Fwd: Re: [hrl_2] The Methodology of Dr. Polat Kaya's

Dear Friends,

After reading Rebb's reply to my last posting presently at url 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/396 and finding that she has taken the unattractive way of responding me indirectly and in a rather vilifying manner, I feel that I must respond her directly rather than the way that she did in her ill composed posting.

Dear Rebb, 

In your posting you have portrayed a rather childish air in which you are not in talking terms with me, although you are talking about my work. Not that it matters any whether you are talking directly to me or not, but the important fact is that, due to your unfriendly attitude, we have lost the atmosphere to have friendly and sincere talks. For that reason alone it would be better to stop this argument here.  But before closing this chapter, I want to respond to some of your points in this posting of yours. 

I see that you are still trying to fuzzy up what I have written in my previous responses to your replies. You are juggling mathematics in order to come up with some probability figures trying to show me wrong. I have already explained that  the probability of my finding Turkish words and expressions in many "Indo-European" words should be almost zero if the Turkish and Indo-European languages were developed independently of each other. But evidently, that is not the case. My finding so many Turkish words and phrases in exact correspondences in the words of the Indo-European and Semitic languages are clear evidences that it was these later languages that were made up from the ancient language of Turkish. So your manipulations of probability mathematics does not change this fact.  Plus the fact that your probabilities do not apply to word-manufacturing situations in which words and expressions from another language are intentionally restructured in a totally free manner without any constraints.

I will respond to your reply as I did before, that is, my responses being interlaced after your comments. 

-------- Original Message --------


[hrl_2] The Methodology of Dr. Polat Kaya's


Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:28:40 +0000 (GMT)


Rebbutri Mamsam Isheppu <rmisheppu@...>





Rebbutri Mamsam Isheppu wrote:

Dear All,
I will try to write this as simply as possible. The
need for simplicity is due to my sincere wish that Dr.
Kaya will understand it, but may result in some
(hopefully insignificant) over-simplification of the
matters discussed.

Polat Kaya:  Dear lady, you are overestimating yourself. You are not complex nor your writings are complex. I understand perfectly well everything you write.  So you should not worry about my understanding of what you are saying.  You should rather worry about your own ability to grasp what I say in my writings.  You see with this opening lines alone, you have already stepped on a wrong foot.  You are being arrogant, agrressive and mean if I may say so.  That is not the way to start "friendly" discussions!


To find a cognate in accord with the historical
method, we have the following probabilistic values:
The order of elements is fixed, hence:

Polat Kaya: There is no fixed elements in "anagrammatizing" a given text.  Everything in the text is subject to displacement and change. Hence your probability approach is wrong from the very beginning. 


ABC[DE...] needs to be relatable to FGH[IJ...]
according to rigid rules, hence:

Polat Kaya: There is no "rigid rules" in anagrammatizing, altering, restructuring, of words or phrases from another language. So don't try to con yourself and con us too. Thus your assumptions are not correct. In this game, the purpose is to gain words for a nonexisting language by way of stealing the words and phrases of another language. 


ABC ~ FGH (but not FHG, GFH, GHF, HFG, HGF)
So, out of 6 possible comparanda, only one (i.e. the
one which is in agreement with the rules) can be taken
into account. Hence 1/6 = 16.67%

Polat Kaya:  I disagree with you.  Anagrammatizing is not like throwing a DICE with six faces.  They are two different concepts. So, please stop being deceptive.


To find a cognate in the way Dr. Polat Kaya uses, we
have the following probabilistic values:
The order of elements is not fixed, hence:
ABC[DE...] can be compared to all possible
combinations of FGH[IJ...], hence:
So, out of 6 possible comparanda, we can take into
account all of them. Hence 6/6 = 100%
These number are only surface and quite mild.
The historical method only allows one transformation
under one type of conditions or circumstances, hence,
one condition (i) changes A to F and only F:

Polat Kaya:  Your "historical" method is wrong because it is built on wrong and deceptive premises.  It does not take into account that many words of Indo-European and Semitic languages are made up from another language by way of anagrammatizing. Your "probabiliy" approach is just another distraction to cover up the fact that these words of the so-called Indo-European languages were not authentically or genuinely developed by the speakers of these languages but rather were restructured from Turkish texts that are expressions defining and describing the concept in Turkish first before being restructured. 


