Historical languages in historical countries- Linguisitcs of folk, grammarian, e

---------------------------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bcn_2004/message/1815
---------------------------------------------------



Dear Dr. Sastry and friends,

Merhaba (Nameste / Greetings). First of all I want to thank you for
your supportive thoughts regarding my "anagrammatizing" revelation
being at the root of many languages. I see that you have some
reservations to be worked out. This is normal and expected. Similarly
I also have reservations about your "reverse anabandha karana" theory.
I will try to explain my reservations in this posting. I hope we will
be able to remove some of the difficulties this time around. I am
sorry that I could not respond to your writings earlier in time,
because I had to respond to other postings and hence I could not
respond to yours in a timely manner. As you know all these writings
take so much time and energy.

As I see it, Sanskrit is a convoluted language like the other
Indo-European languages. It seems that it is just like the Greek
language which has established itself through anagrammatizing texts
from the Turkish language. It uses extraneous wrapping in the formation
of words which name concepts, not that they want to safe-keep an idea
so that it does not get distorted or lost, but rather to take an idea
from Turkish and wrap it with additional layers made up from Turkic
secondary words and/or suffixes so that it is not recognizable anymore
as Turkish. Now in the "reverse anubandha karana" technique that you
are proposing, you are disrobing Sanskrit words from extra wrapping
that you think is there for protection purposes. But how would you
know which layer to throw away and which one to keep in order to get to
the core of the word? Secondly why were those additional layers put
there in the first place? Were they there to hide away a "core" that
was taken from another source? My discovery is that it is exactly that!
This I showed very clearly, for example, in the explanation of the
name SARASWATY. Together with the name Saraswaty, I explained a number
of other words that were shown to be from Turkish sources again. Thus
we cannot ignore them. Please take a fresh look at them again because
what I said in that paper is extremely important. I am re-inserting
its URL here so that it can be read again.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Polat_Kaya/message/281

Even in this posting of yours, you touched on to some very interesting
words which I will discuss right after your analysis.

Once more I want to emphasize that the technique of "anagrammatizing"
of an agglutinative language is the simplest way of coming up with
words for any new language that one wants to create. The meanings have
already been established in the existing model language, and the words
and phrases have already been structurized. All one has to do is to
break the order of the words or phrases and restructure them into new
words with the same or similar meanings for the newly worked-out
language such as all the Indo-European languages. Let me give you a
Greek word as an example:

"BDELUROTES" meaning "hideous, abominableness, ugly".[Ref.: Divry's
English-Greek and Greek - English dictionary, 1988, p. 452]. The first
letter "B" is the Greek letter named "beta/vita" [Divry, p.10] and is
read as "V" and as "B" because Greek alphabet has been designed on a
duplicity principle. In this case it is the letter "V". Almost all
symbols of the Greek alphabet have more then one identity so much so
that any symbol of the alphabet can be used in place of more than one
Turkish sound or symbol. Thus this Greek word VDELUROTES, when
rearranged as "DEV-USLETOR", is made up from Turkish "DEV ÜZLÜTÜR"
(dev yüzlüdür) meaning "he/she/it is monster faced" where "DEV"
means a "giant, monster" and "ÜZLÜTÜR" means "it is with face".
Türkish UZ (yüz) means "face", suffix -LÜ means "with", and
TÜR/TUR/TOR/TIR means "it is".

Even if we were to separate the Greek word VDELUROTES in four parts,
namely: VDE-LU-ROT-ES", we find that it is a rearrangement of the
syllables of the corresponding Turkish phrase "DEV US-LU-TOR" (dev
yüzlüdür). it can be seen that: Turkish DEV became the 1st Greek
syllable "BDE / VDE", UZ became the 4th syllable "ES", LU became the
2nd syllable "LU", and TUR (TOR) became the 3rd syllable in the form
of "ROT" in this Greek word.

Here in this example, we can see how the Greek linguists anagrammatized
a Turkish source to come up with a "Greek" word where even the
syllables in the Turkish source were displaced and restructured.

Now I will respond inline (in purple) to the other points you raised.



israbvk wrote:

Namaste,

Sub: Historical languages in historical countries- Linguisitcs of
folk, grammarian, etymologist and encryptionist


The following post brings out very interesting points. Some are
really appreciable.And some need debate. With my limitations in
understand ing Turkish post, I have relied on the English version
and the flow of debate in making the following points. The points I
want to bring out through this discussion is summarized below and
the details flow below:
*********
Summary:
(1) Dr.Kaya's line of thinking of `anagram approach-manufactured
language approach in etymology is certainly a valid approach,
especially when the `encryption -preservation' issues of classical
languages and sacred languages in historic contexts are looked at.

