In > Cluster User wrote:

>MK rote:
>
>{examples deleted}
>
>>Did you take this one well also...?
>
> paradox's style is at times heated,

Just heated, huh...? :)

> but the points he raises are valid, polat kaya's is not.

Like this gem...? (in the section I previously quoted in
my previous article that you clipped this time around)

> ----------------------------------------------------------
   "paradox" 12/27/96 >

   ..... In about every language there are certain sounds
   that are universally shared. They are mostly related to
   immediate family, basic survival level things that
   surround you... To give a few examples: tomato, potato,
   lemon, pilot, motor, yat, etc....:)))))
> ----------------------------------------------------------

Don't you think P. Kaya raised any points as "valid" as this
one...? I may give you a dollar if you can find them...

>>> In the 80's the author of "erzurum agzInda osmanlIca kelimeler"
>>> (perhaps "sozcUkler" - "ottoman words in erzurum speech") was
>>> one of them, as can be seen from the title. the loanwords were
>>> hardly the literary loans of the ottoman period, the attempt
>>> was to show that kurdish - persian cognates were just that. I
>>> too didn't bother to remeber the name of the author, and I am
>>> not about to make a trip to turkey just for that.
>> ............
>>
>> The thing is, if it is important for you to bring such a
>> garbage into a debate, then it should be important enough
>> for you to remember it...! Otherwise it it nothing more
>
> this is demagogry.
>
>> than irrelevant bull-shit story based on your personal
>> opinion...! 
>
> I have given sufficient information for people to find the
> book. I can even tell you it is found in most major turkish
> university libraries.

And who do you think will go all the way to Turkey to find
that book, to follow up on this very important "lead" from
you...? Especially considering that you yourself made the
comment that "You were not about to make a trip to Turkey
just for that"...?

But let me tell all the readers, who are not about to make
a trip to Turkey just to find this book, that what he says
in his book is correct... You may judge his work just as an
"attempt" but he did indeed show that those kurdish-persian
cognates were just that... 

>> In the past, whenever I expressed my opinion about Turkish
>> (admittedly), you labeled it as "linguistic nationalism"...
>
> I have explained what is meant by it in this thread as well.
> it means the movement to purge a language of what are deemed
> "foreign" words.

One can want that for reasons other than nationalism, but
it doesn't seem to matter against your obcession with
"anti-nationalism". 

I'm not an advocate of "one language world". I see different
languages as different flavors of the humanity. I don't want
to lengthen the subject, but shortly, I believe that languages
should be protected from becoming complete gumbo soups.

Western and Arabic/Persian loan words and constructs are
destructive to Turkish which is of a very different langage
family. If this view of mine is nationalism to you, so be
it then...

>> subject of creating one "Sun-Kurdish Language" out of many
>> mutually unintelligible "*dialects*" (as you call them) in
>
> ....... if you are interested, there is a thread in sci.lang
> about the distinction between dialects and languages and what
> is meant by "mutual intelligibility".

I have been reading those "high linguistic content" articles
about "Kurdish language", crossposted to umpteen newsgroups...

I have seen in some of them (as in other articles in the past)
that the speakers of those different "Kurdish *dialects*" admit
themselves that they don't understand each other... What more
do I need to hear...?

> after being bored by MK, sorry if I bored you with a reply.
> it was just to set the record straight.

 "You sure are am embesile....How can one be so self-centered,
 "ethno-centric, ill-informed, ignorant to the degree of pathetic.

 "Tomato, potato, lemon, pilot, motor, yat, etc....:)))))

 "DOWN BOY!!!!!TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND HOLD FOR
 "3 SECONDS BEFORE YOU SPEAK!:) 

MK

PS: How do you take my new "*heated style*"...? :)

For Publication in the Newsletter
of
PHOENIX
THE ALTERNATIVE
Revised/First Published at World Citizens Congress - Nov.17,1994

The Means of Sustenance 
in various socio-economic and political systems

Socio-economic and political systems usually stress their superiority by
criticizing the deficiencies of competing systems. However, common to all
systems is the drive to define and achieve control of an individual's (or
group's) means of sustenance. The most totalitarian and unsustainable
systems are those with the greatest  restriction upon  the means of
self-sustenance.