A(i) => F
Alternatively, we can say that the F also is somehow
(but strictly, rigidly and regularly) conditioned:
A(i) => F(i)
Which means, that A(i) => F(ii), A(i) => F(iii), A(i)
=> F(iv), etc. are impossible, and A(ii) => F(i),
A(iii) => F(i), A(iv), etc. are impossible, as well.
Let us imagine something straightforward - let us say,
that we have up to four conditioning factors for A
(i.e. {i, ii, iii, iv}) and up to four conditioning
factors for F (i.e. {i, ii, iii, iv}).
Let us have the following implicational paradigm:
A(i) => F(i)
A(ii) => F(ii)
A(iii) => F(iii)
A(iv) => F(iv)
(We have conventionally called the conditions in A and
F similarly to see it more easily)
Hence, the following are impossible (in accord with
the observation):
A(i) => F(ii)
A(i) => F(iii)
A(i) => F(iv)
A(ii) => F(i)
A(ii) => F(iii)
A(ii) => F(iv)
A(iii) => F(i)
A(iii) => F(ii)
A(iii) => F(iv)
A(iv) => F(i)
A(iv) => F(ii)
A(iv) => F(iii)
Hence, we have a total of 12 impossible cases and 4
possible ones, out of 16. This means that 4/16 = 1/4 =
25%. In other words, we have 25% chance of a right
match when trying to link A to F, or, in fact, A(x) to
Quite differently, Dr. Kaya's method has a success of
100%, as he can match the following unconditionally,
or almost unconditionally:
C => C
C => K
C => S
K => C
K => K
(K => S)
S => C
(S => K)
S => S

Polat Kaya:  All of these double identity letters come from the Greek and Latin sources.  In order to understand what I mean by saying that these letters have double or multiple idendities, you should for example,  study the Greek Alphabet letters [see p.10 of Divry'es English - Greek Dictionary, 1988]. Similar duplicity appears regarding some of the "Latin" alphabet letters.  So these changes that you refers are not my invention, but rather they are from the Indo-European sources. 

...needless to say that his "face values" are,
surprisingly enough, taken from various orthographies,
which - as he constantly denies - are only national,
ethnic or cultural CONVENTIONS (here, I suspect,
instead of real, scientific argumentation, he will try
to show me that the word CONVENTION is Turkish, in
fact - I can reply in advance: no, it is not.)

Polat Kaya: First of all you are confused in your statement above which is neither logical nor scholarly.  There are no "national, ethnic or cultural CONVENTIONS" that I am using.  There is no such thing.  And saying that I am using such conventions (which do not really exist)  is your sophisticated way of denying my very accurate decipherment of many words of these Indo-European languages. Secondly, your conventions are all based on deceptions that cannot be trusted.  They have lost all of their credibility. 

Additionally you are talking with preconceived baseless assumptions without any thinking behind them.  You must note and understand that saying "the word CONVENTION is Turkish" is not the same as saying "the word CONVENTION is made up from Turkish".  They are two totally different concepts.  Please don't confuse apples with oranges.  Since you are juggling mathematics in trying to impress me and other readers with your point of view, you need to be extremely careful and precise about your definitions.  Otherwise, the results of your mathematics will be wrong and you will fall into a trap.  As you may know the saying: "garbage in garbage out". 

Furthermore, if you are fair minded, surely you would give me the credit that I know what is Turkish and what is not .  I know enough not to say  "the word CONVENTION is Turkish". However, I am also well informed to say that "the word CONVENTION is likely to have been made up from a Turkish source".  Please don't be startled! Read very carefully what I am going to say below. 

The term convention is defined as : 
"1. Act of convening. 2. A body of delegates, representatives, members or the like, periodically convened for a common purpose. 3. Agreement or an agreement; contract; covenant. 4. General agreement as the basis of any custom, usage, or the like. 5. A rule, practice, form, etc. which has its sanction in custom or usage; as, theconventions of the novel; social conventions." [Webster's collegiate Dictionary, 1947, p. 222].  

In other words, in these contexts, the "convention" is a rule or law generated by some groups of people gathered in a place for the purpose of coming up with such rules. For example "parliaments" are such gathering places where they make laws (conventions) for people to abide by. When the "conventions" are for controlling the "social behaviours of people", then, they are called "laws" which people do obey.  Of course, in such a case, we would all abide by them.  But if the "conventions" are arbitrary "linguistic rules", then the matter is different.  Particularly, as I have said before, I am not bound with them because they are wrong. Now let us turn to the make up (morphology) of your term CONVENTION or better yet to the word CONVENTIONALIZE. 

