Re: [hrl_2] I would like to see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words

Dear Petr Hrubis,

I read your letter below.  Now I will comment back to you on what you wrote.  My response will be in red with my name preceeding each response. Bold black writings are yours, black pale writings are from my original writing.

Petr Hrubis wrote:

Dear Mr. Polat Kaya,


thank you very much for trying to explain your ideas to me. Now, let me please respond to or comment on some of your statements (see below; my reactions will be delimited by three asterisks "***" an bold)


----- Original Message ----
From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
Sent: Monday, 4 December, 2006 1:17:36 PM
Subject: Re: [hrl_2] I would like to see examples of internal derivations of Turkish words

Thank you for writing. I do not know how long you have been following my writings, but there seems to be some misunderstanding of what I am saying and showing.


I didn't have access to the internet for a very long time, so I couldn't follow your postings. And indeed, I must be misunderstanding.


If you think that I am "transforming" Turkish words and phrases to try and catch a fit in some Indo-European word, that would be wrong thinking.  What I am doing is deciphering words of European "languages" back into Turkish because those words have been manufactured from Turkish by way of restructuring Turkish words and phrases.  For example, please read carefully my recent writings about the words "ARITHMETICA" and "MATHEMATICUS". 



I will do so later - after I respond to this message of yours, if you don't mind.


When a Turkish expression is encrypted, that is, restructured, into another word such as the words of the Indo-European (IE) languages, then, the "Turkish" text  has been transformed into some other "format" which is not recognizable as Turkish anymore - because the original Turkish text is broken into pieces and then restructured into another form thereby breaking the visual connection.  


Yes, I seem to understand this.


Breaking up and restructuring a Turkish word or expression is similar to when an English message is encrypted for security purposes. The text is first broken into smaller pieces and then these parts are rearranged in such a way that the original text is not evident in the resulting new text.


 This is sometimes called scrambling because the transmitted message does not easily disclose the original message. At the receiving end, a receiver who knows the encryption code can decode and put the received message back into its original form. Thus the receiver is able to read the original message again. This kind of message encryption is done in modern day communication all the time.



Alright. Then, whenever you encrypt a message, you need an algorithm. Why? The algorithm is the actual key to deciphering - decripting, decoding. Without an algorithm, however complicated it be, any decryption would be unthinkable. Well, you could ask an expert - a cryptologist.


Polat Kaya:    When you are encrypting text for security reasons so that only the intended recipient can read the contents, then yes, an algorithm is required so that the recipient can decrypt the encrypted message.  However, when a "linguist" takes a Turkish word or phrase and rearranges the contents to manufacture a new word very different looking from the source which he intends to use as a word of another language that he call his own language - then there is no need for an algorithm because the new word is not meant to be decrypted again!  It stays in that encrypted form for good!  

Therefore word manufacturing, as I have been explaining, is not the same as encrypting a message with an algorithm for security reasons for later recovery.  You must understand that I use the term "encrypt" or "encryption" to indicate intentional confusion or mixing.  I have used other terms as well such as "mixing" or "shuffling" or "restructuring" or "anagrammatizing" or "altering" or "changing" or "rearrangement".  All of these are terms describing techniques used to confuse the original text. 



 Through years of research and detective work, I have discovered that the "Indo-European and "Semitic" languages are full of words that have been manufactured from Turkish words and phrases.  However, these words of the Indo-European and Semitic languages are still in their restructured form.  Now I am decoding those encrypted words of the so-called "Indo-European and "Semitic" languages back into their original Turkish source text. In other words I am re-restructuring  them (i.e., decompiling or reengineering) back to their original Turkish texts that they were made from.



This will be the most disagreeable part of that all, I guess. So, it seems you deny the idea that Turkish had an ancestor (usually called Proto-Turkic, a common source for other Turkic languages, and further, possibly, Proto-Altaic)...? And that the various "so-called Indo-European languages", as you put it, also had a hypothetical common ancestor?


Polat Kaya:    I use the term "so-called Indo-European" because initially there was no such family of languages.  There was only the one language the world spoke as pointed out in Genesis 11 - which I am saying was Turkish.  I am also saying that Turkish was the progenitor language - at least for the so-called Indo-European and Semitic languages and probably others.  Additionally I am saying that these "IE" languages were artificially manufactured from Turkish.  The words that I decipher from the dictionaries of the IE languages are evidence of this. 

You must note that the so-called Turkic languages are actually dialects of the same language called "TÜRKÇE" and hence there is no denial of their ancestry. They are their own ancestry. Altaic "languages" are not different languages as they are artificially portrayed to be.  Before they were called "Altaic" languages, they were called TURANIAN languages!  Somehow the name Turanian has been erased.  Unquestionably,  those "linguists" who come up with this kind of notion have their own agenda. 

