Serbian - contemporary of Sanskrit
stefan...@hotmail.com
simular in phonetic value but of the same meaning:
Agan - oganj (fire); bagas - bog (god); brath - brat (brather); bhala
- bela (white); chata - ceta (platoon); deti - dete (child); div -
div; dina - dan (day); dasa - dese (child)t; dama - dom (home); girya
- gora (mountain); grad - grad (city); iskra - iskra (spark); kada -
kada (when); kuta - kuca (house); lip - lep (pretty); lot - ljut
(angry); laghi - laki, lagan (light); ljubhva - ljubav (love); matr -
mater (mother); mala - mali (little); more - more (sea); mil - mili
(dear); nabas - nebo (sky); nava - novi (new); paraha - prah (dust);
prati - protiv (against); panca -pet (five); pena - pena (bubbles);
rabh - rob (slave); rosa - rosa (dune); sa - so (salt); sila -
sila(might); sas - sest (six); stan - stan (lives there); sabha - soba
(room); stala - stol (table); tata - tata (dad); ta - taj (that
person); tvar - stvar (thing); trassti - tresti (shake); trang - trag
(track); tamas - tama (dark); tri - tri (three); triydosa - trinaest
(thirteen); tada - tada (then); vrt - vrt (garden); vicur - vece
(eveing); vi - vi (you); vas - vas (you); vatara - vatra (fire); viva
- ziva (alive).
Sanskrit family titles are in complete identical to Serb names as:
tata (dad), nana (gran), brat (brother), sestra (sister), strina
(aunt), svekar (father in law), svekrva (mother in law) ,dever
(brother in law), kum ( god father), svastika (sister in law) and
prija (son in laws mother).
Dušan Vukotić
And what is your point? Don't you think that similar parallel can be
drawn between any of IE languages and Sanskrit?
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:b364f8cf-fd1e-4468...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, but more to the point, what does Stefan Stevic
mean by the subject line: "Serbian - contemporary of Sanskrit".
What does he think the word "contemporary" mean???
pjk
stefan...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> "Dusan Vukotic" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I mean it is from the same time; heard of the expression ; his/her/
its' contemporary. it means from his/her/its' time. just look it up in
a dictionary. I recently researched Serbian history and found out that
real history is somewhat different than the 'popular' history books
say; rather what the Nordic School of history says as opposed to the
Autonomic School from Serbia what includes some of the leading
hisorians from around the world. If anyone wants to find out about it
more they sould research the historian Jovan I. Deretic but they would
have to know Serbian also....but on the actual subject I also found
toponyms in India, Ethiopia, Tibet, Baltic and throughout the Middle
East that have either serbian words or the Serbian name in it. Some of
them are;
Lithuania (Once known as Baltic Serbia and a part of BeloSrbska "White
Serbia" under king Svevlad the 1st)
Serbentai 55N 23E 84 275
Serbenty 55N 23E 84 275
Serbinai 55N 23E 57 187
Serbinay 55N 23E 57 187
Serbiny 55N 23E 57 187
Sirbishkyay 55N 25E 87 285
Sruby 55N 24E 77 252
Sarboriµks I54N 24E 173 567
Pakistan Hindukush aryarvata region
Serbal 36N 72E 3501 11486
Serbut, Koh-i- 29N 63E 1402 4599
Sarband 33N 71E 408 1338
Sarband 34N 71E 284 931
Sarbilandpura 34N 71E 288 944
Sarbulandpur 34N 71E 288 944
China
Sêrba 31N 100E 3669 12037
Sarbulak 47N 88E 781 2562
Ethiopia
Serbo 7N 36E 1796 5892
Serbo 9N 35E 1749 5738
Serbo 9N 34E 1613 5291
Sirba 10N 35E 1488 4881
Sirba 9N 35E 1577 5173
India
Banat
29N 77E 243 797
Barå Gorra
28N 74E 324 1062
Belagad
19N 83E 671 2201
Bele
22N 83E 428
Beli
22N 87E 16
Dunya
29N 80E 1602 5255
Dunåra
25N 72E 151 495
Dusåna
21N 74E 356 1167
Kosåna
26N 73E 259 849
Rasela
20N 82E 350 1148
Rassin
18N 74E 563 1847
Tisa
32N 76E 1515 4970
Trichinapalli
10N 78E 76 249
Trichinopoli
(Trishino polje) 10N 78E 76 249
Vida
18N 75E 731 2398
Vidisha
23N 77E 424 1391
Vinchia (Vincha)
22N 71E 172 564
Dušan Vukotić
> On Jan 31, 2:12 am, "Du¹an Vukotiæ" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 7:51 am, stefan_ste...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Here is a list of some words in Sanskrit and Serbian which are same or
> > > simular in phonetic value but of the same meaning:
>
> > > - bela (white, pale); chata - ceta (platoon); deti - dete (child; kid = chedo); div -
div; deus; dina - dan (day); dasa - dese (child)t; dama - dom (home);
girya
gora (mountain); grad - grad (city; court); iskra - iskra (spark);
kada -
> > > kada (when); kuta - kuca (house); lip - lep (pretty); lot - ljut
> > > (angry); laghi - laki, lagan (light); ljubhva - ljubav (love); matr -
> > > mater (mother); mala - mali (little); more - more (sea); mil - mili
> > > (dear); nabas - nebo (sky); nava - novi (new); paraha - prah (dust);
> > > prati - protiv (against); panca -pet (five); pena - pena (bubbles);
> > > rabh - rob (slave); rosa - rosa (dune); sa - so (salt); sila -
> > > sila(might); sas - sest (six); stan - stan (lives there); sabha - soba
> > > (room); stala - stol (table); tata - tata (dad); ta - taj (that
> > > person); tvar - stvar (thing); trassti - tresti (shake); trang - trag
> > > (track); tamas - tama (dark); tri - tri (three); triydosa - trinaest
> > > (thirteen); tada - tada (then); vrt - vrt (garden); vicur - vece
> > > (eveing); vi - vi (you); vas - vas (you); vatara - vatra (fire); viva
> > > - ziva (alive).
