KTB means "to write" while BTK means "book" in Turkish. Admittedly, a "book" is also written material. But the term for "book" in Hebrew is given as "c@phar (Aramaic) and "cepher"(see below list):

Home > Lexicons > Hebrew

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 2 entries matching: book

	English Translation	Original Word	Transliterated Word
05609	book	rpo	c@phar (Aramaic)
05612	book	rpo	cepher

The term for "writer" is given in the same way:

05608

writer

rpo

caphar

There seems to be an inconsistency in Hebrew regarding the concepts of "to write" and "book". One is based on "ktb" and the other is based on "opr" from which "c@phar (Aramaic)" or "cepher" is transliterated. Yet the Hebrew "KTB" is very much the reverse of the Turkish "BTK".

You said:

Egyptian forms are the oldest known writing. And Semitic patterns are found therein, not Altaic patterns.

Polat Kaya: The Masarian writing is an ancient "picture writing system". It could be read from right-to-left and left-to-right depending on how it was written and positioned. It was also written in top-to-bottom fashion. Your saying that "Semitic patterns are found in Egyptian writing" may be true but it is not due to a genetic relationship. Ancient Egyptians were not Semites! What has been presented to us as ancient Egyptian is not necessarily the true ancient Egyptian but rather a distorted view produced by mostly Semitic and European scholars. Therefore the ancient Masarian, as we are presented with, is very much Semitized. Implying that Ancient Masarians did not write with vowels is not correct either. It is a generated argument to provide a false basis to connect Semitic languages to ancient Masarian. As you notice, I am not using the word "EGYPT" because it is a concocted name meaning "Gypsy". The ancient Egyptians were not Gypsies. When the wandering groups had the opportunity to invade Masaria, they conveniently changed the name to "EGYPT" implying that they were the original owners. In this context, even the land of ancient Masarians has been usurped. Just like the Akkadians changed everything Sumerian and claimed as their own and just like the Greeks changed all the Turkish names and words and claimed as their own, so did the other wanderer groups. Regarding the ancient writing in Masar, linguist Sir E. A. Wallis Budge writes in his book entitled "Egyptian Language" written in 1910 in British Museum. [Reference source: Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "Egyptian Language", London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications Inc, Forteenth Impression, 1977, Introduction and Cover page.] and it states:

"The ancient Egyptians expressed their ideas in writing by means of a large number of picture signs, known as hieroglyphics. They began to use them for this purpose more than seven thousand years ago, and they were employed uninterruptedly until about 100 BC, that is to say, until nearly the end of the rule of the Ptolemies over Egypt. It is unlikely that the hieroglyphic system of writing was invented in Egypt, and evidence indicates that it was brought there by certain invaders who came from north-east or Central Asia; they settled down in the valley of the Nile, somewhere between Memphis on the north and Thebes on the south, and gradually established their civilization and religion in their new home. Little by little the writing spread to the north and to the south, until at length hieroglyphics were employed, for state purposes at least, from the coast of the Mediterranean to the most southern portion of the Island of Meroë, a tract of country over 2,000 miles long."

This says that there are evidences that "writing was invented in Central Asia" by the ancient Turanians who also migrated to the banks of the Nile river in North Africa and developed a fantastic civilization there. Hence those "certain invaders" were the Tur/Turk peoples of ancient Turan. And these ancient Masar (MISIR) peoples were Turkic speaking Tur/Turk peoples of Turan contrary to perpetrated disinformation. Of course these migrating Turanians brought their knowledge of pictorial writing with them wherever they went. There are thousands of Turkish "damgas" embellished on stones, that is, ancient symbols that Tur/Turk peoples have used for identifying themselves and their needs. They are the forerunners of pictorial and alphabetical writing systems because of the agglutinative nature of the Turkish language.

Please also see my message No.311 at url:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/311

All of this information that I provide above indicates that the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples were far earlier than the Indo-Europeans and the Semites. Those who did the so-called "camouflaged borrowing" of the words and phrases of the Turkish language can not be expected to admit what they did.

You said:

So for instance [sun] [scarab] [three short verticals] [basket] ^ SLUM /salaum/ "peace". [water] [water] [water] ^ MMM ^ MYM which is Hebrew for "water". [horn] [sun] [horn] is xSx (using x as a variable), only S makes sense in the initial position and final position, SSS ^ SYS meaning "rejoyce", this is the Isis crown in fact, notice sys ^ sis; I would like to use an American pop culture phrase at this point: "you can't touch this" (meaning it is impecable).