While I have certain differences of opinion on the practical
application of `anagram - manufacturing' technique, it is in harmony
with the `Reverse anubandha karana' approach I have been presenting
based on a well established mode for preserving veda-yoga-tantra in
lands beyond Bharath ( which is geographically close to central
asia; Scholars have been presented the movement of veda-yoga-tantra
traditions and cultures from Bharath (India- Aryan land ,norh
eastern mountain ranges, presently called meghalaya, Nepal, assam
and the like range) to central asia (Turkish).

(2) Folk etymology can not be the sole basis of a dictionary or
grammar or research in classical languages. These need to be
supported from other studies, especially on the claims of
historicity and `manufacturing of languages' claims. It is a
complicated issue of multiple disciplines. It is true that `There
are no rules and no limits in the etymological explanations of
the "folk etymology". ( The fancy flights were seen in the Sumero
Tamil presentations explaining the Rig-krit theory, which have
fallen flat !)

What Dr.Kaya is presenting or I am presenting are NOT folk
etymology or currently known paths of linguistics. What we are
presenting is `how preservation of a sacred language is made in a
historic context using different mode of language -grammar related
techniques. While all the materials needed for the `reconstruction'
are available on hand, what is held back is the `process clue and
glue' by which the magic of the original language (of magic or God -
mantra) is recreated in present time. The eternality issue
of `sacred/ God's langauge' is beyond the conception of historical
and comparative linguistics!

Polat Kaya: Please explaine to what original language are you
referring in above statement? If the language was already established
in plainly visible words, why is there need for reconstruction again?
Was Sanskrit the language of magicians? As is known magicians do not
tell the secret of their "magical" acts! What is the meaning of
"Mantra"? Is concept of God in Hinduism equated with "magic"? You
said:

(3) Regarding imagination in reconstruction by `process clues and
glues'- the secret was no doubt held as a closely guarded secret by
the `priests' and `temple personnel', kings and the select group.
The reason is understandable. The secrets of magical chants are
never revealed openly to the public at large and uninitiated.

Polat Kaya: Since very ancient times, "priests" had a powerful position
in the affairs of the king, the kingdom and the people. N. K. sandars,
["The Epic of Gilgamesh", penguin Books, 1964, p. 15] writes:

"The temples were served by a perpetual prisethood, in whose hands, at
one time, was almost the whole wealth of the state; and among whom
were the archivists and teachers, the scholars and mathematicians. in
very early times the whole temporal power was theirs, as servants of
the god whose estates they managed."

The richest religious organization to the present times was the
Christian church who used to give tickets for hefty summs of money to
tell people that they would go to "heaven". In other words, people
were being conned while the church was getting to be a world class
economical power.

Thus "religion" or "cult" is a very good business indeed. On top of
it, the priesthood would get the most respect from the public because
of their perceived godly status. They would be fed, clothed and
provided with spacious quarters to live in while the public would be
satisfied with the little precious that they had. Mostly the priest
groups would be the rulers and guiders of the people. In view of all
this good fortune that priesthood brought to the priests, it would be
most important for them to be very secretive about what they were doing
behind closed doors. Because, if the public learned the true purpose of
their "cults", the secrecy would be solved, mysticism would disappear,
and the priesthood would lose all of their supposedly "hard earned"
wealth and respect. Thus they kept their acivities with utmost secrecy
and expressed their rituals with a language that could not be
understood by ordinary members of the club or cult. So the public would
always remain "awe-struck' as the ceremonies were performed. Hence it
is not deifficult to think that where there is secrecy, there is
probably some nasty business going on behind the closed doors. After
all, if everything was on the up and up, there would be no need for any
secrecy.

If the worldly language of the society, claiming a religious
affiliation for a certain tradition picked up the key sacred words
and preserved it in a distorted form in the live traition, they need
to be `de-encrypted'.That is the exercise of `anagram - reverse anub
andha karana' approach beyond `folk etymology'. As Dr.Kaya rightly
says, the help from the `dictionaries' is very limited in this
approach.More so when the current dictionaries are so deviant from
the classical dictionaries; Online dictionaries are in need of
critical reviews and updates.

(4)Invention of `written alphabet (=scripting, which incidentally is
the hard evidence through inscriptions, numismatics and the like, on
which reliance is made heavily)',- distinct from the `gramamtical
sequence of spokne tradition of alphabets'- is an issue that needs
to be looked at as a different issue from the `instructed natural
divine order of alphbaets'. In the Vedic traditions, the `set of
alphabets, the processes related to phoneme, the word processing'
are all `attributed to the `sacred divine origin and are preserved
as such over millennia with a perfect grammar rule base'.