>
> > > Sanskrit family titles are in complete identical to Serb names as:
> > > tata (dad), nana (gran), brat (brother), sestra (sister), strina
> > > (aunt), svekar (father in law), svekrva (mother in law) ,dever
> > > (brother in law), kum ( god father), svastika (sister in law) and
> > > prija (son in laws mother).
>
> > And what is your point? Don't you think that similar parallel can be
> > drawn between any of IE languages and Sanskrit?
>
> You cant make the same
> connection with another language other than maybe a Slavic one and for
> it to be this similar.
No, you are wrong. You can make the similar list in Germanic, Romance
or Greek too.
DV
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> On Jan 31, 2:12 am, "Du¹an Vukotiæ" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the true age of Serbian and Slavic for that matter. It could be way
> older than historians give it credit. Maybe that is why there is such
> similarity with Sanskrit compared to another IE language, especially
> one of the Eurpoean languages. Have you heard of a historian called
> Jovan I. Deretic Dont confuse him with the linguist Jovan Deretic (no
> middle name)? Research him
None of the IE languages could be taken as the "oldest" or "older"
one. All the IE tongues are equally old.
I know Deretic personally; he is an excellent historian.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Sur-Bel-Gon or Hor-Bel-Gon basis. The name of Serbs sprang from it,
but thousands and thousands of words in different IE languages also
came from the same basis.
It is our (Serbian) "sweet-dream" and delusion that all the above
words must be directly connected to the Serbian name.
What about serpent or sorbeo/srbat (slurp), servant, Lat. servitium /
slavery/?
DV
Trond Engen
> On Jan 31, 7:21 pm, "Dušan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 31, 7:27 am, stefan_ste...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 2:12 am, "Du¹an Vukotiæ" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 30, 7:51 am, stefan_ste...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is a list of some words in Sanskrit and Serbian which are
>>>>> same or simular in phonetic value but of the same meaning:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> And what is your point? Don't you think that similar parallel can
>>>> be drawn between any of IE languages and Sanskrit?
>>>
>>> What I'm trying to say is that there might be a different story
>>> behind the true age of Serbian and Slavic for that matter. It could
>>> be way older than historians give it credit. [...]
>>
>> None of the IE languages could be taken as the "oldest" or "older"
>> one. All the IE tongues are equally old.
>
> [...] if you accept the theory behind Deretic's works than we
> can say that Serbian is actually the root to IE languages and most
> possibly Sanskrit [...]
Am I the only one to be strangely amused by this exchange ov Serbs?
--
Trond Engen
- Tennis, anyone?
Dušan Vukotić
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> about totally another thing; the actual influence of Serbian on other
> IE languages. These words eveolved in stages from Sur-Bel-Gon and
> since Deretic, Lukovic, Safarik so convincingly prove Serbian is the
> 'proto-language' it gave way for the rest of the IE languages to
> develop hence they all have their origin in Serbian.
>
> p.s.
> I read something on this in a book Praroditelj Evropskog coveka: Suri
> Orao, Srpski Arijevac by Dusan Vukotic. Does it ring a bell? It sure
> does corroborate with what I'm trying to say.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am the author of that book (Praroditelj evropskog čoveka/The
Forefather of the European Man; http://srpskazorabela.50megs.com/custom3.html)
and I know what I wrote there (it was published seven years ago). It
is not a scientific study but a book of essays and a sort of language-
determing philosophical thought. In my introductory word you can read
that such work "is not based on scientific methods" and that it is "a
free flight of Suri Orao/Golden Eagle" in an atempt to find something
new..."maybe some 'pearl' that could be added to the shiny Serbian
Diadem".
In reality, that book should be understood as a part of a larger
experiment... the initial "calculation" of the "potency" of "intuitive
cognition". :-)
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> stefan_ste...@hotmail.com skreiv:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stefan, meet Trend Engine - one of the most spirited people on
sci.lang... in rare moments when he is not accompanied by suicidal
ideas.
DV
António Marques
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
António Marques
> Am I the only one to be strangely amused by this exchange ov Serbs?
And they exchanged Serbs and their hearts rejoiced, for they had Serbed
well.
Peter T. Daniels
> OMG, Dushan has been outdushaned!
I've been marveling that DV is on the side of truth and reality this
time.
mb
...
> determing philosophical thought. In my introductory word you can read
> that such work "is not based on scientific methods" and that it is "a
> free flight of Suri Orao/Golden Eagle" in an atempt to find something
> new..."maybe some 'pearl' that could be added to the shiny Serbian
> Diadem".
>
> In reality, that book should be understood as a part of a larger
> experiment... the initial "calculation" of the "potency" of "intuitive
> cognition". :-)
Exactly.
Please go to alt.sci.fi
Dušan Vukotić
> Trond Engen wrote:
> > Am I the only one to be strangely amused by this exchange ov Serbs?
>
> And they exchanged Serbs and their hearts rejoiced, for they had Serbed
> well.
Marquess,
I've been wondering where your surname of "marginal nobility" sprang
from?