(Where Polat uses X I use S, where Polat uses W I use U in semitic)

First of all, the ancient Masarian language was Turkish and has been presented to us in an anagrammatized form by the people who dealt with this subject. So what we are presented with is not a true picture. Additionally, the "scarab" whose so-called scientific name is given as "SCARABAEUS SACER" described as a "scarabaeid beetle, especially the large , black, dung beetle, held sacred by the ancient Egyptians as the symbol of resurrection and fertility." [EB World Language Dictionary, 1963, p. 1123"].

"SCARABAEUS SACER"is an anagrammatized Turkish expression as follows:

"SCARABAEUS SACER", when rearranged letter-by-letter as
"CARA-SECAR-BUSSAE", is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish name
"KARA SIÇAR BOCAI" (KARA BOK BÖCEGI) meaning "Black Dung Beetle" which clearly establishes the fact that the so-called Indo-European scientific names for insects and plants are mostly Latinized Turkish expressions taken and anagrammatized from Turkish. Turkish word "KARA means "black", "SICAR" (BOK) means "excrement", and BOCAI" (BÖCEGI) means "insect, beetle". As you and all "linguists" can see, what I am saying is a hundred percent correct.

Also see my message No. 212 at url for "scarab":

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/212

As for the ancient Masarian ("Egyptian") name ISIS, I like to tell you that ISIS is the personification of Turkish "AY-IShI" meaning the "moonlight". It is personified as a feminine personality. This name still exists among Turkish and Muslim names as "AYShE" and "AYIShE" and "AYIShI". The ISIS crown that you refer to is nothing but the sunlight that falls on the moon. It is hard to see how the concept of "rejoice" could be related to the concept of "crown" or to the concept of "SALAM" meaning "peace". Incidently, Turkish also uses the word "SELAM" (SALAM) for greeting people. So I am not sure how much "untouchable" is your example.

You said:

For instance "door" is dlt. I would then expect an anagramatizing language to turn that into tdl, ltd, or tld (but NOT ldt or dtl); it must preserve an element of at least two consonants dl or lt, or be a transposition, otherwise it would show no evidence of an understanding of the original morphology: as in such cases as ldt or dtl. This is because in dlt I am certain that either dl is a root or tl is a root.

Polat Kaya: DLT has the variations of TDL, LTD, TLD, DTL and LTD. In the case of anagrammatizing a word of the structure of DLT, your exclusion of "ldt" and "dtl" is not logical. An anagrammatizing language could certainly include those two variations as well - because the anagrammatizing rule is "anything form other than the original is acceptable". Additionally if one of the consonants is dropped as in your example of "dl" and tl' you cannot return back to original "DLT". So your feeling certain that either "dl" or "tl" is a root of "dlt" is not correct either.

Furthernore you must note that tdl is made up with just the consonants alone which is already an anagrammatized (altered) word because the vowels are missing. Hence it is not a definite word at all. It is a vague structure. As one fills in the vowels between the consonants, one can get all kinds of words with meanings unrelated to each other. Similarly neither "dl" nor "tl" is a definite word. So removing vowels is itself a form of "anagrammatizing". When you start with a form such as "tdl", you have already distorted the original word. Hence you cannot be accurate and truthful when you later fill in the vowels which give life to the word. The consonantal form makes just the skeleton of the word. One cannot recognize a person from his bare bone skeleton. So let us not con each other in this regard. An anagrammatizing language can do anything with a given word including stripping it of its vowels. After having said this, let us look at your "door' example:

The following is from an Internet online site giving Hebrew words versus the English words. It provided seven "door" related Hebrew words as shown in the table below:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=door&version=kjv&type=eng&submit=Find

Home > Lexicons > Hebrew

The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon

Found 7 entries matching: door

	English Translation	Original Word	Transliterated Word
01817	doors	tld	deleth
04947	upper door post	@wqXm	mashqowph
05592	door	@o	caph
05605	doorkeeper	@po	caphaph
06607	door	xtp	pethach
07778	doorkeepers	r[wX	show`er
08179	door	r[X	sha`ar

First, we have the "Hebrew" word "dlt" transliterated as 'deleth' meaning "door". I say the "dlt" vocalized as "deleth" is the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "DILDI" (TILDI, DILTI) meaning "it is tongue". Let me explain the connection: the "mouth" is an "opening". The "tongue" can serve as a swinging "door" role that can be used to open and close that opening called "mouth". Any "door" is an entrance to an enclosure; secondly, it is a hinged blockage that opens and closes the entrance to the enclosure. Therefore I would say that, Hebrew "DELETH" is a word from Turkish. In addition to this we have the following Hebrew words to consider.