In other languages of the world (inclusinf the Turkish), to my
limited understanding, the `phonetic ordering/sequnece of alphabets
of the sacred language is an unexplained tradition'. This is the
place where assumptions of `lingusitic historians are made with
fancy theories of langauge'.And this percolates as a part of
language teaching, dictionaries and later developments. The defects
at the root are never addressed.Giving a `langauge, divining a
scripture' does not necessarily lead to a `sequence of alphabets in
the spoken order / natural order'. This is a unique feature for
Vedic Sanskrit traditions.

(5)Dr.Kaya is taking reference of Turkish expressions-words and
pointing how this is the referential point from which the languages
referred to him are `manufactured/anagramitized using a certain
technique'. The illustrations have not come out with any reference
of significance in relation to the Vedic Sanskrit traditions.

Polat Kaya: I have not seen any reference in which it is stated that
Turks were involved with "Vedic Sanskrit traditions". Hence it is out
of question for me to make reference to such an imaginary source.

My focus has been to look to a period behind the reference
of `Turkish' and apply the `same logic' taking reference to the
existing traditions and practices, which have remained unchanged
over millennia in the Sanskrit domain.

If the argument goes that Sanskritists preserved with extreme
accuracy the `turkish model for manufacturing new languages, while
Sanskrit itself is to be explained as a manufactured language from
Turkish (under the classification of Indo-european lingusitcs
model), the question begs the answer.

If it is the other way round, as I am presenting, the Turkish
language was arrived at with the Reverse anubandha karana process
rules. Cluses and glues, which is historically an established
tradition in Vedic Sanskrit to derive secondary languages for
worldly use/ encryption (with a rule abse, well documented for
different languages, technically called prakrits), then the proof
for historicity of vedic Sanskrit beyond the claimed turanian 6000
BCE needs to be independently established.

Polat Kaya: Historically movements of the Turanian peoples have been
from Central Asia (Turan) towards all other directions. In this
movement, when Tur/Turk peoples moved out of Turan due to natural
causes, they had their own language
Those First Nation Turanians of the Americas, who migrated to North
America some 15,000 or more years ago, did not first go to India to
learn the Indian language and then anagrammatize it into some kind of
"Turanian" langage before going on to North America. It just did not
happen that way. They had a language of their own which had nothing to
do with the Indian language of Vedic Sanskrit tradition. Additionally,
Turanians also migrated from Central Asia down south into the Indian
subcontinent. Some stayed at different parts of India and some pushed
even further south and south east Asia . That is why the Indian
languages got influenced with the Turkish language.

Similarly, when the Turanians went to ancient Misir (Masar) and
so-called Mesopotamia and Anatolia, they did not first go to India to
get linguistic schooling there before they went to these places. They
had their own Turanian language and Turanian civilization that they
carried with themselves. Thus Turanian language of Turkish is in no way
of "Sanskrit" origin. If Sanskrit is very much like the Greek that
they say it is, then it can be said without hesitation that Sanskrit is
also made up from Turkish data base rather then Turkish being from the
Sanskrit origin.

Will Durant also writes the following [Will Durant, "The Story of
Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, New
York, 1954, p. 405-406]:

"The language of the Indo-Aryans should be of special interest to us,
for Sanskrit is one of the oldest in that "Indo-European" group of
languages to which our own speech belongs. We feel for a moment a
strange sense of cultural continuity across great stretches of time and
space when we observe the similarity-in sanskrit, Greek, latin and
English- of the numerals, the family terms, and those insuniating
little words that, by some oversight of the moralists, have been called
the copulative verb. It is quite unlikely that this ancient tongue,
which sir William Jones pronounced "more perfect than the Greek, more
copious than the Latin, and more exquisetely refined than either,"
should have been the spoken language of the of the Aryan invaders.
What that speech was we do not know; we can only presume that it was a
near relative of the early Persian dialect In which the Avesta was
composed. The Sanskrit of the Vedas and the epics has already the
earmarks of a classic and literary tongue, used only by scholars and
priests; the very word Sanskrit means "prepared, pure, perfect,
sacred." The language of the people in the Vedic age was not one but
many; each tribe had its own Aryan dialect. India has never had one
language."