Domination of a group or individual is not possible unless you disrupt
self-sustenance. Individuals or groups which are denied the means of
self-sustainability are easily exploited and controlled. They become
dependent upon others for their means of sustenance.
  
External control of the means of sustenance creates a dependency
relationship. That dependency creates a need in the individual controlled
to please his controller. This is essential in order to maintain his means
of sustenance. 

In climbing the hierarchical ladder that his controller presents, the group
or individual wants to achieve the highest status possible. Higher status
is defined by higher degree of power through various means e.g. physical
control, birth to Nobel families, religious, nationalistic, philosophical
and political beliefs and money. This is a continuing spiral. This
maximizes his controllability as the means of sustenance can easily be
taken away by coercion, force, deception, or neglect. The quest for status
comes at an ever higher level of power necessary to maintain a new
artificial level of means of self-sustenance.   

Self-sustenance involves an individual's (or group's) ability to define and
create it's own independent environment. Self sustaining groups or
individuals are independent. They husband their resources to maintain that
independence.

Jack R. Badura 						1009 Brunswick Ave.
(609) 394-8557		    					Lawrenceville, N.J. 08648

Thursday, June 27, 1996
Typical example of dependency related means of sustenance are:
	income via salary, hourly wages, soldiers pay, charity, welfare
Dependency related means of sustenance can be taken away solely at the
option of the controlling party.
Independent means of sustenance are self-directed or self-controlled
actions of individuals or groups. They do not directly require the
exploitation of others.
Examples of independent means of self-sustenance:
	Farms or homesteads- capable of fully supporting an individual or group
	Possessors of Capital- capable of providing income via investments or real
estate. 
	Isolated Tribal groupings- such as the Eskimos or Pacific Islanders
The self-sustaining entity is fully independent and self-directed. 

Looking on various socio-economic and political systems from the point of
view of the definition of the means of sustenance, we develop the following
relationships:
PURE  THEORETICAL SYSTEMS	Means of Sustenance
SYSTEM	CONTROLLER	DEPENDENT	SELF-SUSTAINING GROUPS
FEUDAL		Landowner		Peasant			None
CAPITALIST		Capitalist		Labor				None
COMMUNIST	Government		Citizen			None
SOCIALIST		Bureaucracy	Citizen			None
MILITARY	    External authority    Chain of Command		None
SLAVERY		Slave Owners    	Slaves			None	

Each system consists of opposing and antagonistic groups. External control
of the means of sustenance defines a relationship of dependency. The
controlling group can only be sustained by the exploitation of the
dependent group.
In all the pure systems, there are no self-sustaining groups. In all pure
systems, the controller completely controls the means of sustenance by
totally controlling ownership and property rights.
Common organizing tool of civilization.
Dominance is the ability to define and control the ability to be
self-sustaining. The means of self-sustenance are taken away and replaced
by providing controlled sustenance. 
Domination is achieved by the creation and nurturing of  master-slave
relationships to control individuals or groups.

HISTORICAL SYSTEMS                                                Means of
Sustenance

HISTORICAL 	CONTROLLERS	DEPENDENTS	SELF-SUSTAINING GROUPS/  SYSTEMS	 				  
		PROPERTY RIGHTS 
FEUDAL		Landowner		Peasant		Small landowners/Minimal
CAPITALIST		Capitalists		Labor			Small capitalists, Landowners/
									High  Private Ownership
COMMUNIST	Government		Citizen			None/None
SOCIALIST		Bureaucracy	Citizen	      Small tradesmen and Landowners/
										Very Limited
MILITARY	    External authority    Chain of Command		None/None
Slavery		Slave Owners	Slaves		Some slaves are rewarded 										with
property ownership
	