DV
lora...@cs.com
> ..I also found
> toponyms in India, Ethiopia, Tibet, Baltic and throughout the Middle
> East that have either serbian words or the Serbian name in it. Some of
> them are;
> Lithuania (Once known as Baltic Serbia and a part of BeloSrbska "White
> Serbia" under king Svevlad the 1st)
Sorry, but what are you smoking?
lora...@cs.com
A.M's 'Outdushanned'.. that was funny.
Doubly so when considering Baltic 'dushans' means 'healthy' or
'invigorated' .. hence an 'overly invigorated' Stefan.
But I will have to admit that of all the Slavic languages that I have
(cursorily) surveyed, Serbian seems to me to be the most conservative
of them all... so far. And I have to admit that I now agree with the
general view of South Slavic as being the most archaic of all Slavic
groups.
Your exposition of Serbian word lists in fact surprised me with the
very high percentage of Serbian-Baltic correspondences.
One question for you though..
To me it almost seems (based on the percentage of Baltic-Slavic
correspondences) that Serbian is *more* conservative than even OCS (!)
Have you ever undertaken a comparison of Serbian against OCS? And if
so any comments?
Paul J Kriha
news:47a1dd9e$0$14999$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
Shhhhh, don't interrupt them, just listen quietly.
> Trond Engen
> - Tennis, anyone?
Nah, it's time to open another bottle of Pinot Noir and listen to the sages talk.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:47a20f2a$0$26121$8826...@free.teranews.com...
> Trond Engen wrote:
>
> > Am I the only one to be strangely amused by this exchange ov Serbs?
>
> And they exchanged Serbs and their hearts rejoiced, for they had Serbed
> well.
What a selfserbing quixotic quotation from Miguel de Serbantes.
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:974eb71b-c512-45e5...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 30, 7:12 am, "Dušan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 7:51 am, stefan_ste...@hotmail.com wrote:
[...]
>> And what is your point? Don't you think that similar parallel can be
>> drawn between any of IE languages and Sanskrit?
>> DV
>
>A.M's 'Outdushanned'.. that was funny.
>Doubly so when considering Baltic 'dushans' means 'healthy' or
>'invigorated' .. hence an 'overly invigorated' Stefan.
Probably related to Slavic 'dusha', it means spirit (related to breath).
>But I will have to admit that of all the Slavic languages that I have
>(cursorily) surveyed, Serbian seems to me to be the most conservative
>of them all... so far. And I have to admit that I now agree with the
>general view of South Slavic as being the most archaic of all Slavic
>groups.
Have you had a look at Slovenian or Lusatian(Sorbian) languages?
They have some extra portions of archaic features, e.g. dual.
>Your exposition of Serbian word lists in fact surprised me with the
>very high percentage of Serbian-Baltic correspondences.
Isn't it more-or-less the same when comparing Baltic with WSl,
in fact with most of the Sl languages?
>One question for you though..
>To me it almost seems (based on the percentage of Baltic-Slavic
>correspondences) that Serbian is *more* conservative than even OCS (!)
>
>Have you ever undertaken a comparison of Serbian against OCS? And if
>so any comments?
The OCS was based on the old South Slavic dialect spoken
around Solun (Thessaloniki), so it's vocabulary is to be
expected to be closer to today's South Slavic languages
then the West or East ones.
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
> shouldn't be taken seriously? It seems like you are trying to disprove
> what i'm trying to get across by saying it's not a reliable piece of
> work because it's not scientific. Deretic and company have proven much
> of the stuff that you have written-scientifically and archeologically.
> Besides if you dont have some sort of proof for you to write something
> like that it was pointless writing it in the first place. I'm confused
> of your attitude towards the subject and on Deretic's work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, don't take it to your heart. The linguistic science should also
be a "systematic knowledge" which demands that all assumptions must be
proven from at least three different sides (semantics, logic and
phonetics) before they could be accepted as "undeniable facts"..
Let us be reminded of Giordano Bruno's words: "time is the father of
truth, its mother is our mind.” Linguistics is the science in diapers
and a certain number of its "axioms" neither can be taken (too)
"seriously" nor be considered as valid without question.
An old Serbian proverb says: opreznost je majka mudrosti (cautious is
mother of wisdom); and another one: ne trči pred rudu (don't run in
front of a shaft /car/; cf. compare Eng. rod and Serb. ruda /shaft/).
What I want to say is that "reality" is often quite different from our
expectations and that "dreams" could sometimes be more "real" than
"reality" itself (re-read Anatole France: "Love is an attempt to
change a piece of a dream-world into reality." ).
It seems you are ready to use the word "proven" with some "intolerable
lightness", with a mix of (almost) epic ebullience and strong passion
soaked in the pot of an "autochthonic kitchen". Although I do
appreciate Deretic's work I follow neither the so-called
"Authochthonic School" nor the "official" one that is also called
"Germanic" or "bečko-berlinska škola" (the Vienna-Berlin School) in
Serbia.
I was and I am still a "free flying" Suri Orao/Surya Arya!
Let me quote Giordano Bruno again instead of any specific conclusion:
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the
masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth
does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of
the people.”
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Not only Lithuania but Latvia too :-)
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
>
> Serbal 36N 72E 3501 11486
> Serbut, Koh-i- 29N 63E 1402 4599
> Sarband 33N 71E 408 1338
> Sarband 34N 71E 284 931
> Sarbilandpura 34N 71E 288 944
> Sarbulandpur 34N 71E 288 944
>
>
As a student of Indian languages, I can tell you straight off that you
have made sweeping generalisations in your choice of place-names.
For example, how can you assume that SARBAND contains the root SRB??
The name is actually a composite of SAR (head) and BAND (bound),
meaning a turbanned head or chief. SAR is totally separate from BAND.
They are two separate words.