Polat Kaya: It is quite natural for the Aryans to call the manufactured
language of Sanskrit by the adjectives of "prepared, pure, perfect and
sacred" because they manufactured the language for their secret aims.
Its being manufactured is already being admitted by the word "prepared"
which is another way of saying that Sanskrit was manufactured. But from
"what language", that is unknown. I say that unknowing language was
"Turkish" as it has been used by the Greek, Latin and the other
Indo-European languages.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) [1963, vol. 19, p. 954] writes:

"SANSKRITE LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: The most important branch of the
Indo-European family of languages in Asia is Aryan or Indo-European,
with two main divisions: Iranian and Indo-Aryan, languages belonging
to the latter are spoken to-day by 250 million people in India, where
they are the dominant languages except in the south, in Ceylon and the
Maldive Islands, and throught western Asia and Europe by colonies of
Gypsies (see ROMANY LANGUAGE). As languages of administration they
spread at one time far into central Asia, where now is Chineese
Turkistan."

Polat Kaya: This statement from EB, indicates that the original
European Aryans were "Gypsies" who by their lifestyles are called in
Turkish as "Çingene" (Kipti, gezginci, arayan) meaning "wanderer",
from which the name "Aryan" has been generated. All European Romany
Languages are broken up and manufactured languages. Probably the
oldest group of these ancinet European Gypsies who came to the lands of
ancient Turanians in Europe and Asia Minor were the Gypsy Greeks (Rum,
Roam) themselves who had nothing to claim for their name when the
Turanian natives had already developed a settled civilization that has
become the source for the present civilization of the "European
Aryans". When they arrived, they found the native Turanians having a
well established language of their own called "TURKI" or "OGUZ"
language which they were using in the administration of their own
states and affairs. But these Greek Gypsy colonies knew how to break
the Oguz language and manufacture a language for themselves.

Similarly when the "Gypsy" colonies (missionaries) who probably went
into Central Asia, the native Turks of Turkistan already had their
language without the help of this incoming wanderers. If anything at
all, they usurped the native peoples' Turkish language by breaking and
re-arranging its elements to come up with a broken up language for
themselves. Of course with that they also took over instantly the
Turanian civilization expressed by that Turanian language.


And this needs to be supported by evidence for the movement of
cultures in to central asia from North eastern segment of
India.Also, this needs to be comparatively supported with the live
continuity of traditions. In this case, the Turanin (Turkish) links
to India through `invasion' needs to be looked back as `home
coming' `or `plundering wealth and traditions in search of the
secrets of vedic magic'! This is an issue that needs to be
researched and debated by a wider team.

Polat Kaya: Dr. Sastry, you do have a way of twisting things around.
What you are saying is that "Turks went to India, became indianized
there, then went back tu Turan, and after a while they were coming back
to India. This is what your term of "homecoming" implies. Or "Aryan"
missionaries went to Central Asia and were coming back to India. If
this was the case, then all they left behind was some ficticious names
such "BACTRIA" which in fact was Turkistan, the homelands of Turks, as
the name clearly shows that it was the Turkish name "BEK TUR ÖYÜ"
(Bey Tur Öyü) meaning "Home of Lord Tur". It is clear that these
missionaries broke up the Turkish name and restructured it as a broken
up "Aryan" name and claimed it as their own. By this kind of name
changing "trick", the Aryans had made a lot of unwarranted claims for
themselves.

Additionally, when you claim that "the Turanin (Turkish) links to India
through `invasion' needs to be looked back as `home coming' `or
`plundering wealth and traditions in search of the secrets of vedic
magic'! ", I say you are kidding yourself and others as well. The
"secrets of vedic magic" has really nothing valuable in them to offer
to anyone let alone to the Turks of Turan. Those "secrets of vedic
magic" are good only for those "magicians" who make a habit of
"conning" the people. Turks have not been in that business!
Additionally, Turanians have left behind magnificent monuments and
constructions in India to their credit that cannot be denied.
Furthermore even some learned Indians admit the influence of Turkish in
Indian language and culture. You cannot dismis it so readily.


As it stands the available evidence points clearly for the movement
of Indian veda-yoga-tantra traditions to central asia and beyond.
The debated issue is one of historicity. And obviously in this
exercise of `hara-kiri of native traditions in bringing out the
truth of Vedic traditions', no `nationalist adhering to abrahanmic
traditions and linguists' would venture! That is the reason why all
efforts are made to suppress the truth of `vedic traditions' through
linguistic veil and misdirected presentations.

Polat Kaya: Dr. Sastry you are making double talk. If what you say,
then how come Turks do not have "Indian veda-yoga-tantra traditions".
Who is "suppresing" your "vedic traditions through linguistic veil and
misdirected presentations"? If you are shadowily referring to me, I
say you are terribly mistaken. I had no idea about your "vedic
traditions" until you and others talked about them in this forum. I
made some research about them, and what surfaced out of them was that
they were just like the Greek language and other Indo-European
languages. The words that I examined were made up from Turkish. As
far as you believing in your "vedic traditions", oh, please be my guest
and carry on whatever you are doing. It does not bother me in the
list. Please only read the citing that I have given below from Will
Durant regarding the "vedic traditions". It sounds very interesting!