When the word CONVENTIONALIZE is rearranged letter-by-letter as "EVINIZE-CANONTO-L", where C is K, I find the Turkish expression "EVINIZE KANUNTU" meaning "it is the law to your home", "it is the rule to your house" which is exactly the definition attached to this so-called "English" word.  The fact that I am able to find this perfect correspondence between this "Indo-European" word and this Turkish expression is not explainable by your probability calculations no matter how much you juggle them. The only way that this is possible is due to the fact that this English word and its claimed "Latin" source were restructured from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing a certain Turkish expression having the same meaning and lettering.  Once you grasp this fact, then the rest should be easy. You must note that the word CONVENTION is just a cut-off front end of this restructured, distorted, Anglicised and disguised word "CONVENTIONALIZE". In other words, CONVENTIONALIZE is the source for the word CONVENTION and not the other way around. Any linguistic explanation saying that the word "CONVENTIONALIZE" is from CONVENTION is a deception and disinformation. 

Please note that Turkish word EV means "house, home", EVIN means "of house, of home", EVINIZE means "to your home, to your house", KANUN" means "law, rule, tradition" and  KANUNTU means "it is the law, it is the rule". These Turkish words were already woven into the Turkish expression "EVINIZE KANUNTU" in accordance with Turkish language word formation rules.  But those "word anagrammatizers" for the English language have cleverly and deceptively used this Turkish source text to come up with a series of words in the form of CONVENTIONALIZE and CONVENTION.  In view of these revelations, I can say with confidence and also contrary to your pre-assumed claims that: the word "CONVENTIONALIZE" and also its front end "CONVENTION" are made up from a Turkish phrase - although they do not appear "Turkish" in appearance".  Surely you and many other linguists did not know this fact that I just revealed - except those who originally  manufactured this English word from Turkish. 

Now, if you were to reject and/or deny this factual explanation, it would be a discredit to your "scholarliness" and problem solving capability. It would mean that you are either not reading, or even if you are "reading", you are not understanding what you read.    

You must also understand that I had nothing to do with the make up of the word "CONVENTIONALIZE" or the word "CONVENTION". It was done way before my time. Only now, I am telling you the nature of its true makeup. As innocent as this is, why are you trying so hard to put me down for something that somebody else did at some other place and time? Don't you think that you are being irrational? 

A better probability calculation is given in my paper at url:  
for languages that have been developed independent of each other.  That is , no 'anagrammatizing' is involved in manufacturing one from the other.  

In your reasoning, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that all these words have been "anagrammatized" by men of sophisticated mind.  In that there is no role for probability.  I am rearranging them back into their original form in Turkish (i.e., decryption).  There is no probability involved here. 


Let me get back to the simple maths, again.
The historical method has, when we take 6 comparisons,
a chance of 1/6. That, multiplied by the 25% chance of
having the right conditions, willl lead to 1/6 times
4/16 = 1/24 = 4.17% chance!
Dr. Polat Kaya's chance is 6/6 (100%) times 16/16
(100%) = 100% chance.
Now, we can turn to the semantics.
Dr. Kaya's method allows for arbitrary leeways.
Anything he is able to imagine (I would call it
Sigmund Freud's associations, or surrealism)
concerning the concept can be used, no matter how
(un)likely (i.e. likely according to the statistically
evaluated observations world-wide) they might be.
Imagine the following escapade of a skillful juggler:

Polat Kaya:  Dear Rebb, I am afraid you are totally confused in these statements.  Your rationale does not hold water!  Please tell us how you can make the word "HEAT" out of the word "SUN" or make the word "SUN" out of the word "HEAT"?   Although "SUN" and "HEAT" are related concepts because sun is fire and it generates "heat", these two words do not have the required morphology (sound or letters) to make one from the other.  So you are mistaken.  In fact you could not derive any of the words in your list out of any other one given in the list, that is:  DAY ~ NIGHT ~ HEAT ~ SUN ~ LIGHT ~ DARK.  The closest ones are the words DAY vs DARK .  But even then, you cannot make the word DAY out of DARK or vice versa. Since this is not possible among these English words, why should it be possible bettween Turkish words and the words of Indo-European languages?  These languages are supposed to be differently structured independently developed languages.  Normally, it should not be possible between independently developed languages.  But we do find Turkish words and phrases embedded into Indo-European words which indicates that they are made up from the monosyllabic words of  the Turkish language. So please do not try to con us by way of sophistication or false logic!  

Your referring to me as a "skillful juggler" must be due to your own shortcomings in understanding what I am showing you.  In that regard, I cannot be of any help to you.  Your belittling what I am showing and saying  is an indication that you have used up all of your knowledge-based responses and are now in the process of vilification.  Evidently you have nothing of value left to say.