By the way, the word "TÜRKÇE" is readily changed into "TÜRKShE" which is then easily converted to come up with the "English" word "TURKISH". Hence, even the -ISH suffix, supposedly belonging to "English", is a distorted, anagrammatized, and disguised form of the Turkish suffix "-ÇE".


If you are asking for an algorithm of the way that the Greek, Latin or English etc. linguists anagrammatized Turkish words and phrases into these made up languages, the answer is that there is no single algorithm that they used in reformatting Turkish words and phrases.



That's in direct conflict with what I claim - thus, that for an encryption to work (i.e. to be decryptable again), there has to be a code, an algorithm of deciphering...


Polat Kaya:  Wrong!  An encryption, that is, breaking and rearranging, can work perfectly well without an algorithm, if, the intention is to never decrypt the encrypted text again.  I discovered that IE languages are full of rearranged  words made up by altering and disguising Turkish words and phrases.  The encryptors who manufactured these IE words never intended for the made up words to be decrypted again.  However, I broke that rule.  I started decoding them because I discovered that they were made from Turkish.  Until I brought this fact to the forefront, no linguist knew about it nor dared to talk about it - even if they did know it.   You are talking about how words are encrypted in a secret message to be later decrypted by someone knowing the algorithm.  I am talking about how IE words are constructed in the first place with no intention of ever being decrypted. They don't need an algorithm to achieve this.  They can confuse the Turkish source text haphazardly, as they wish.  You have misunderstood what I have been saying That is why you are in direct conflict with me..  

  There are a number of techniques, however, that they keep using in different combinations.  Basically, the original Turkish word or phrase is subdivided into its Turkish syllabic sub-components.



Well, I know something about Turkish phonology, but are you saying that individual syllables (regardless whether they were morphemes or their components) were shuffled? That would be a great difference.


Polat Kaya:   It could be anything they wanted.  They could shuffle syllables. They could shuffle smaller components.  Or, they don't have to shuffle anything at all.  They can disguise a Turkish word with "linguistic wrapping".  Take the English word "HERO".  It is made from Turkish root word "ER" meaning "hero".  This Turkish root "ER" has been "linguistically wrapped" with an "H" in the front and a Turkish "O" at the end (when you add an "O" to "ER", the result in Turkish means "he is hero").  All parts are then joined together to make one single word HERO which is then claimed to be an English word.  In this example, there is no shuffling of the Turkish text, but there is disguising of the Turkish text. 


  These sub-components, most of the time, are shuffled - like shuffling a deck of cards.  There is no algorithm in a random process of shuffling.



Unthinkable for a cryptologist's mind...


Polat Kaya:  You are going back to "cryptology" again.  A cryptologist is essentially a "confuser" of plain text to be transmitted to a destination securely.  His purpose is to confuse the message in such a way that it can only be understood by certain people. He does this in an orderly fashion using an algorithm.  By definition, though, he is not involved in manufacturing words for a fictitious language!   The people who are involved in manufacturing new words by encrypting Turkish source text don't want the new words to be deciphered again.  They are trying to cover up a fraud.  If they used one single algorithm, this would cause a "trend" to be formed and trends are easy to spot.  They are far too clever for that.  They use all sorts of techniques to shuffle and disguise the Turkish source so that nobody catches on.  All of this means, no algorithm is needed.

And besides, what I said previously still stands.  There is no algorithm for a random shuffling of cards.



  The shuffling places the sub-components differently from their original locations.  They can be rearranged forwards or backwards with some of the vowels being dropped or changed, some of the consonants being hardened or softened or even replaced by another related consonant.



Every mathematician (not even mentioning the cryptologists themselves, again) would begin to tear their hairs off their heads if they read this, I suppose. Are you sure that you can imagine, how this would randomize the output? And tremendously increase the probability of errors in the process of deciphering? Actually, the probability of misdeciphering (or rather non-deciphering) would surpass all the reasons to even try, I'm afraid...


Polat Kaya:  As I've said several times already, you have misunderstood what I am saying.  You are comparing apples with oranges.  Do not forget that I am talking about constructing new words for a new language by using another source and not giving reference to that source.  There is no need whatsoever for mathematicians or any deciphering in what I am talking about.  Therefore nobody has to tear their hair out!  



  For instance, an original T can be softened to a D, or an original D can be hardened to a T.



Can or has to? An immense difference...


Polat Kaya:     The person manufacturing new words from Turkish source text can replace a T with a D or vice versa.  He does whatever he feels like doing because his goal is to easily come up with a new word by altering and disguising a Turkish source text which he will then claim as his own creation.  Yes indeed it makes an immense difference when you change an original "D" to a "T", or an original "K" to a "C".  If nothing else, it breaks the visual connection and thereby prevents recognition of the original word or phrase.  If the newly constructed word uses alphabetic symbols which are alien (e.g., Greek alphabet symbols), the visual connection becomes non-existent. But then, this is part of the intended disguise.