This is what exactly Dr.Kaya is charging on `modern lingusits from
the relative position of `turkish language'! My own view: In search of
truth, if the established historic views
of `nationalistic religions' suffer,it should not be taken as a
stigma. After all the `historicity does not change/bind the `faith'
and `religion and spirituality'. They can still continue exactly the
way the Vedic religions have been continuing in the three modes of a-
historic (=vedic), semi-historic (purana -sacred mythology model)
and actual historic model ( like Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism) and
still have a pride of existence and purpose.

Polat Kaya: What you keep calling "historicity" is a coverup for what
has been done in the case of "Aryan languages". The dictionaries are
full of evidences. It does not make any difference at what time of
"history" it was done, but the fact is that the Indo-European and
Semitic languages have been made up from Turkish. You may not be able
to see this today. But this fact will be recognized widely eventually.
Additionally I can assure you that I have no ill feeling towards you
or the Indian people or anyone else. Hence I have no reason to suppres
your "vedic traditions". In fact some of best friends of mine were
Indians. So, my saying that Indo-European languages were made up from
Turkish should not offend you. Incidently I had already pointed out in
one of my responses to Dr. Loganathan that the name "JAINISM" was made
up from Turkish words "CAN" meaning, "life, soul" and "ISMI" meaning
"its name". Surely explaining the make up of the Indian names, such as
"JAINISM", in no way is intented to offend you ar anyone else.

The misguided presentation of this is the note: -" The history of
Aryan wanderers are full of all kinds of "CULTS" with utmost secrecy
which have been mostly designed for "exploitation of people".
(6) Regarding the observation, my approach is to look at
the `eastern most end of Asia, which provided the base for
the `manufacturing of Turkish language from the vedic yoga-tantra
traditions'. Of course, this is a debatable issue due to the
historicity. -

Polat Kaya: Dr. Sastry, you are terribly mistaken when you say that
"my approach is to look at the `eastern most end of Asia, which
provided the base for the `manufacturing of Turkish language from the
vedic yoga-tantra traditions". This shows how little or nothing you
know about the Turkish language. This I can understand because you had
no need to know or no need to learn Turkish. But saying that Turkish
language has been made up from your "vedic yoga-tantra traditions" is
totally misinformation and/or lack of information. Turkish has not
been made up from "vedic yoga-tantra traditions" or any other language.
In fact it seems that the Sanskrit language used in the Vedic
traditions were manufactured from Turkish just like the sister
languages Greek, Latin and other Indo-European languages were
manufactured from Turkish. The wandering Aryan priests knew how to
restructure the elements of Turkish, that is, an already established
language for thousands of years earlier, and come up with languages
that could be understood only by a few priviledged peoples who used
the made up language for their deceitful purposes. Turkish is a
mono-syllabic, phonetic and agglutinative language that probably was
the most advanced language ever developed over thousands of years. It
is so mathematical that one may call it the "perfect" language.


Will Durant writes the following: [p. 116]

"The "Aryans " did not establish civilization - they took it from
Babylonia and Egypt. Greece did not begin civilization- it inherited
far more civilization than it began; it was the spoiled heir of three
millenniums of arts and sciences brought to its cities from the near
East by the fortunes of trade and war. In studying and honoring the
Near East we shall be acknowledging a dept long due to the real
founders of the European and American civilization."

Polat Kaya: This clearly explains that neither Greeks nor their other
Aryan relatives were the contributers to civilizations. In fact they
did not inherit, they rather usurped the ancient Turanian civilization
by way of confusing the existing Turanian Turkish language. On top of
it they were the destroyers of existing Turanian civilizations before
putting something in its place with the knowledge that they acquired
from the ancient Turanians.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB) [1963, Vol. 19, p. 954] writes:

"Sanskrit, the literary language, although preserving the sound system
of Vedic praactically unchanged, did not escape the influence of its
descendants. The grammar was considerably changed, chiefly in a
simplifying and normalizing direction; meanings of words were altered
and developed, and vast quantities of new words gradually absorbed
after being given a Sanskrit form."

Polat Kaya: In spite of the usage of laundering words, the meaning of
this statement from EB is that the SANSKRIT is a manufactured
language just like the Greek, Latin and the rest of the so-called
Indo-European languages which are all manufactured from Turkish. The
artificially made up language of Sanskrit was used by a limited number
of population and the rest of the population used the so-called "old
VEDIC" the nature of which is not defined.