Similarly, SARBULANDPUR is a composite of SAR (head) BULAND (high) and
PUR (town). It means the town of the august ones, the ones who hold
their heads high.
It is quite possible - in fact it is most certain - that many of the
other places and towns you have mentioned in other countries mean
totally different things to what you think. If in any given word, the
letters S, R and B follow each other closely in that order, it does
NOT necessarily mean that they indicate any relationship to Serbian or
Serbia.
The close similarity between Serbian and Sanskrit is not at all
surprising. Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed
Indo-European languages. But that does not indicate that Serbian is
anywhere near the original Indo-European tongue. Also, please remember
that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. It is an
older sister of Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic. Their
mother tongue is unknown, and it can be demonstrated that none of the
existing or documented Indo-European languages can ever claim to be
the original tongue for reasons that linguists and philologists have
clearly laid down.
The oldest tongues of the world also contain the greatest number of
ROOTS. Surprisingly, Sanskrit itself only possesses around 400 roots,
which is very poor compared to a Middle-Eastern language like Arabic
that contains over 100 000 (one hundred thousand) root words. This
points to the extreme antiquity of Semitic tongues compared to the
much more recent and impoverished ones of the Indo-European family.
So, although I am a European, I have to admit that our languages
haven't got much to be extra-proud of, compared to some other tongues
of the world. Yes, we should celebrate the beauty of our languages,
but not go overboard in trying to prove some kind of superiority of
our people just because our language ressembles to some degree a
relatively old dead language of the Arya Varta, i.e. Sanskrit.
Keep things in perspective, please.
Dušan Vukotić
You are right, this is a compound word; the root 'srb' never existed
in IE.
In this case we have the same basis Sur-Bel-Gon for both of these
words - Serbin (Serblin) and Sarband. It means that words Srbin and
Sarband are compound words. The literal meaning of the word Serblin is
probably "zora bela" (white dawn), but it could also be "red dawn" or
"burning dawn";
Sar is also head (chief) in English (ser) and in German (Her) because
the most important man (leader, chieftain, headman) of a tribe was
compared to the sun (or sun divinity) - Czar (!).
Serbian 'zora' is clearly related to the sun (Serb. sunce; Sur-Gon
basis; from sur-nce => sunce; elision of the sound "r"); therefrom
Serbian Zornjača (Venus, Lucifer. Morning Star).
Of course, meanings 'white' and 'high' are completely different as in
case of Serbian words 'belo' and 'visoko' (high) or veliko (big); also
'planina' (mountain). On the other hand, we should know that
'belo' (white) is springing from the sun-god Bel as wel as the word
'plam' (flame; from Serbian 'planuti' blaze; Bel-Gon basis) or the
word vezati (bound).
Now we can see that Serbian white (belo) and bound (vezan) are the
words that were derived from the same Bel-Gon basis. How? Serbian belo
(white) is related to bljesak (flash) and munja (Russ. молния/molniya;
Bul. мълния; from Bel-Gon basis; paljenje (ignition, burning) =>
maljenje => mulnja => munja; cf. Serb. bljuzga/v => mljuzga/v =>
mlaz). Of course, Serbian verb vezati is not directly related to the
"whiteness" or "flash", but indirectly, via Bel (the sun), oblak
(cloud; oblak oblači sunce /cloud clothes the sun/) and Serb. obloga/
oblanda (coating, covering) the vord vezati (bind; Avesta basta /
bound, tied up/; Hindi bastah; Skt. valganaṃ) is connected to the sun
(Bel).
The names Sarband and Sarbuland are obviously derived from the same
source, because 'band' also sprang from the Sur-Bel-Gon basis (Serb.
obloga/oblanda; Skt. valganam; cf. Skt. valga /bridle/). Finally, both
of these words are indirectly "related" through the words as oblak
(cloud; obloga/oblanda, vezati /fasten/) and nebo (sky), nebo, nebule
is (visoko; Serb. ne-besko /of the sky/; visoko high; nad-visiti /
become higher, overgrow/) high in the sky and the sky (nebo) is
"white/red/flamed/blazed" in the morning.
> Similarly, SARBULANDPUR is a composite of SAR (head) BULAND (high) and
> PUR (town). It means the town of the august ones, the ones who hold
> their heads high.
>
> It is quite possible - in fact it is most certain - that many of the
> other places and towns you have mentioned in other countries mean
> totally different things to what you think. If in any given word, the
> letters S, R and B follow each other closely in that order, it does
> NOT necessarily mean that they indicate any relationship to Serbian or
> Serbia.
>
> The close similarity between Serbian and Sanskrit is not at all
> surprising. Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed
> Indo-European languages. But that does not indicate that Serbian is
> anywhere near the original Indo-European tongue. Also, please remember
> that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. It is an
> older sister of Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic.
Absolutely wrong! Sanskrit is IE language thanks to the massive IE
loanwords; i.e. the native population of India acquired a great
portion of its vocabulary from their European conquerors.
> The oldest tongues of the world also contain the greatest number of
> ROOTS. Surprisingly, Sanskrit itself only possesses around 400 roots,
> which is very poor compared to a Middle-Eastern language like Arabic
> that contains over 100 000 (one hundred thousand) root words. This
> points to the extreme antiquity of Semitic tongues compared to the
> much more recent and impoverished ones of the Indo-European family.
Quatsch!
Nonsense!
> So, although I am a European, I have to admit that our languages
> haven't got much to be extra-proud of, compared to some other tongues
> of the world. Yes, we should celebrate the beauty of our languages,
> but not go overboard in trying to prove some kind of superiority of
> our people just because our language ressembles to some degree a
> relatively old dead language of the Arya Varta, i.e. Sanskrit.
