Re: [Polat_Kaya] Words under the lens: English word "EXCOMMUNICATE"


Greetings  Mr.  Churchward,

Thank you for your interest regarding my posting about the term "excommunicate".  

You pointed out that the term "excommunicate" is said to be sourced from the Latin "EXCOMMUNICARE" meaning "excommunicate".  There are some other variations of this word in Latin such as EXCOMMUNICO, EXCOMMUNICAVI and EXCOMMUNICATUS at this link .
These "Latin" variations of "EXCOMMUNICARE" are also made up from related Turkish expressions all revolving around the concept of "KONUŞMAYI  KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication". 

For example, the Latin term EXCOMMUNICO, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICO, and rearranged as "CONUCMOI- KESM" is again the anagrammatized form of the Turkish expression "
KONUŞMAYI KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication".  EXCOMMUNICO is actually the cut-off front end of the word EXCOMMUNICATUS or EXCOMMUNICARE.

Similarly, the "Latin" term EXCOMMUNICATUS, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICATUS, and rearranged as "CONUSMAI-KESTUM-C" reveals the Turkish expression "
KONUŞMAYI KESTÜM" meaning "I cut off the communication, I stopped the communication".   Alternatively, if it is rearranged as "CONUSMAI-KESMKTU", it reveals the Turkish expression  "KONUŞMAYI KESMEKTÜ" meaning "It is cutting off the communication" or "It is stopping the communication".

Similarly again, the "Latin" term EXCOMMUNICARE, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICARE, and rearranged as "CONUCMAI-KESERM" reveals the Turkish expression "
KONUŞMAYI KESEREM" meaning "I cut the communication, I stop the communication" and/or "I may stop the communication" 

Finally, the "Latin" term EXCOMMUNICAVI, rewritten as EKSCOMMUNICAVI,  and rearranged as "CONUCMAVI-KISME" reveals the Turkish expression "
KONUŞMAYI KESME" meaning "cutting the communication, stopping the communication" .     

So whichever variation I examine, I find a relevant and meaningful Turkish expression hidden inside each "Latin" word.  This is not coincidence!  Some establishment did it.



You said:   

"Since this word has an etymology that dates back to before the 9th century A. D., I am curious as to when the word was taken from the Turkish to be used in Latin. Since it obviously has an origin in the Christian church, it can't be any earlier than the 1st century A. D." 

Yes, the word EXCOMMUNICATE is a word used by the church, however, the concept of cutting off communication with someone was not invented by the church.  People who talk to each other, have always had the occasion to stop talking to each other for whatever reason - at all stages of history.  When two friends, even brothers, or man and wife, get out of synergy with each other, they probably stop talking to each other for some time.  Basically speaking, this is an act of "EXCOMMUNICATION". In other words the two parties have shut their doors to each other and are having nothing to do with each other (i.e., NO COMMUNICATION! or in Turkish KONUŞMAYI KES!). 

Additionally, even if we assumed that it was formulated by the church establishment, say around the 1st century A.D.,  as an instrument of ruling and controlling their members, it is clear that these Latin words use the supposedly "Latin" word  "COMMUNICA" or "COMMUNICO" meaning "communicating".  This Latin word "communica" is embedded in all words supposedly made up from it.  Thus the "Latin" word COMMUNICA, for communication, existed even before the church establishment "adopted" the word "EXCOMMUNICARE".  After all, people have always communicated with each other as well as stopped talking with each other - irrespective of the Church being there or not.  

But the "Latin" word COMMUNICA, when rearranged (deciphered) letter-by-letter as "CONUCMAIM",  is the anagrammatized form of the Turkish word "
KONUŞMAIM"  (KONUŞMAYIM)  meaning "I am 'speaking'", "I am 'communicating'", I am 'talking'", "I am speech", "I am discourse", "I am words".   This is a very powerful revelation.  This means that Turkish word "KONUŞMA" was already anagrammatized into the so-called "Latin" language. 

Please note that the particle EX (pronounced as EKS) in the beginning of the Latin word "EXCOMMUNICARE" (and others) gives the false impression that it is a prefix, but actually it is the altered Turkish word 
KES meaning "cut" or "stop". 

The Turkish word KESTIM means "I cut".  Its root is the Turkish word "KES" meaning "cut".  This word itself has been incorporated into "Latin" language in differing forms in many words. For example:

Latin word SECO, meaning "to cut", when rearranged as "CES-O" (KES O) is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KES O" meaning "it is cut, it is to cut" 
So the Turkish root word has not been anagrammatized by itself directly, but, rather has been wrapped with another conjugational form of it.  