In your item (3) above you said:

"(3) Regarding imagination in reconstruction by `process clues and
glues'- the secret was no doubt held as a closely guarded secret by
the `priests' and `temple personnel', kings and the select group.
The reason is understandable. The secrets of magical chants are
never revealed openly to the public at large and uninitiated."
By this you admit that the Vedic cult activities had utmost secrecy
that people could not have access to it. Now, you are somehow
forgetting this and labeling me as "misguided" creates a
"contradiction" on your part. Let me give you another citing from Will
Durant. He writes the following [Will Durant, "The Story of
Civilization: Part I, Our Oriental Heritage", Simon and Schuster, New
York, 1954, p. 405]:

"In the earlier Vedic religion there were, so far as the evidence goes,
no temples and no images; altars were put up anew for each sacrifice
as in Zoroastrian Persia, and sacred fire lifted the offering to
heaven. . . . . The usual offering was a libation of soma juice, and
the pouring of liquid butter into the fire. The sacrifice was
conceived for the most part in magical terms; if it were properly
performed it would vin its reward, regardless of the moral deserts of
the worshiper. The priests charged heavily for helping the pious in
the ever more complicated ritual of sacrifice: if no fee was at hand,
the priest refused to recite the necessary formulas; his payment had to
come before that of the god. Rules were laid down by the clergy as to
what the remuneration should be for each service-how many cows or
horses, or how much gold; gold was particularly efficacious in moving
the priest or the god. The Brahmanas, written by the Brahmans,
instructed the priest how to turn the prayer or sacrifice secretly to
the hurt of those who had employed him, if they had given him an
inadequate fee. Other regulations were issued, prescribing the proper
ceremony and usage for almost every occasion of life, and usually
requiring priestly aid. Slowly the Brahmans became a priviledged
herediteri caste, holding the mental and spiritual life of India under
a control that threatened to stifle all thought and change."

Polat Kaya: Now Dr. Sastry, if this is not deception and exploitation
then nothing is! As anyone can see, what is being described by Will
Durant is a deceitful "business" establishment under the guise of
"religion". Thus their "deceit" eventually brings them to the very top
of the society and gives them the full control of people in every
sense.

It was also the same with the Apollo and Dionysus cults in ancient
Greece and many other cults that were operated by the ancient Greeks.
Thus you see that I am not "misguided" as you put it.

Encyclopaedia Britannica [1963, Vol. 19, p. 954] writes:

"The most archaic of these texts is the Rig-veda, a collection of
liturgical hymnes; this is followed by the Atharva-veda, consisting
chiefly of magical formulas, of prayers, curses and incantations."

Thus what the client was getting was a bagfull of empty words, curses
and singing in return for his horses or cows that he was paying for the
"religious services". Thus you see, I am not misguided at all.
Unfortunately this kind of religious business practices have come up to
the present times. Religion is a very big business!


<<Dr.Kaya: Surely thestraightforward Turk did not even know
what "anagrammatizing" was letalone excercising it on other
languages. The Turk in the easternmost end of Asia did not learn
his Turkish language by way of anagrammatizingthe words or phrases
of Greek or Latin or English... This is pure Turkish in its
agglutinative format and is formed in accordance with the rules of
Turkish language.


( 7) In the word identifications like `su'= water, in my view,
reverse anubandha karana from the Vedic Sanskrit word `Apsu'
meaning `In the water, APSU > (AP) SU = (In the) water is clearly
explainable. But the reverse anagramtizing to the grammatically
formed `APSU' from the given base of `SU' and the identification of
rules for such `manufacturing needs to be elaborated by Dr.Kaya.

Polat Kaya: Dr. Satry, if in vedic Sanskrit "APSU" means "in the
water", then most assuradly AP-SU is a composite word made up from two
Turkish words: Turkish "SU-DA' means 'in the water" which is made up
with the root word "SU" meaning "water" and the suffix "DA" meaning "in
the". It is quite obvious that Vedic sanskrit "AP-SU" is a
restructured form of Turkish "SU-DA".

Additionally, for the information of readers in this forum, I have
noted and claimed repeatedly the term "APSU" in the Sumerian texts that
it was the Turkish word "APA-SU" meaning "Father Water" just like the
Sumerian "EN-SU" (EN-ZU) is the Turkish expression "HAN SU" meaning
"Lord Water". This is so because "water' was one of the most important
deities of the ancient Turanian world. That is why the name of one of
the six sons of OGUZ KAGAN was "DENIZ HAN" (SU HAN) meaning "Lord Sea"
or "Lord SU". Now you are coming up and saying out of blue that that
Turkish word "SU" for water is derived from Sanskrit "APSU". That does
not make sense! If the relation is correct, then it is the Sanskrit
that took the Turkish word "SUDA" and converted it into "APSU" and
disguised it into a form called its own.

I place some more words from Vedic Sanskrit and show how Turkish
expressions come out with the simple approach of `reverse anubandha
karana' - as a simple, effective technique of `encryption', which
needs to be deciphered!

>>From this link, the emerging pattern of historic geographic movement
of lanaguages would be `Vedic Sanskrit in yoga-tantra traditions
(and of course coupled with the Sarsvati civilization historically
and geographically to the northern part of India) - proximate
movements to Central Asia and beyond as one stream; China and east
in other stream. Each following a different convention of `anubandha
karana (in your words- anagram technique/ encryption techniques,
which need different approach for decryption and understanding,
which is not covered in the current linguistics!).This seems to
provide a new dimension of linguistics and the understanding of
ancient cultures, lanauge, and a way to look at the available
evidences in Egypt, summer and else where from the vedic traditions
perspective.

( 8) coming to specific words :

- (a) "TEMYIZ" - THEMIS - "justice"- "highest court of appeal" -
The
Sanskrit word would be from vedic Sanskrit expression `SATYAM
IISHAH'= (= Truth is God, God is the highest court of appeal).
Applying reverse anubandha karana, SATYAM IISHAH > (SA) TYAM- (I)IS
(HAH) > TYAM-IS > TEMYIZ.

Polat Kaya: Dear Dr. Sastry: First of all in Turkish we also have a
similar belief. It says in Turkish: "Son karar Tanrinindir" meaning
"The last judgement belongs to God". Additionally, when a person is
distressed from the injustice that he/she has been subjected to and
he/she is unable to do anything to correct the injustice done, he/she
may say to the offending side, with some satisfaction, that: "Sizi
Tanrinin takdirine birakiyorum" meaning "I am leaving you to the
judment of God". Implied and as well understood from this tradition is
that "God is the final judge who punishes or rewards the person in
accordance with his/her deeds". So it seems that this concept is
expressed in the same way both in Turkish and Hinduism.

After having said that let us now turn to your "SATYAM IISHAH"
expression meaning "Truth is God". You applied your "anubandha karana"
procedure and come up with the name TEMYIZ.

- As I have already explained when you first mentioned it, the
expression "anubandha karana" is a "disrobing" concept applied to a
Sanskrit word that has been anagrammatized from Turkish. It is an
expression like the term "anagrammatizing". The very fact that you are
appliying it to Sanskrit words, implis that words of sanskrit language
have already artificially made up from something else. If we take the
expression "anubandha karana" and rearrange it as "KARAN-HAA-BAND-ANU"
is very much the Turkish expression "KIRIN U BEND ONU" meaning "break
and connect it (again)" which is the concept of "anagrammatizing" which
itself is from Turkish expression "GIRMA YENI DIZME" meaning "breaking
and re-arranging".

Thus the expression "anubandha karana" is very much the same concept as
the "anagrammatize" and its linguistic source is from Turkish.
Afterall, Aryan Greeks used the technique to come up with the Greek
language, why would not those Aryans (Arayan) who went to India use
the same technique in coming up with a language called "Sanskrit"?
After all it is the easiest method of coming up with a language of your
own. Turkish is there. One uses it and no one will know the
difference. After having made this point clear, I would like to ask
you the following as there are some difficulties here in following you.
I would like you please to explain:

- What is the literary meaning of the Sanskrit words SATYAM and
IISHAH? which one is "GOD" and which one means "TRUTH"? In my wildest
dreams , I could not imagine that Turks could or would strip the layers
of this Sanskrit expression and come up with the word "TEMYIZ" as a
name for "justice" and "highest court of appeal". After all Turks
themselves are known for their "just" behavior towards anyone and
everyone without discrimination.

- How did you know that you should strip the layers as you did? What
indications do you have that tells you that you should throw away the
(SA) part of SATYAM and then (I) and (HAH) parts of the second word and
then join the remaining parts to come up with the word "TEMYIS"?

- Is there a word in the form of TEMYIS or TYAMIS in Sanskrit
meaning Justice? If there is one such a word, why was it necessary to
wrap that word with additional layers of verbosity?

If you tell me that those Vedic traditionalists wanted to preserve the
word "TEMYIZ" in a disguised form, that is hard to accept also. The
only thing left to think about the disguise is that the source for
"TEMYIZ" was Turkish, and "they wanted to hide it." They added
additional words and/or lettering to disguise the core of the word.
Greek, Latin and English languages are full of this trick. They add to
the main Turkish word that they want to hide, other additional non
essential Turkish words and then restructure everthing together to come
up with the new word that they then call their own.