>
> Keep things in perspective, please.- Hide quoted text -
fire.s...@gmail.com
> only race from the construction of the wording of their name,
> according to the Austrian sanskritologist Walter Wust who are composed
> in the Vedic hymns as the characteristic SRBINDA, in which almost
> letter to letter is identical to the modern form SRBENDA used by
> Balkan Serbs.In the Vedic manuscripts, Wust interpetes, SRBINDA as its
> own original to say patented name with a predetermined meaning - which
> is in complete harmony to thinking of today's SRBENDA expression among
> the Serbs....Please tell me how would you explain that....Also have
> you given thought, as a student of Indian languages, how identical the
> words i have listed are with the Sanskrit words....are you going to
> tell me they are totally different as well.
But what is your point? Why are you pointing out that SERBIAN is
similar to SANSKRIT? We already know that, and I am NOT denying the
great similarities betwen the two languages.
It seems to me that you are trying to point out some kind of
'superiority' of the Serbian people.
And THAT, I find ridiculous. I hope that is not what you are
underlining here.
fire.s...@gmail.com
> > The close similarity between Serbian and Sanskrit is not at all
> > surprising. Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed
> > Indo-European languages. But that does not indicate that Serbian is
> > anywhere near the original Indo-European tongue. Also, please remember
> > that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. It is an
> > older sister of Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic.
>
> Absolutely wrong! Sanskrit is IE language thanks to the massive IE
> loanwords; i.e. the native population of India acquired a great
> portion of its vocabulary from their European conquerors.
Who told you that Sanskrit is IE only because of loanwords? It is
generally recognised that Sanskrit is derived from an Aryan tongue of
invaders into India. Yes, the native population of India all acquired
vocabulary from these invaders. But you must not forget that the Aryan
invaders also acquired vocabulary from the conquered peoples of India.
Sanskrit contains so much IE that it would be safer to say that it is
an IE tongue that contains elements of Indian tongues in it, and not
the other way round.
> > The oldest tongues of the world also contain the greatest number of
> > ROOTS. Surprisingly, Sanskrit itself only possesses around 400 roots,
> > which is very poor compared to a Middle-Eastern language like Arabic
> > that contains over 100 000 (one hundred thousand) root words. This
> > points to the extreme antiquity of Semitic tongues compared to the
> > much more recent and impoverished ones of the Indo-European family.
>
> Quatsch!
> Nonsense!
It is not very scholarly of you to just dismiss an assertion by simply
saying NONSENSE. That is surely a very poor academic approach. You
should study the subject of roots in ancient and modern languages
before you dismiss it in such a summary fashion. One should be humble
enough to learn before making up one's mind. A simple dismissal will
not change the truth or the facts, my dear.
I thought this was going to become an intellectually interesting
forum, but I will not find it so if it is overrun by people who are
not ready to embrace anything that goes against their own received
ideas. What a shame.
Dušan Vukotić
> > > The close similarity between Serbian and Sanskrit is not at all
> > > surprising. Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed
> > > Indo-European languages. But that does not indicate that Serbian is
> > > anywhere near the original Indo-European tongue. Also, please remember
> > > that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. It is an
> > > older sister of Greek, Latin, Slavic, Celtic and Germanic.
>
> > Absolutely wrong! Sanskrit is IE language thanks to the massive IE
> > loanwords; i.e. the native population of India acquired a great
> > portion of its vocabulary from their European conquerors.
>
> Who told you that Sanskrit is IE only because of loanwords?
The Sanskrit vocabulary is not logically arranged according to the
meaning of words. The Sanskrit words cannot be traced back to its
original source (basis, root) without the help of European languages
(Slavic, Germanic, Romance and Greek). The similar internal lexical
confusion is visible in Albanian (probably in Armenian) and in all
other eventual languages where the number of loanwords surpassed the
number of native words.
>It is
> generally recognised that Sanskrit is derived from an Aryan tongue of
> invaders into India. Yes, the native population of India all acquired
> vocabulary from these invaders. But you must not forget that the Aryan
> invaders also acquired vocabulary from the conquered peoples of India.
Possible, but the percentage of those words is negligible.
> Sanskrit contains so much IE that it would be safer to say that it is
> an IE tongue that contains elements of Indian tongues in it, and not
> the other way round.
Yes, I agree. Sanskrit is an IE language thanks to massive IE
loanwords.
> > > The oldest tongues of the world also contain the greatest number of
> > > ROOTS. Surprisingly, Sanskrit itself only possesses around 400 roots,
> > > which is very poor compared to a Middle-Eastern language like Arabic
> > > that contains over 100 000 (one hundred thousand) root words. This
> > > points to the extreme antiquity of Semitic tongues compared to the
> > > much more recent and impoverished ones of the Indo-European family.
>
> > Quatsch!
> > Nonsense!
>
> It is not very scholarly of you to just dismiss an assertion by simply
> saying NONSENSE. That is surely a very poor academic approach. You
> should study the subject of roots in ancient and modern languages
> before you dismiss it in such a summary fashion. One should be humble
> enough to learn before making up one's mind. A simple dismissal will
> not change the truth or the facts, my dear.
> I thought this was going to become an intellectually interesting
> forum, but I will not find it so if it is overrun by people who are
> not ready to embrace anything that goes against their own received
> ideas. What a shame.
Do not be so sensitive, comrade! :-)
If you looked above you would see that you wrote "100.000 root-words".
Sorry, but no one could have defined it otherwise than a pure
nonsense.
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
I can understand your disbelief, but you must remember that even
modern Arabic today uses around 10 000 roots - one author who wrote
recently on this and who is quoted by scholars all around the world is
Darwish.