Latin word SECARE, meaning "to cut", rearranged as "CESER-A" is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KESER O" meaning "it cuts".

Latin word EXCIDERE (to cut down), rearranged as "KESDIC-IERE" is the anagrammatized Turkish word "KESDIK YERE" meaning "we cut it to the ground; we destroyed it; we cut him down". Turkish KESDIK means "we cut", YER means "ground", YERE means "to the ground". 

Similarly, many other Latin words such as SECEDO, SECERNO, SECRETO, SECTILIS, SECTIONIS, SECTOR, SECTURA, and many others have been made up from Turkish word "KES" anagrammatized as "SEC, CES, SCI, or CIS".  None of this is coincidence! 

English words CESSION, CESSATION,  SCISSOR, SCISSORS, SCISSION, and many more, have all been made up from Turkish words and/or expressions based on KES.  

Although the provided "etymology" of the word EXCOMMUNICARE points to a Latin source,  I just demonstrated that the true and real source of the word is the Turkish language and the concept does not necessarily belong to the church.  

With regards to the question of when was this Turkish phrase taken and incorporated into "Latin", I would say that it was probably done sometime in the 1st millennium B. C.  



You said:

"Since the words in every language change over time, how have the 'words under the lens' that you have cited changed over time? For instance, does the term "KONUŞMAYI  KESTIM" mean the same today as it did a few hundred years ago and is it still spelled the same as it was back then?"

I do not think that there has been any change in it at all. The Turkish expression "KONUŞMAYI KESTIM" is made up of two words.  The first is KONUŞMA meaning "talking, speaking, communicating, counseling, conversing, chatting, giving a speech".  In other words, verbal talk between people, whatever the subject may be.  Its verb form is KONUŞMAK meaning "to speak, to converse, to talk, to discuss. to get council" and its root is "KONUŞ" (GONUŞ) meaning "speak, talk, chat, council together, discuss together" 

The Turkish word KONUŞMAYI means "the communication, the talking, the speaking".  This word has many variations due to its conjugation to express many different situations.  Hence the root is from Turkish verb KONUŞMAK and its root is "KONUŞ".  

This word is one of the most widely used words in Turkish and is used daily by millions of people.  Turkish peoples have always used this term and there is no reason to have it changed.  There is evidence that this Turkish word was also in the ancient so-called "Egyptian" (Masarian) language.  "KONUŞ" is one of the words that makes the Turkish language a SUN language by way of Turkish homonyms:  GÜNEŞ (KÜNEŞ) means "sun" and "the sunlight", "GONUŞ (KONUŞ) means "speech" and GANIŞ (KANIŞ) means "understanding".   Of course, Turkish also has other words that mean "speak" or "speaking" or "language" - such as 

I don't agree with the linguistic assumption that "the words in every language change over time".  Language change is done intentionally by man.  It is not a natural process!  I have the feeling that this "linguistic" assumption is put forward by those who want to open the gates to change a given language for some political reasons.  Changing a language is a game for divide and rule.  Dialectal changes do occur but these are essentially the same word voiced differently.

Spelling is a problem with the Indo-European (IE) and Semitic languages - because they are "inflected" languages.  In other words, it is a problem for them because they are manufactured languages.  Spelling is never a problem with Turkish for a Turkish speaker.  As soon as a Turkish word is voiced, it is readily known exactly how to spell it.   Turkish is a phonetic and straightforward language with simple and logical rules.  Those who don't know this fact put all kinds of distortion in the writing and speaking of Turkish words.

To answer your question "does the term "KONUŞMAYI  KESTIM" mean the same today as it did a few hundred years ago", I say yes, it was the same as it is now and it will most likely be the same in the future.

You also asked:

"Also, what is the motivation for someone to take words from one language, scramble the letters and use the words in their own language?"

The reasons for it can be summarized as follows:

a)    Those who took the Turkish words and expressions to make new words for themselves, most likely did not have a fully developed proper language of their own - but wanted to have one - to make themselves a "nation". This probably was their prime motivation.  Because having a language of your own is a big asset.   Without a language, one cannot be a "nation".  Initially, they were "wanderer peoples" who probably got by with a very limited language. 

b)    Turkish speaking ancient Turanian civilization was a dominant world wide civilization followed in Asia, Europe and North Africa.  Hence, initially people everywhere spoke Turkish and followed the ancient Turanian religion in Turkish.  This made other languages, if any, as secondary and underdeveloped. The dominant effect of Turkish on other languages was like the suppressing effect of "English" on the languages of today.