Hence, if a lexeme L1 means "DAY", the lexeme L2 is
allowed to have any of the above meanings:
Hence, we have, for example, 6 concepts out of a
closed set of X elements to choose.
Historical linguists are not allowed to do such
If (and only if) the phonetic correspondences are
regular (i.e. follow observed regular, recurrent
rules, see above), he has to ask himself:
DAY ~ NIGHT: Has a semantic change like this, i.e. a
shift to an antonym, been attested in any other
languages? If so, under what circumstances can that
happen? Are these circumstances similar? Is it due to
some affix or other morphological means? If none of
these questions can be answered, or if they have to be
answered negatively, the comparison is not taken into
account. This investigation has to be done with any
It can be easily observed that the innumerable
comparisons provided by historical linguists are not
only following the revealed regular phonetic laws,
thus decreasing significantly the probability of mere
look-alike, but also match semantically in a much more
precise and more objective way, giving the equal
meanings or their derivations by morphological means
in vast majority of cases, while explaining the
minority of slightly different meanings by universally
observed phenomena (e.g. metaphore, generalization,

Polat Kaya:  Please tell us how the English word "CONVENTIONALIZE" and the Turkish expression "EVINIZE KANUNTU" look alike?  Look at them very closely side by side:  "CONVENTIONALIZE" vs. "EVINIZE KANUNTU" or one under the other if you like.  If you think that they look alike, then I would be forced to conclude that you do not even know the concept of "look-alikes".  Hence my communication with you has been in vain! When I am getting 100% correspondences, it is because I know the structures of the words better than you do. On the other hand linguists are examining them superficially on their face value.  therefore their findings are shallow. 

This is the last time I am trying to warn those who
would like to follow Dr. Kayas foot-prints: Dear
friends, if you seriously intend to study languages,
be objective enough to read more than just two or
three sources Dr. Kaya is citing all the time (not to
mention their rather obsolete character). I do not
force anyone to believe what linguists claim - only
try to be fair and read their works BEFORE you
criticize them.

Polat Kaya:  Dear friend, I have seen that kind of  "remote guidance" before from another reader in this forum.  I am sure each one of my readers will make his/her own judgement about my work without your prohibitional pronouncements.  I have said it before and I will say it again, the linguists are doing a great job in comparing what they find as the words of the present day languages.  They use what is in their books and compare them as they are at present as if they have always been in their given states.  From those comparisons, they try to go back into the past and come up with a conclusion about the nature of a father/mother language for them all.  In their comparisons, there is no allowance made for "anagrammatizing" from one language into others. I have been pointing out this fact all along.  Is that so hard to grasp and to think about?  Why are you so adamant about not understanding it? 

Two more things:
1. Psychologically, it is very tempting to see one's
mother tongue as the most beautiful, the most perfect
and the most important language of all. But we are not
animals, we are humans. Or reason should control our
emotions. Temptations have little to do with real

Polat Kaya:  Dear Rebb - hold your horses now! Don't you try to go into that gobbledygook psychoanalysis gimmick with me playing a "doctor" and "patient" game.  Control yourself and be reasonable and within your boundary.  The very fact that you are using this kind of "language", that is, with misleading sophistry and psychoanalysis nonesense shows that you have lost your credibility as a scholar. Evidently, you have reached a point of breakdown with my lengthy, detailed and factual communications that I have conveyed to you during our discussions. Turkish being my mother tongue has nothing to do with what I am saying.  I am saying what I say because there are endless evidences that the Indo-European languages have all been made up from the basic language of Turkish.  This fact is not acceptable to you because it hurts your ego. Could this be due to your own "nationalistic" feelings?


2. What if you want to promote a new hypothesis of
your own? Certainly, do not use the new methodology
that is a part of the hypothesis to prove that
hypothesis - it is a circular motion which leads
nowhere. Use the supportive evidence that is OUTSIDE
the new hypothesis and that has been here (valid)
before we started to build the new theory.

Polat Kaya;  You are again being deceptive in your statements. It seems that you are bothered because I am comparing Turkish with so many other languages in a way that it has never done before, and my findings rightfully enables me to say that they are made up from Turkish.  If I had used another language, say "Greek", you would probably not be nearly so bothered. The fact is that from my point of view, regardless of whether you accept or reject what I am saying, it has no bearing about the correctness of my findings. You are not in a position to make judgments on something that you do not understand or know anything about. I do, however, appreciate you saying that I have 100% correspondences. But it must be clear to you that these correspondences do not happen between "independently developed" languages.  They are there because Turkish has been secretly used by the Indo-European languages as their model source language - and I discovered it.