The fact is that modern Arabic has lost a large corpus of words that
existed in ancient Arabic, which, as a semitic language, is based on
several types of roots: the basic triconsonental roots (made up of
three consonants), of which permutations of the 28-letter alphabet
offered a conservative minimum of 20 000 basic root words (28x28x28) -
one will find, in ancient Arabic, almost all the possible permutations
of any three letters of the alphabet, e.g. of B-R-K B-K-R R-B-K R-K-
B K-B-R K-R-B, etc.
Then, using each one of these basic root words, literally thousands of
further roots can be constructed containing suffixes, prefixes and
infixes, e.g. I-S-T-B-R-K I-S-T-B-K-R I-S-T-R-K-B .... I-N-B-R-K
I-N-B-K-R I-N-R-B-K, etc., from which whole sets of new nouns,
adjectives, verbs and adverbs are derived - in addition to the tens of
thousands of nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs derived directly
from the triconsonental roots.
It is thus a rather small estimate to state that the total number of
root words in ancient Arabic is 100 000.
This process yields literally hundreds of thousands of words, many of
which cannot be used, obviously, by any single individual in his/her
lifetime. Therefore, it is not surprising that many have become
obsolete over time. But because the fixed procedure by which one forms
complex words from root words in Arabic is well-understood, anyone who
knows the meaning of any root word can deduce the meaning of any noun,
adjective, verb or adverb from it, a bit like an English-speaker who
has never seen the word GIVER, can deduce that ER means 'the one who
does the action' so it must mean 'the one who gives'. The difference
in Arabic (and in any ancient semitic language) is that this is the
case for every single word of the language. Once the meaning of the
root word is known, any further root or any complex word derived from
it can be deduced by an Arabic-speaker.
This is why I have to admit that compared to ancient semitic
languages, IE languages are rather poor. And that is an understatement.
Dušan Vukotić
Following your logic every word is a root word
> It is thus a rather small estimate to state that the total number of
> root words in ancient Arabic is 100 000.
How many words the ancient Arabic had? Read again what you have
written: [...Then, using each one of these basic root words, literally
thousands of
further roots can be constructed...]
Please, multiply your "each root" of "existed" 20.000 "basic roots" by
your "thousands of further roots" and what are you getting...?
20.000.000 of "roots" and "subroots"?
DV
> This process yields literally hundreds of thousands of words, many of
> which cannot be used, obviously, by any single individual in his/her
> lifetime. Therefore, it is not surprising that many have become
> obsolete over time. But because the fixed procedure by which one forms
> complex words from root words in Arabic is well-understood, anyone who
> knows the meaning of any root word can deduce the meaning of any noun,
> adjective, verb or adverb from it, a bit like an English-speaker who
> has never seen the word GIVER, can deduce that ER means 'the one who
> does the action' so it must mean 'the one who gives'. The difference
> in Arabic (and in any ancient semitic language) is that this is the
> case for every single word of the language. Once the meaning of the
> root word is known, any further root or any complex word derived from
> it can be deduced by an Arabic-speaker.
>
> This is why I have to admit that compared to ancient semitic
> languages, IE languages are rather poor. And that is an understatement.- Hide quoted text -
fire.s...@gmail.com
No, I apologize if I couldn't explain myself clearly enough. I'm
afraid you do have to have first-hand knowledge of the structure of
semitic tongues to fully understand their root-system.
There are simple roots made up of three letters. Then there are other
simple roots of four and five letters. Then you have further roots
with added suffixes, prefixes and infixes. These further, more complex
roots, behave similarly to the simple three-lettered ones in the sense
that one may derive nouns, verbs, etc. from them just as you can
derive them from the simple triconsonental roots.
I did not mean to say that every word in Arabic is a root. Please
don't lose your patience with me here! What I was trying to underline
was that all the words of Arabic are based on roots which are either
simple or complex. And that the simple three-consonent roots are
around 20 000. Then you have thousands more of simple four-letter and
fice-letter roots. Then you have the complex roots that are derived
from the simple ones. And all these roots are the basis of separate
nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. So a conservative estimate would be 100
000 roots, but in reality it is possibly even higher.
So yes, one can construct millions of words from such a large number
of roots because of the way Arabic functions. But to grasp that, one
has to study the language carefully, because semitic languages do not
behave like IE languages - so the rules of root derivation are
different.
If every simple word in English behaved like Arabic, then let me, just
for the purpose of illustration, propose the following example.
Let us say that to any word you may add the suffixe ER - which like I
said, means 'the one who does something'. As you know, one can already
add it to some words to make a new word: e.g. RAT -> RATTER (a rat-
catcher) LIGHT -> LIGHTER (a thing that lights)
If English were like Arabic, then you could transform ANY simple word
like that. Thus, the possibilities are almost endless in Arabic. Let's
take five simple words, WALL, CUP, SKY, FOOD, HOUSE. Add ER and you
get WALLER, CUPPER, SKYER, FOODER and HOUSER. These words do not
perhaps (yet!) exist in English but in Arabic they would all be valid,
according to the rules of the language. Every single simple or complex
root word could thus be made into another word.
So, if in English there is a corpus of, let us say, about 70 000 words
not containing the suffix ER, adding ER would create another 70 000.
This is how Arabic functions. But there is not only one way of
transforming root words in Arabic, obviously. So there are millions of
valid words that emerge from the process described above.
This is so mind-boggling compared to what happens in IE languages,
that it is no wonder that it might appear far-fetched. But, like I
said, nothing changes the facts.