When the time came, some people wanted to fall apart from this ancient Turanian civilization and its religion. They wanted to have their own religion and also their own language. Turkish was the readily available source data base to benefit from for this purpose.  

c)    The Turkish language is a monosyllabic and agglutinative language.  Most of the single syllabic sounds have been defined as root words which are the basic names for concepts.  Additionally, meaningful suffixes, which when added to the root words, create meanings describing all kinds of new situations.  This makes Turkish a very versatile "first" language and also a source language available for others to be easily manufactured from.   

d)   To create a language from nothing is a very difficult task that takes thousands of years.  Creating a new language from an already existing language is much easier and can be achieved in a much shorter time, that is, as short as a few generations.

e)    When one defines a concept in Turkish and then breaks that phrase up and rearranges it anyway he pleases - even with alterations and substitutions, the result becomes a new "word" for a new "language" that is not recognizable as Turkish anymore.  The meaning to be attributed to each new word is already in the Turkish word and/or phrase that it was made from. This makes the process of new language engineering, by way of anagrammatizing from Turkish, a very easy and profitable task.   This is not "adopting" or "borrowing" but rather,  "usurping".

f)  From my studies of the words belonging to the so-called "Indo-European" languages, I have discovered that the IE languages have been manufactured from Turkish by way of anagrammatizing and disguising.   This is an ongoing process behind closed doors.   It is used to continuously enrich a language with new words manufactured from Turkish source texts.

g)   Greeks and Romans did this to come up with the "Greek" and "Latin" languages, just like the Babylonians did it to come up with so-called Akkadian and other Semitic languages. The so-called "religious" cabal priests who presented themselves as the middle-man, talking to God in one hand and talking to people at the other,  were most likely the ones that did this alteration of the ancient Turanian language of Turkish and its dialects into new "Indo-European" and "Semitic" languages. Evidently, talking to the public with an unrecognizable broken up foreign language became an asset for these "godly priests". 

Having said all this, let me also cite a part of GENESIS 11 of The Old Testament relevant to languages (bolding of items 7 and 9 is mine),  ["New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" by New World Bible Translation Committee, 1984, p. 18-19]:

1.     Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 

2     It came about that in their journeying eastward they eventually discovered a valley plain in the land of Shinar, and they took up dwelling there. 

3.    And they began to say, each one to the other: "Come on! Let us make bricks and back them with a burning process". So brick served as stone for them, but bitumen served as mortar. 

4.    They now said: "Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth. 

5.   And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that sons of men had built. 

6.     After that Jehovah said: Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them. 

7.     Come now! Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not listen to one another's language. 

8.     Accordingly Jehovah scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth, and they gradually left off building the city. 

9.     That is why its name was called Ba'bel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth."

Point 2 makes a reference to the land of  "Shinar" - where the Turanian Turko-Sumerians flourished with their civilization.  As can be seen from this citing, there has been a religious conspiracy against the ancient Turanian world which gave civilization to the world.   Genesis 11 is implying that Jehova was so intolerant or jealous of those Sumerians who were capable of achieving so many things, that he needed to confuse their one language that the world was speaking. What ungodly behavior on the part of Jehova to do such a thing.  First of all, God does not get jealous of people.  God is supposed to be very tolerant.  Secondly, God does not talk to people.  And thirdly, God does not change or "confuse" a language that the whole world spoke.  People who followed the concept of Jehova did that "confusion" - under the pretext of a godly commandment. 




At this point I would like to share with you the following reference citing.   H. G. WELLS, in his book "The outline of History", writes the following,  [H. G. Wells, "The outline of History", Volume 1, 1920, 1956, p. 232]:

"But the barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose civilization was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities and writing were already there.  The Greeks did not grow a civilization of their own; they wrecked one and put another together upon and out of the ruins."

The Greeks, Romans and Babylonian groups did exactly that.  They did not grow a civilization of their own.  Rather, they took the ancient Turanian civilization with its Turkish language, 
destroyed the physical material creations, built new structures on top of the ones that they destroyed. And additionally,  they confused (i.e., scrambled, altered, rearranged, encrypted) the existing Turkish language to engineer new languages for themselves. 