In historical systems, self-sustaining groups (and individuals) can exist
only to the extent that the controllers relinquish and respect ownership
and property rights of the self-sustaining group. Therefore, the basic
difference between the systems is defined by the rights of ownership. These
rights, in turn, define the strengths of the self-sustaining group.
The only differentiating argument arises from the preservation of the means
of self-sustenance. This, in turn, is defined by the rights of ownership
and property rights.
Groups (tribes, families, nations, cultures, etc.) or individuals are
independent only if they possess the means of self-sustenance. 
The true reason for the failure of the communist system

The failure of the communist system is directly related to the absence, via
prohibition of private ownership, of self-sustaining groups and
individuals. The architect of communism, Karl Marx, noticed flaws in the
historical capitalist system of his time. He saw exploited workers and he
mistakenly blamed private ownership, ownership of means of production and
private property rights for the exploitation. He proposed the absurd
solution of  abolishing all ownership and private property rights. In so
doing, all people and groups under communism lost the means of
self-sustenance. 

The communist idea could therefore be defined as an "irrational reaction to
the abuses of other systems" i.e. capitalist, feudal etc.
Ownership of the means of production does not, in and of itself, create a
condition of dependency and exploitation.  Only deprivation of individuals
and/or of a large group of people of the means of self-sustenance creates
such  conditions. Only then could ownership of the means of production be
used to exercise control.
However imperfect the capitalist system is, it still provides the best
protection of ownership and property rights despite excessive
concentration. This fosters development of  a high level of
self-sustainable people.

"POLONYI R." > wrote:

>Could you help me in finding lids of my family.
>
>My father's name is POLONYI AUREL BELA borned october 15 1913 in
>TISZAPALKONYA.
>His father POLONYI ANTAL
>His mother GIBAS ANNA
>
>Also the family of POLONYI MIHALY december 26 1923 in NAGYVARAD (Romania).
>
>Is there a more concerned newsgroup?
>
>english/french/ungarn  angol/franciaul/magyar
>
>My adress  
>
>Thanks.
>
>Polonyi Roland
Greetings Roland,

There is a mailing list for people doing genealogical research in the
Bnat region, and for all intents and pruposes, your query would fall
in that category (Because of Nagyvarad).

Bob Maler adminsters/runs the list, and he can be contacted on
.

The group also has pointers to various archives.

Good Luck with your quest,
Alex Long

--
                          ,     \    /      ,
                         / \    )\__/(     / \   
                        /   \  (_\  /_)   /   \                
 ______________________/_____\__\@  @/___/_____\________________ 
 
 Alex Long                                                       
 Adelaide, South Australia                                        
________________________________________________________________
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars"
              - Oscar Wilde,  The Picture of Dorian Gray,  Act III
_________________________________________________________________
                   |    /\ /      \\       \ /\    |             
                   |  /   V        ))       V   \  |
                   |/     `       //        '     \|
                   `              V                '

Kedves Dr.Georg Klinikchef Úr (Swedenből)! Mire fől ez a nagy izgalom?
 
> A kerdes a
> parti-parte szora vonatkozott

Ezt Te csak belemagyarázod. Íme az eredeti kérdés:

> Miért nevezik a gyászjelentést particédulának ?

> Már felnőtt voltam, amikor először találkoztam ezzel a szóval.
> Talán sokak Közületek most sem ismerik. Tény, hogy használatos,
> de a magyarázatát nem tudom.

> Üdv,
> Miklós

Erre megadtam a korrekt választ:

> Partezettel=gyászjelentés németül

A parte etimológiájáról szó nem volt, bár nagyon köszönöm az 
erre vonatkozó adatokat.

Számomra érdekesebb a parti- alakváltozat, amely egyértelműen
népetimológiai jellegű, arra utal, ahogy a magyar az 
idegen szavakat értelmezni és könnyebben kiejthetővé formálni 
igyekszik. Erre példa a káptalan, ami a latin capitulum-ból ered,
az inzsellér, aminek a francia ingénieur a forrása és a zsellérre 
hajaz. Modernebb példa még a gémkapocs (GEM clips) és a
zsombér (a John Deer traktor).

LL

-- 
Lovrics La'szlo', kandida'tus
Informa'cio'rendszerek Tansze'k
Budapesti Ko:zgazdasa'gtudoma'nyi Egyetem