Trond Engen
> As far as it is known, from all the European peoples the Serbs are
> the only race from the construction of the wording of their name,
> according to the Austrian sanskritologist Walter Wust who are
> composed in the Vedic hymns as the characteristic SRBINDA, in which
> almost letter to letter is identical to the modern form SRBENDA used
> by Balkan Serbs. In the Vedic manuscripts, Wust interpetes, SRBINDA
> as its own original to say patented name with a predetermined meaning
> - which is in complete harmony to thinking of today's SRBENDA
> expression among the Serbs....Please tell me how would you explain
> that....
I'm no specialist, and I have only vague ideas of both Slavic and
Sanskrit, but I think there is some clearing up to do before you can
expect a serious answer. What's the meaning of Sanskrit <sr.binda>
(sp?)? What's the meaning of the Serb expression <srbenda>?
> Also have you given thought, as a student of Indian
> languages, how identical the words i have listed are with the
> Sanskrit words....are you going to tell me they are totally different
> as well.
There are inherited words that are almost identical in Slavic and
Sanskrit, but you should be aware that Slavic, and thus Serbian,
borrowed from Indo-Iranian. It's been suggested that even the ethnonym
'serb' (and 'sorb') originally denoted an Iranian tribe that was
assimilated to the Slavs before they migrated westwards into written
history. These loans came during the long coexistence of Slavic and
Iranian peoples somewhere north of the Black Sea. Since this happened
long after IE came to India there's no way a Slavic loan could have
found its way into Sanskrit -- let alone Vedic.
But then again, maybe the complex linguistic map of early Europe, and
the often distant relationships between neighbouring language families,
is the result of a long series of hordes riding in from the Eurasian
steppe, a turbulent stream of new elites hijacking ancient cultures,
until the settled population had reached a level where the newcomers
were the ones to be assimilated. Maybe Slavic (or Balto-Slavic) is -- if
not a recent offshoot from the Indo-Iranian branch -- the second last
wave of IE barbarians. After them came the Iranians (Scythians,
Sarmatians etc.), before the steppe was taken over by hunns, turks and
mongols.
--
Trond Engen
- HTML: Hunno-Turko-Mongolic Languages
Trond Engen
> The oldest tongues of the world also contain the greatest number of
> ROOTS.
An odd statement. What makes you think so? Where did that lexicon come from?
--
Trond Engen
- lacking words
Dušan Vukotić
> I'm no specialist, and I have only vague ideas of both Slavic and
> Sanskrit, but I think there is some clearing up to do before you can
> expect a serious answer. What's the meaning of Sanskrit <sr.binda>
> (sp?)? What's the meaning of the Serb expression <srbenda>?
Trendy, if you no nothing about Slavic and Sanskrit, don't you think
it would be much better if you stayed away from any discussion on
subjects concerning these languages?
DV
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:a082183d-5cc2-44bc...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Feb 10, 11:04 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>> I'm no specialist, and I have only vague ideas of both
>> Slavic and Sanskrit, but I think there is some clearing
>> up to do before you can expect a serious answer. What's
>> the meaning of Sanskrit <sr.binda> (sp?)? What's the
>> meaning of the Serb expression <srbenda>?
> Trendy, if you no nothing about Slavic and Sanskrit, don't
> you think it would be much better if you stayed away from
> any discussion on subjects concerning these languages?
You might want to rethink that: total ignorance of
linguistics doesn't seem to keep you from posting to
sci.lang. (Never mind that Trond has correctly pointed out
an obvious shortcoming of the original post.)
[...]
Paul J Kriha
- back to your ROOTS, then.
pjk
- re-examining the ROOT of my tongue
Dušan Vukotić
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:37:27 -0800 (PST), Du¹an Vukotiæ
> <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
The Copy/Paste functioning Brainy is talking about ignorance?
It's funny, indeed!
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> On Feb 10, 6:11 pm, "Duðan Vukotiã" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 1:48 pm, fire.serpe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read this please; it might be very helpful.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm
What we mean by word sounds obvious, but it's not. Take a verb like
climb. The rules of English allow you to generate the forms climbs,
climbed, climbable, and climbing, the nouns climb and climber (and
their plurals climbs and climbers), compounds such as climb-down and
climbing frame, and phrasal verbs like climb on, climb over, and climb
down. Now, here's the question you've got to answer: are all these
distinct words, or do you lump them all together under climb?
http://wahiduddin.net/words/arabic_glossary.htm
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> On Feb 10, 6:11 pm, "Duðan Vukotiã" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 1:48 pm, fire.serpe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nevertheless, if you have been talking about the "root words" in a non-
historical sense but in sense of basic lexemes than you might be
right. I suppose, English language, for instance, has about to 100.000
basic words (word roots); the same as Arabic or any other normally
developed language in the world.
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
>
> Nevertheless, if you have been talking about the "root words" in a non-
> historical sense but in sense of basic lexemes than you might be
> right. I suppose, English language, for instance, has about to 100.000
>
Those were two interesting links you gave there. I enjoyed reading
them, thanks.
Yes, I was talking about root words in the historical sense. I did not
mean basic words. That was the whole point. Arabic really does have so
many root words, from which millions of word forms (verbs, nouns,
etc.) are created.
We can take it from another angle. You will notice that ancient
languages lose roots with time. Thus, modern Hebrew is much poorer in
original semitic roots than ancient Biblical Hebrew. A cursory glance
at the oldest English dictionaries will also confirm the fact that,
although a large number of new terms, verbs and expressions have been
created in modern times in addition to the 'foreign' nouns that have
that have entered English, all these new words are based more or less
on already existing roots. But many of the original English root words
have been lost and are now obsolete.