Best wishes to all serious researchers, be it
professional or amateurish, and a lot of best luch to
Dr. Polat Kaya - I wish him to find the truth as soon
as possible, as I would never wish anyone to end up
like a hamster in a running wheel.

Polat Kaya:  These ending remarks of yours are indicative of the true measure of your rather small inner world.  I am sure they will reflect more on you than on me.  Let me repeat once again for your information that I have already found the truth regarding the makeup of languages and I have shared that truth with you and with all other readers. In this regard, unfortunately, you have chosen to go off direction in your response rather than staying on track and being scholarly. You did not respond to my detailed and factual response that I had written to you because you knew you had nothing worthwhile to say and also you knew that I was correct in every aspect of my response. But it takes self confidence and high-minded big-person to admit it. Evidently, what I am saying is much too big for you to admit and accept.  my reply to you at 
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/396  laid clearly on the table in many ways.  It takes sincere effort and hard work to respond to my previous replies to you. Evidently you do not have that capability. In view of this overpowering appearance of my work, you chose the easy way out, that is, to vilify it with childish talks.  

As for your "hemster in a running wheel" analogy about me and my work, I think it was another mistake on your behalf as it shows to be a product of a small mindedness.  Surely you are an intelligent and comprehending person, but somehow your feeling to be vindictive has overcome your better judgement and thus, by your own doing, you have diminished yourself to an unimportant warbler. In spite of your intentionally putting down my work, let me tell you and all too about its importance: my discovery that the linguistic makeup of so many major languages in the world are based on Turkish language and these languages are artificially manufactured with the altered and disguised use of words and phrases stolen from Turkish language is an earth shattering discovery. This is the fact that will shine from now on whether you accept it, reject it or vilify it.  It does not matter a bit! This discovery is so huge that not only it exposes the bogusness of the so-called "Indo-European Language theory" and the others that go along the same pseudo path in disarray, but it also exposes how certain groups have thieved an ancient civilization by way of intentionally altering the words of an ancient language. That language was Turkish, that is, the language of Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples.

For normal working honest minds in the world, my discovery will shine as an ever enlightening sunlight!  It will put to shame all those who have perpetrated lies and dishonesty about the true Turanian identity of the ancient world and the one language that they spoke. This is not an "hemsterian" work as you try to portray. 


P.S.: I apologize I have not responded to Dr. Kaya's
reply to my answer to his postings in reaction to mine
and so on. I am afraid, I would have to comment on
every single sentence, which is clearly impossible as
we speak totally different languages. Dear Dr. Kaya,
if you only were not so lazy to learn a little of the
useful terminology linguists have agreed upon to
understand each other! You know, linguistics is very
much like any other scientific discipline: it creates
a regular, conventional set of expressions to name
certain phenonema in a unique universally acceptable
way. If you reject to see this simple fact, I am
afraid there is no point in communicating with you any
more. (Which does not mean that anybody else cannot
contact me either, of course - I am open to serious
discussions). Thank you for your time. Be well!

Polat Kaya:   Dear Rebb, with this last posting of yours, unfortunately you have lost all of my trust in you as a "serious discusser". In your posting you have showing to be more of a politician than being a serious-minded discusser. That is an indication of insincerity on your behalf. Hence, you give me the impression that you joined the group not to discuss linguistics but rather to show how well you can vilify. Indeed when things did not turn out the way you wanted, you showed your true intentions. 

You called me "lazy" but I do not think I fit into that description. My writings are evidence to that fact. I only hope that you will be as active as I am when you reach my age. This is an expression of my good will to you saying that you be healthy and happy. You accuse me of not using "useful terminology linguists have agreed upon to understand each other". Please note that if I am not using them,  it is because I do not believe their "usefulness" in my writings, not because I am "lazy".  I use simpler terms so that all readers may understand. Many of your so-called "useful linguistic" terms are intentionally designed to artificially elevate the "linguists" above the public - because the public will not understand such bafflegab, that is, intentional incomprehensibility, ambiguity, verbosity and complexity. 

I have already spent a considerable amount of my valuable time for responding to your replies. I do not believe the usefulness of any further communication with you. Therefore, it is better that we stop here before things get much more unpleasant than it is now. Thank you again for your replies. May life be always good to you and bring good luck to you in whatever you are doing!

My best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya