Maybe this is an issue for another thread, I mean, the usage of pseudo-science and pseudo-linguistics to explain a series of figments of the mind. In other words, what you present here has hardly anything to do with linguistics. It's pseudo-science, from the beginning to the end.
Let's have a look at it, step by step:
1. Numerology
I can not delve deep into Turkish words unless I use things like numerology.
In previous messages, there could have been some doubt whether or not you said that the ancients used "numerological principles" to come up with words (in itself a dubious claim), but here you take away all doubt:
you are using numerology in a linguistic endeavour. Numerology, which is one of "many systems, traditions or beliefs in a
mystical or
esoteric relationship between numbers and physical objects or living things." The terms "mystical" and "esoteric" don't strike me as incredibly scientific, nor as linguistic. Have you ever considered that other option besides "things like numerology" that one could choose to "delve deep into Turkish words": linguistics?
2. Me, myself and I
I don't actually care much about writers that much.
You'd be surprised how much those "writers" care about you and your theories...
Another feature of pseudo-science is the complete disregard for mainstream literature. We might have the rather romantic idea that some/most/all great scientific theories poofed into existence all of a sudden through the mind of one single genius-scientist-loner. But that rather romantic idea disregards in most cases the history of science/linguistics.
As an example: William Jones'
insight was brilliant, but claiming that this insight wasn't based upon previous insights, is an incredible and unwarranted simplification of the history of (historical) linguistics.
A lot of pseudo-scientists claim that it is "I" who come up with a completely novel theory. "I" know the truth, "I" have seen the light. Quite often, it's the reflection of a radiant ego much too bright that blinds them. A lot of pseudo-scientists have come up with "brilliant" ideas that go against all what is commonly know about the scientific field.
There is nothing wrong with "brilliant ideas", but as one well-known scientist put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Numerology, whether Pythagorean or Neo-Pythagorean doesn't really qualify as a method to get evidence.
I agree with you about the "wild speculations" part. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do at this point because there is actually nearly no one that's trying to find the roots of a word like Turk.
Apart from the undoubtedly 100s of
Turkologists?
3. Reaching conclusions vs confirmation bias
Because I have reached the conclusion
I have the very strong impression that your conclusion is your
starting point, and that you use your neo-pseudolinguistic method "numerology" to retrofit the so-called data, that your "numerology" is an excellent tool to confirm your biases. Otherwise said, you're putting the carriage in front of the horse.
4. Intermezzo
that Turkic languages have half of their roots in ancient Rome and even before that, and at least monotheistic religions have their "roots" in Tengrism. I think there were individual Turkic people living in Greece that spread the idea of Tengri in form of philosophy (together with words related to technologies and culture within Tengrism and mythology of ancient Asia which most definitely formed the basis of Greek mythology) which later resulted in Christianity and a divide in Christianity (ex: Armenians against Roman Empire)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Go for it! Convince us (but with something else than numerological pseudo-scientific methods).
5. Vagueness, an example
The quote below takes 3.5 lines on my screen. And yet, those 3.5 lines are so stuffed with more vague claims than can be stomached. Makes me think of a major
Gish Gallop.
I can only find written sources in the West, because it was unpractical for the Middle Asian people to carry written documents with them while they were trying to stay alive, moving from place to place after the great cataclysm that destroyed the great inner sea in Middle Asia. They could have simply left stone monuments in places they passed through.
A few questions:
(a) About which cataclysm exactly are you talking? Where did it take place and when?
(b) It would also be unpractical to carry around written documents when one cannot read nor write. I really have no clue when your "Middle Asian people" (whoever, whenever and wherever they were, see point d) started to get literate. Again, a date is crucial here.
(c) Any evidence that "Middle Asian people" started a nomadic life after or (as you seem to imply) because of that cataclysm? Or did I misunderstand?
(d) Do you mind using a slightly more precise term than "Middle Asian people"? Do these "Middle Asian people" happen to include Turkic nomads, were they only Turkic people, ...?
(e) What do you mean by "the West"? Anything western from Middle Asia (see above)?
I have more questions, but 5 is enough for the time being. Could you please provide us with a clear, documented and coherent answer? Preferably with an equally coherent and documented timeline (in order to take away the impression that your "theory" is an anachronistic stack of one event upon the other).
6. Mind the gaps
Turkic language science is very new compared to Western one. Scientist don't try to delve deeper into words. For example European languages have PIE roots. They are extremely deep. Turkish scientists haven't found such a tool. They stop at a certain point. The only difference is what I do leads to wild speculations "that are not yet established"
"
Not yet established?" I am sorry for not sharing your optimism: I strongly doubt if it will
ever get established.
Any which way, a message board isn't the most common way to "establish" a theory (see below).
I leave the description of the state of "Turkic language science" to you. I have quite strong doubts whether your description coincides with reality, but anyway.
I am more interested in your "argument out of ignorance".
I'll explain, but mind you, I am
not calling you "ignorant". If your description above would be correct, then it means that the linguists-Turkologists haven't found any evidence yet and hence they don't know, they are ignorant (about that specific aspect), they have a gap in their knowledge. Happens all the time in every scientific field.
However, what you do is filling that gap with wild, unverifiable, unsubstantiated claims based upon a pseudo-scientific method (numerology).
7. Politics
Because I have strong evidence that people who talked a Turkic language came to contact with rest of world many thousands of years ago contrary to the belief that they reached Anatolia in 1071 Battle of Manzikert, I try to compare similar words in other languages "in the same context" in a very successful way. It's seldom I reach a dead-end.
This is the standard, highly political Pan-Turkish ideological view upon history. So, what you're doing is taking a political, ideological claim (rather than a historical one), reach a conclusion and
then use some dodgy "method" to provide "evidence".
Now, that's what I call a dead end.
I really wonder if linguistics of the Turkish/Turkic languages is helped by this kind of fantasies. I even dare to wonder if the Pan-Turkish movement is helped with this kind of unverifiable statements. It gives me the impression that they are more concerned about their ideology than about history.