- (b) DOGU = born; DOGAN = born' - relate to the Vedic Sanskrit
expression `UDAGAAT' Which is a grammatically formed word with two
parts- UT = From above, higher source , origin + AGAAT = Emerged,
come out. This in Sanskrit grammar technicality is called a
upasarga modifying the meaning of a `verb declined for the past
tense meaning'. There are well laid out rules to explain this dating
back to Vedic grammar traditions of beyond 6000 BCE (these rules are
called shiksha nirukta and vyakarana vedanga sutras). UDAGAAT > (U)
DAGA(AT) > DOGU

Polat Kaya: I take the sanskrit expression "UDAGAAT" and rearrange it
letter-by-letter as "A-DUGTA", I find that it is a form of the Turkish
expression "O DOGTU" (O dogdu) meaning "he was born", additionally if I
rearrange it as "DUGATA", it is a form of Turkish expression "DOGATI"
meaning "it is nature" where everything gets born and dies.


Thus the source for these expressions is the Turkish verb "DOGMAK"
meaning "to be born". The rest of the attachments are Turkish suffixes
that give different meanings to the words made up from this root word.
If you notice, I did not have to throw away anything from the Sanskrit
expression "UDAGAAT", I only rearranged it, that is, I decrypted
(deciphered) it.


Incidently, even the English term "NATURE", when rearranged as
"ENATUR", is also from Turkish expression:

a) "ANATUR" meaning "it is mother". This is why Nature is often
referred to as Mother Nature. "Nature" is mother to all things that we
see around.

b) Similarly, when we re-arrange it as "ANU TER", it is the Turkish
expression "ANU TUR" meaning "it is the creator Sky-God ANU" or "TUR
is the Sky-god ANU" both of which make up the word "NATURE";

c) when "NATURE" is rearranged as "TANRUE" it is the distorted form of
Turkish TANRU meaning SKY GOD.

Thus it is clear that there was really no need to hide away or preserve
between wrappings the word "DOGU" in the first place. Since they used
extra wrappings, they did it because they wanted to hide away the
Turkishness of the core word.


- (c) "GIShI means "person" - Relates to `G(u)r(u)-(R)ishi'> (GURU-
RISHI> GISHI- Teacher - Searcher. The persons who ahd the knowledge
of the plants and the medicinal herbs for ritual/medicine were
considered as ayurvedic Rishis.

Polat Kaya: There is really no need to strip the Sanskrit GURU RISHI
as you did in order to come up with the Turkish word GISHI meaning
"person". Furthermore Sanskrit "GURU RISHI" is already from the
Turkish expression "GÖRÜ eRHISI"(Görü Ergisi) meaning "man-person
who sees it", "man-person who has knowledge". Hence the source for
this Sanskrit word is already Turkish without stripping anything from
it. Turkish "ER-GIShI" means "man person".

Additionally, the so-called word "GURU"as used to describe people who
are knowledgable, that is, can see things to be happening ahead of
others, is the altered form of the Turkish word "GÖRÜ" meaning "he
who sees it" and hence, "he who is a teacher or searcher". The word
GÖRÜ or "GURU" comes from the Turkish verb "Görmek" meaning "to
see". Thus again the root comes back to Turkish language.

Thus I say your "anubandha karan' claim has no effect on the formation
of Turkish words and expressions.


In my opinion, let us focus on the first phase of Turkish language
centric studies and its relation to the other European languages,
rules of linguistics and the hsitoricty. Once this is established,
the next phase of going to a historical period prior to turanian (
whether it is Vedic or other wise) would be meaningful.

Regards.

BVK Sastry


Polat Kaya; Dear Dr. Sastry, this is what I have been objecting to
all this time. That is, the European languages are false or artificial
languages made up from Turkish so they cannot be used as independently
developed reference languages with which Turkish should be compared by
linguists. I have already discovered that they are made up from
Turkish. The language that is made up from another language cannot be
earlier in time than the model language. The father and the mother are
always antedate the children in time. Now in your paragraph above, you
are telling me that we should start all over again and compare all
these languages and see how Turkish is related to them. This is a
wrong scenario. I have already proven that the rules of linguistics
and historicity of the European languages are artificial, and have been
designed by those who want to cover up an act of usurpation of Turkish
language.

Before I forget, I want to ask you and the readers the meaning of the
word AGASTYA which seems to be an important word in Hinduism. Please
give me its literary meaning if you can and whatever else it may mean.


My very best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

.

Loading