Here is the example output that one online Hebrew lexicon gives corresponding to the word "DOOR". It is very enlightening. First of all it also provides CAPH as meaning "door". The word "CAPH" is nothing but the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "KAPI" where Turkish "K" has been changed to "C" as in Latin and some other Indo-European languages. Additionally the letter "I" has also been changed to "H" as in Greek. Thus Turkish "KAPI" has been altered and lost as CAPH that can be vocalized as KAF, CAF, SAF, etc.. This is anagrammatizing from Turkish into Hebrew.

Additionally we have the hebrew word for "doorkeeper" is given as:

doorkeeper

@po

caphaph

First of all, embedded in the English term "DOORKEEPER" is the Turkish word "KAPI ERIDUR"(KAPICIDUR) meaning "he is doorman", "he is doorkeeper". This we can see readily when we rearrange the restructured word "DOORKEEPER" letter-by-letter as "KOPE-EREDOR" which is the distorted form of the Turkish expression "KAPI ERIDUR". Thus this so-called "English" language word is not "English" at all but rather Turkish in origin. Additionally, the term "DOOR" has the Turkish word "DURU" embedded in it. DURU (DUR O) means "it is stoppage" or "thing that stops". It comes from Turkish verb "durmak" meaning "to stop". A "door" is a point where one stops and then proceeds. Similarly the Turkish term "KAPI" meaning "door" is also derived from Turkish verb "kapatmak" meaning "to close, to block". Thus KAPI is "that which closes" or "that which blocks", "that which stops". Thus the English terms "door" and "doorkeeper" are words that have been manufactured from Turkish. So is the Hebrew term "CAPHAPH".

As can be seen the transliteration of the consonantal Hebrew words are very liberal. It is not clear how one could get "caphaph" from "@po" meaning "doorkeeper". This is an important question!

However it can be seen as follows: The Turkish word "KAPIERI" (KAPIARI, KAPICI) means the "doorman" or "doorkeeper" as I explained above. The Turkish letter "R" is easily changed to "P" because in the Greek alphabet the symbol "P" in capital form is the Greek letter "R". Even the symbol of the Greek letter R (ro) in lower case is very much a stylized letter "p". Thus very cunningly, R and P are interchangeable in Greek. Hence, Turkish "KAPIERI" becomes "KAPIEPI". The Greek letter "I" is represented with the symbol "H" in capital form. Thus this alters the Turkish word "KAPIERI" further into "KAPHEPH". In the next step of alteration (anagrammatizing), Turkish "K" is changed into "C" which now makes the Turkish word "KAPIERI" into "CAPHEPH" or "CAPHAPH". Thus the original Turkish word "KAPIERI" (KAPIARI), by way of swift alteration handywork, instantly becomes "Hebrew" word "CAPHAPH" which can be vocalized as "CAFAF, KAFAF, SAFAF, etc. ." Of course such vocalization alienates the original Turkish words "KAPI and KAPIERI" from Turkish, and yet nobody would know how the word was developed. This makes it very easy to falsely identify and claim the word as a Hebrew word.

The Hebrew word MASHQOWPH meaning "upper-door-post" is actually the wooden piece that ties the upper end of the two side posts of the door, that is, in Turkish (KAPININ IKI YAN DIREGININ UST UCLARINI BIRBIRINE BAGLAYAN (KOSAN) AGAÇ parçasi).
When the Hebrew word MASHQOWPH (where W is UU), is rearranged letter-by-letter as "QAPH-HOSUMU", it is the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "KAPI KOShUMU" meaning "the door yoke" or the "tie piece of the door side posts". The word KOShUMU comes from Turkish verb "koshmak" meaning "tying them together as in "öküzleri arabaya koshmak" that is "tying the oxen to the cart with a yoke". Thus even the so-called "Hebrew" word MASHQOWPH is a stolen and changed word from Turkish.

Even the so-called "Hebrew" word "PETHACH" given above meaning "door", when restructured letter-by-letter as "CHAPETH", is the restructured Turkish word "KAPITI" (KAPIDI, KAPIDIR) meaning "it is door".

Thus we see that out of seven "door" related "Hebrew" words, five are anagrammatizations from Turkish words and expressions. If Semitic "Hebrew" language was developed independently from Turkish, then why are we getting this exact correspondences? The answer is in the fact that the Semitic languages were manufactured from Turkish just as the Indo-European languages were.

For truth searching linguists, all of this shows that Turkish was the BIRATA (PROTO) langage for all of these manufactured languages. The terms PIRATA (BIR ATA) meaning "one father", "PROTO" meaning "model", and furthermore "PIR UTU" (BIR OD O, BIR GÜN, BIR GÜNES) meaning "ONE SUN". This term when applied as adjective to the term "language" makes the Turkish language the "BIR UTU LANGUAGE", that is, "ONE SUN LANGUAGE" which is in Turkish: "BIR UTU DIL" (BIR GÜNES DILI) meaning "one-sun language".

You said:

My understanding of Ancient Morphology is different from Mr. Kaya. But my understanding of morphology does allow for the possibility of anagramatizing if elements are reversed. But the idea of mixing letters as individual letters is related to a wrong conception of morphology for the Ancient period, which has been found among some scholars of Hebrew, it seems to be non linguistic.

Polat Kaya: I am afraid linguistics has not been very truthful so far. If linguistics does not have any idea that European and Semitic languages were anagrammatized from one particular language, namely Turkish, then modern linguistics is very much in the dark and it is following a path that has no relation to what happened in the past. Alternatively, if the modern linguistics may have some knowledge as to what happened in the past regarding the formation of languages, but is not admitting that truth, then it is knowingly leading the honest pursuers of linguistics in the wrong direction. As you know, my approach to words of languages is very different than what you and linguistics think.

This comprehensive discussion of the subject matter regarding Hebrew should enlighten its unknown aspects. As for your final guiding comments/advice, I say thank you but I think it will not serve a useful purpose as I have already established my own guiding principles for my research.

Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

David L wrote:

I agree that many of the correspondences that Polat Kaya are correct, a great many of them, in so far as those I am familiar with or can verify. I think all of these Hebrew correspondences are correct, though I do not recognize the Hebrew word for sister (I simply do not recall the Hebrew word for sister).

My position is that I agree with correspondences of the formula abc

cba. These are transpositions, simple transpositions where the

right to left reading is the same as the left to right reading. But I do not think that btk > ktb, rather I think that ktb > btk.

Egyptian forms are the oldest known writing. And Semitic patterns are found therein, not Altaic patterns. So for instance [sun] [scarab] [three short verticals] [basket] ^ SLUM /salaum/ "peace". [water] [water] [water] ^ MMM ^ MYM which is Hebrew for "water". [horn] [sun] [horn] is xSx (using x as a variable), only S makes sense in the initial position and final position, SSS ^ SYS meaning "rejoyce", this is the Isis crown in fact, notice sys ^ sis; I would like to use an American pop culture phrase at this point: "you can't touch this" (meaning it is impecable).

(Where Polat uses X I use S, where Polat uses W I use U in semitic)

My understanding of Ancient Morphology is different from Mr. Kaya. But my understanding of morphology does allow for the possibility of anagramatizing if elements are reversed. But the idea of mixing letters as individual letters is related to a wrong conception of morphology for the Ancient period, which has been found among some scholars of Hebrew, it seems to be non linguistic.

So forms corresponding by transposition must be established first.

For instance "door" is dlt. I would then expect an anagramatizing language to turn that into tdl, ltd, or tld (but NOT ldt or dtl); it must preserve an element of at least two consonants dl or lt, or be a transposition, otherwise it would show no evidence of an understanding of the original morphology: as in such cases as ldt or dtl. This is because in dlt I am certain that either dl is a root or tl is a root.

As it stands I would like to support Polat Kaya for additional research into this area. I agree with many of the correspondences. I would like to see them classified in different categories 1) transpositions, 2) preserving a two letter root of initial two letter, 3) preserving two letter root of final two letters, ect... and also distinguish between exact semantic correspondences and non exact. And those correspondences not anagramatized.

1. nearly exact matches

2. close matches

3. transpositions with exact semantic correspondence

4. transpositions with some semantic matching

5. preserving a two letter root, ect...6, 7, 8

9. mixed letter correspondences with exact semantic matching

10. mixed letter correspondences with some semantic closeness.

First if you can establish 1, 2, then people are more likely to look at 3, 4. Establish those then people will look at 5, 6, 7, 8. Then people will look at 9, and 10. That is the best advice I can give.

Dave