Gizem Çoban

Gizem Çoban



I cannot see what he wrote. That primate blocked me after I exposed his lies. If this rat is not afraid of the truth and does not fear getting exposed, I challenge him to unblock and debate me. But I doubt he would. He is extremely fraudulent and spineless

I had invited him to unblock me and have a debate with me. I had given him a time period of ten days. He has not dared to unblock and engage in a debate with me. Hence, I shall myself now examine his arguments and analyze whether there be a scintilla of truth in any of them.

The crux of his argument is his claim that Biryani allegedly "originated as a corruption of Pilaf". He claims that the Pilaf is "Persian" and by implication its "corruption" Biryani is also foreign.

Now, he knows there is a problem when he takes this line of argument. The problem is the very veracity of his claim that Pilaf is Persian. He knows that it is contradicted by many prominent authors like food historian like KT Acharya who claim Pilaf is Indian in origin.

However, the review tells us more about the American LA Times reviewer Charles Perry and his utter lack of knowledge regarding Indian languages than anything else.

This is exactly what I call a wild goose chase of a FOOL. Chasing something that simply is a product of his own imagination and does not exist in the first place!

Both Charles Perry and @Schandillia betray utter lack of BASIC Sanskrit knowledge This is factually INCORRECT There exists NO SUCH WORD as "Pulao" in Sanskrit .The word in question is Pulāka (पुलाक) meaning "boiled rice" (alternatively, it could also mean "shrivelled grain").

This Sanskrit word was taken into Old Tamil and Old Telugu as "Pulakam". And the word gave its name very famous rice dish named Pulakam that is extant even today in South India (புளகம், పులకము).

While Pulakam is mainly served today as a Khichdi like rice dish, some older regional variants particularly used spices, saffron and accompanied it with Rayta like curd preparation, making it identical to what is understood by "Pulav" today

But what is the evidence that Pulav/Pilaf comes from Pulāka /Pulakam ? We shall examine this question in the subsequent tweets

The great Persian linguist Ali Nourai shows that a sound cluster of voiceless plosive, non front vowel and a liquid is simply not existent in native Persian phonology Hence, a word such as "Pilaw/pilaf" is simply NOT a native Persian word. It is a borrowed loanword into Persian

In his path-breaking magnum opus "The Etymology dictionary of Persian", The Persian Linguist Dr. Ali Nourai very clearly mentions that the Persian word "Pulav/Pilaw/Pilaf" comes from the Sanskrit word Pulāka.

In "Etymological Dictionary of Persian", leading Persian linguist Garnik Asatrian makes a very interesting point. He says the word "Pulav/Pilaw" or its ancestors are completely ABSENT in Old & Middle Persian. It occurs in New Persian when Ghaznavids begin expanding into India

Both the books trace the Persian "Pulav/Pilaf" to Sanskritic "Pulāka". These are the only available comprehensive etymology dictionaries of Persian language incorporating new research from the field of Indo European linguistics

What does it tell us? A clueless American FOOL wrote a horrible review without any knowledge about Eastern languages and a chimpanzee @schandillia used it as THE ultimate truth in his garbage tweets. Another FOOL promoted his tweets as the ultimate truth

This thread will be continued

Follow us on Twitter

to be informed of the latest developments and updates!

You can easily use to @tivitikothread bot for create more readable thread!
Donate 💲

You can keep this app free of charge by supporting 😊

for server charges...