When H. G. WELLS states: "But the barbaric Greek herdsmen raiders came southward into a world whose civilization was already an old story. Shipping and agriculture, walled cities and writing were already there", the civilization he refers to was the civilization of the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples. 



One definition of the term TURANIAN is given as (bolding of item 3 is mine): “Adjective. Of or pertaining to a large family of agglutinative languages of Europe and northern Asia, neither Indo-European nor Semitic, specifically known as the Ural-Altaic languages, or any of the people who speak them. Noun. 1 One whose mother tongue is Ural-Altaic language; a person of Ural-Altaic stock. 2 The Ural-Altaic languages collectively. 3 Theoretically, one of an unknown nomadic people who antedated the Aryans in Europe and Asia. [< Persian Turan, a country north of the Oxus River].”   [Encyclopaedia Britannica World language Dictionary, 1963, p. 1353.]

The bolded statement indicates the fact that the Turanians, that is the Tur/Turk/Oguz peoples, antedated the Aryans in Europe and Asia.   In other words, the Turanian civilization was already established and flourishing in Europe and Asia and in Africa far earlier than the arrival of the "Aryans" to Europe.  This fact is also verified by the above citing from H. G. Wells.



Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, ["Egyptian Language" written in 1910 in British Museum:, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications Inc, Fourteenth Impression, 1977], 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."

The bolding in the above citing is also mine. Those "certain invaders from Central Asia" cited above were surely the Turanian Tur/Turk/Oguz people who established and flourished the most ancient and long-lived civilization of MASAR (MISIR) - which is incorrectly but intentionally mislabeled as "EGYPT".  I find countless numbers of Turkish words in the ancient language of Masarians (so-called "Egyptians") which takes Turkish back some six thousand years from the present.  



The Çatal Höyük  excavations in Anatolia have clearly demonstrated ancient Turanian civilization in Anatolia that goes back to at least 7000 B. C.



I know my response is lengthy, but in view of your inquiries, it needed to be that way.  This should satisfy your inquiries.

Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya


ganggon@... wrote:

I have been watching this forum for some time, but have yet to post. I hope that my posting will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered.
I noticed that the word "EXCOMMUNICATE" is cited in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as having it's roots in the Middle English word, "excommunicaten" ( Middle English was used between 1066 & 1470, according to wikipedia. This word was taken from the Late Latin word, "excommunicare", which was used in the early Middle Ages (and before the 9th century, again, according to wikipedia.)
Since this word has an etymology that dates back to before the 9th century A.D., I am curious as to when the word was taken from the Turkish to be used in Latin. Since it obviously has an origin in the Christian church, it can't be any earlier than the 1st century A.D.
Since the words in every language change over time, how have the 'words under the lens' that you have cited changed over time? For instance, does the term "KONUŞMAYI  KESTIM" mean the same today as it did a few hundred years ago and is it still spelled the same as it was back then?
Also, what is the motivation for someone to take words from one language, scramble the letters and use the words in their own language?
Thank you for your time and attention,
Jack Churchward
Clearwater, Florida
--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Polat Kaya <tntr@...> wrote:
From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
Subject: [Polat_Kaya] Words under the lens: English word "EXCOMMUNICATE"
Date: Thursday, March 26, 2009, 9:14 AM
The English word EXCOMMUNICATE is defined as follows in the Encarta® World English Dictionary:     
1.    vt.: to exclude a baptized Christian from taking part in Communion because of doctrine or moral behavior that is adjudged to offend against God or the Christian community.
2.    adj.: having been officially excluded from taking part in the Eucharist.
3.    n.:  somebody who has been officially excluded from taking part in the Eucharist.
The letter X in the word EXCOMMUNICATE is a symbol of deceptive nature. It gives the "KS" sound and in actuality it replaces and disguises letters K and S present in the source Turkish expression used to make up this word. Similarly, one of the letters "C" voiced as "K" sound is a letter "S" in the original source text.  It is just like the
 letters C in the English word ACCESS which is voiced as "AK-SES".
When the word EXCOMMUNICATE is rearranged (deciphered) letter-by-letter as "CONUSMAE-KECTIM", it is found to be an anagrammatized and disguised form of the Turkish expression  "KONUŞMAYI  KESTIM" meaning "I cut-off the communication". This is exactly what is meant by the word EXCOMMUNICATE and is done accordingly.  Irrespective of the etymologies attributed to this word in the dictionaries, the source of this English word is unquestionably Turkish. 
Best wishes to all,
Polat Kaya