 An original C can be hardened to a K or vice-versa.



"or" or "and"? I'm sorry, I'm beginning to loose myself in the - forgive me - weird logic. The sentence above that you wrote means all the claims listed below:


Polat Kaya:    There's nothing weird about it.  You are simply not listening carefully.  Take the English word "ACCEPTABLE" meaning "qualified, satisfactory, admissable", etc. where the first "C" is voiced as a "K" and the second "C" is voiced as an "S".   Is this "good" logic to you?  Don't you think that the letter C having more than one pronounciation is weird?  As you can see, "C" and "K" alterations are taking place all the time in English.  If they were honest, they would have written it as "AKSEPTABLE".  This irrationality in English is part of the disguising used to cover up the Turkish source.  When the English word "ACCEPTABLE" is rewritten using "K" and "S" instead of "CC", we get "AKSEPTABLE". 

Now when "AKSEPTABLE" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "KABAL-ETEP-S", we find the Turkish phrase "
KABUL EDIP" or "KABUL EDISh" embedded in this English word.  "KABUL EDIP" means "he accepted". Now please tell me why you think I can find this correspondence?  This is definitely not a "chance resemblance".  I find this because it is highly likely that the English word "ACCEPTABLE" was made up from this Turkish phrase. As you can see,  there has been a lot of alteration, that is, both in symbols and also in their original positions in this Turkish expression in order to come up with the word ACCEPTABLE.  

Clearly, the Turkish "K" has been changed to "C" although it is still vocalized as "K".  And the Turkish "D" has been changed to "T". Additionally all letters have now been displaced from their original positions in the source Turkish text.   Thus the resultant word "ACCEPTABLE" is not recognizable as its Turkish source text "
KABUL EDIP". This is a vivid example of linguistic reconstruction from another language.  if they did one word like this, they did an endless number of them because they are gaining new words for free in a very short time.  Creating a genuine word from scratch takes a very long time.



1. An original C can be hardened, but doesn't have to.

2. An original K can be softened, but doesn't have to.


This actually means the the result is totally unpredictable:


C > C

C > K

K > C

K > K


Polat Kaya:  The linguist who is stealing from the Turkish language and making new IE words may keep a C sound in the Turkish source as a C in the new IE word, or, he may convert the original C sound into a K in the new IE word.  The Roman linguist may take a K sound from the Turkish source and convert it into a C letter but still pronounce it as a K.  the Roman linguist can also take a Turkish K sound and convert it into a Q letter but still pronounce it as a K.  The Greek linguist can take a Turkish C sound in the original source and convert it to a K letter and pronounce it as a K. It is whatever they feel like - but they never want to keep using the same alteration techniques over and over again because that will create a trend and they do not want their fraud detected.  They are trying to steal and cover up their tracks.  Therefore they will pick and choose from all of their alteration tricks.  It's that simple.   

Above I gave you the example of the word "ACCEPTABLE". Please read it again.  The real reason why the first C is pronounced as a K and the second C is pronounced as an S is because the word was really made from the Turkish source "
KABUL EDIP" or "KABUL EDISh" and they are trying to camouflage that usurpation.  When you make, say, a "Latin" or "English" word from a Turkish word that has a "K" sound in it, and when you represent that "K" sound as a "C" in the new IE word, then, you have already altered the structure of the Turkish word or phrase into a distorted form.  This is done for the purpose of camouflaging the Turkish source so that their fraudulent activity goes undetected. 

 Then C > ???, K > ??? you never really know, do you?


Polat Kaya:  Oh yes I do.  You may be confused but I am not!  I know when the letter  "C" in a Latin word is hiding a Turkish "K" or  a Turkish "C".  It all becomes clear when I examine the word with the given meaning attributed to it.  In order to illustrate what I mean, let us take the Latin word  ANTECANIS meaning "star,  a small dog". [1, p. 18]  

The Latin word ANTECANIS can be arranged in a number of ways to account the meanings attributed to it.

1.  When  the word ANTECANIS is rearranged in the form of "CANISTEN-A", where the letter "C" is actually hiding a Turkish "K" or "G", we find the Turkish expression "KUNESTEN O" (GUNESTEN O) meaning "it is star" or "it is from sun". Thus this Turkish phrase meets the first meaning (i.e., star) of the Latin word.  In this case of ANTECANIS, the letter "C" is actually a Turkish "K".  Thus I know what is what.

2.   Alternatively, if the word ANTECANIS is rearranged as "IT-CANESAN", we find the Turkish expression "IT-CANESAN" (IT CANISIN) meaning "you are a dog being" or "you are a species of dog".  This Turkish expression meets the second meaning (i.e., a small dog) of the Latin word ANTECANIS.  Turkish "IT" means "dog", and "CANISIN" means "you are a being", "you are a life", "you are a species". In this case of ANTECANIS, the "C" is a C as in the Turkish source.  Thus, the C in this Latin word is playing a double role for a hidden double meaning of the word. 
 And I still know what is what - but you do not!

3.  Furthermore, if the Latin word ANTECANIS is rearranged in the form of "IT-ANECSAN", where C is K, we find the Turkish expression "IT ENIKSIN" meaning "you are puppy" or "you are a small dog".  Thus in this case of ANTECANIS, the letter "C" is again hiding a Turkish "K".  This fully meets the second meaning attributed to the Latin word ANTECANIS.  Now I ask you, why am I finding all of these huge correspondences?   If you don't know the answer, I will tell you.  

Turkish IT means dog", and "ENIK" means "puppy, baby dog", SIN/SEN means "you are". Thus this is a descriptive expression in Turkish defining a small dog.  Clearly the correspondence is 100%!

4.  Alternatively, when the Latin word ANTECANIS is arranged letter-by-letter as "IT'AN-CENSE" where C is C as in Turkish, we find the Turkish expression "IT'IN CINSI"  meaning "species of dog".  A small lap dog is a small dog by nature and it is a species of the dog family.  Thus this Turkish expression again defines a small dog.

In This Turkish expression, IT means "dog", ITIN means "of dog", CINSI means "specie, kind".

Evidently the Latin "language manufacturers knew all of these Turkish expression very well and used them in making up the Latin word "ANTECANIS".  

 An original K can be expressed as a C or as a G or as an H or even as a Q.


Alright. I could imagine some very common sound changes here, like voicing (G), lenition (H), shifting to the back (Q) etc. But again, what counts is regularity - if conditioned...

Polat Kaya:    Let me show you an example of what I mean. The Turkish word "ALMAK", meaning "to take", can be vocalized in different Turkish dialects as "ALMAK",  "ALMAG" or "ALMAH" depending on where it is being said. Therefore if one was going to make a new IE word from the Turkish word "ALMAK",  the last letter of "ALMAK" can be shown in an IE language as  C, or K, or Q, or H, or a KH. This should be clear enough for you. Incidentally, why do IE languages have to have a C that is vocalized as a K, and a Q that is vocalized as a K and a K that is vocalized as a K?  In Turkish, we accomplish this with only one letter - the K letter. 

What is this "shifting to the back (Q)" business??  What is that all about?  Why should a K sound in Turkish be shifted to a Q in English when there is already a K present in English? And regarding your point about regularity, regularity only counts in encryption for transmitting text securely for later decryption.   If someone is usurping words from Turkish to enrich themselves, then irregularity is a better suited method because the Turkish source text needs to be disguised in the final IE word.  If somebody steals my car, he has to change or alter the appearance of my car so that I do not recognize it - even if I see it.  




  An original B can be hardened to a P  or even changed into a V.  An original P can be expressed as a B or as an F.



Wow, wow, wow, wow...that's too fast for me. I'm sorry. You're toying with verbs like "change" and "be expressed", but that's not the same. You seem to be confusing wirting/orhography with reading/pronunciation...could you, please, try to ellucidate this to me?


Polat Kaya:    I am sure you understand what I mean but you are artificially making a bogus case out of it. The letters B, P, M, and V represent sounds that are similar in their production, that is, they are "labial "sounds".  They can be used interchangeably in the hands of a word manufacturing anagrammatizer.  Using these sounds in place of one another is a great tool of disguising a stolen Turkish text.  An anagrammatizer making new words from Turkish words and phrases is particularly conscious of making his final concoction dissimilar from the Turkish source in order to cover up his tracks. Thus, he may use a "P" where there was a "B" or vice versa.  As simple as that!  The Greek alphabet is full of double identity symbols.  For example, "BETA" is written as "B" but read as "V", and Gamma is written as G but can be read as a "G" or as a "Y" (check your Greek dictionary).  When a single Greek letter can be used in multiple ways, then they are great tools for disguising the stolen Turkish source text that may have these letters (sounds) in them. 

By the way, for your information, even your "Wow" in "Wow, wow, wow, wow..."is stolen from Turkish exclamatory expression "Vay, vay, vay". You see how effective the bogus letter "W" can be in converting Turkish "VAY" to your "WOW".  So instead of VAY-VAYing, that is,  WOW-WOWing,  you should be reading deeper into your "Greek" alphabet.  



  An original C can be replaced by an S or written as a C but vocalized as an S.



Oh, oh, oh...I'm puzzled again - vocalized?


Polat Kaya:    If you read my above example of "ACCEPTABLE" carefully, you should not be puzzled anymore!