So, a language may become richer in WORDS over time, but it becomes
poorer in ROOTS. This is a universal phenomenon. Incidentally, this
creates an as yet unsolved dilemma for philologists and
anthropologists alike: the fact is that ROOTS are not created. They
are, somehow, already there. New words can be constructed using the
roots, but the roots themselves are already there. This is a mystery.
Where did they originally come from? No one is sure. Because no human
population can suddenly start to formulate new roots and create a new
language from them.
Anyway, logic dictates that if languages lose roots gradually over
time, then the languages that contain the most roots are the most
ancient ones. Semitic languages contain the most roots out of all
known languages. This is why linguists usually place semitic languages
very near the base (the so-called 'MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES' of the
language tree.
This is an extremely interesting subject. The relationship between
Serbian and Sanskrit is of course interesting. But I find that the
study of how roots travelled from the theoretical 'mother of all
languages' via the semitic tongues, to other lands, and how these
roots remained either intact or slightly modified over time, giving
birth to new languages, to be an incredibly fascinating subject that
deserves careful study.
We know that the theory that man came out of Africa has a lot of
evidence, including genetic proof, to support it. And the semitic
languages appeared right in the path of a possible route of ancient
human migration towards Asia and Europe. We also deduce from the
enormous corpus of semitic root-words that these languages are the
most ancient known to man. So were semitic root words carried along
with human migrations into the rest of the world? If so, it should not
come as a surprise that the roots of semitic tongues are found to have
been preserved in all other human languages.
This is precisely what has been discovered. There are basic words in
mant IE languages that bear a shocking resemblance to basic three-
letter-based words in Arabic. This isn't the forum to enter into this
topic, but I'm just giving a very brief illustration here. In some
words, the root letters sometimes become metastased and sometimes
replaced by similar letters according to the well-known rules of
linguistics (B can become V, W, P,F, for example. G can become K or C,
and D can become T)
Arabic: A-R-D Dutch: AA-R-D German: E-R-D English: EA-R-TH Latin: T-E-
RR(A) [T has changed place]
Arabic: GH-R-B English: C-R-(O)W Latin: C-(O)-R-V(US) French: C-(O)-R-
B-(EAU)
Arabic: A-G-G (to light a fire) Latin: I-G-(NIS) Sanskrit: A-G-(NI)
Arabic: Q-A-T-'A English: C-U-T Hindi: K-A-T
Arabic: Q-(I)-T English: C-A-T K-(I)-TT-(EN) French: CH-A-T German: K-
A-TZ
Arabic:H-U-SH [house courtyard] English: H-(OU)-S-(E) German: (H-
(AU)-S
Arabic: D-A-M [staying somewhere] Serbian: D-O-M Latin: D-O-M-(US)
Anyway, these were just a few of thousands of examples. Like I said,
this is a very interesting topic of discussion, but it isn't really
the forum for it here, so I will leave it at that.
Trond Engen
> Anyway, logic dictates that if languages lose roots gradually over
> time, then the languages that contain the most roots are the most
> ancient ones. Semitic languages contain the most roots out of all
> known languages. This is why linguists usually place semitic
> languages very near the base (the so-called 'MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES'
> of the language tree.
Which linguists?
All in all, you seem to think that in some golden age a Proto-Semitic
language was set up with a unique meaning assigned to any permutation of
three consonants and to every possible derivation thereof. There never
was such a language. Semitic morphology, like any other natural system,
however contrived it may look, originated by accident. At some point,
through random processes, enough words seemed to conform into a system
for speakers to misconduct other words analogically. The ideal system of
the past might never have been more than an idea of a system of the past.
--
Trond Engen
- slow reader
Dušan Vukotić
> Yes, I was talking about root words in the historical sense. I did not
> mean basic words. That was the whole point. Arabic really does have so
> many root words, from which millions of word forms (verbs, nouns,
> etc.) are created.
You didn't mean "basic words" but if you are talking about 100.000
"roots" it must be nothing else but "basic words". It is well visible
that you are thinking about stem words (basic words, root words,
uninflected words) in a common linguistic sense.
And all these is related to "hard" (Serbian gruda /lump of soil/;
krut /hard/) in IE languages. Aramaic daḥrānāy (hard); "terrain";
Russ. daroga/дорога (road); Hebrew däräk (road). This is just another
example that could be taken as one of the "undeniable evidences" of
the common origin of IE and Semitic
> Arabic: GH-R-B English: C-R-(O)W Latin: C-(O)-R-V(US) French: C-(O)-R-
> B-(EAU)
Aramaic harak (burn; Arab. harak burn; giru /fire/) and Serbian goreti
(burn) are the words from the same Hor-Gon basis; hence Serbian garav
(black, dark), gar (soot), žar (ember)
Arabic ghirab and Latin corvus are related to Serbian gavran (crow;
metathesis of garvan; Serb. garab /black/); cf. Serb. gorivo fuel
> Arabic: A-G-G (to light a fire) Latin: I-G-(NIS) Sanskrit: A-G-(NI)
Serbo-Slavic oganj (fire), žega (heat), žedan/žeđ (thirsty. thirst);
in reality, oganj (ignis) comes from Gon-Bel-Gon basis (Serb. ognjilo
fire-place, curved pieces of steel used with flint to strike a spark);
Serb. nebo se za-ognjilo "the sky burned up"
> Arabic: Q-A-T-'A English: C-U-T Hindi: K-A-T
Serb. prekinuti (break), preseći (cut), seći (cut), Latin sectio
(cut); Eng. hack; Serb. ot-kinuti (split), kidati (pluck, kut off;
Serb. kidaj! /tear off! cut!/);
Latin praecido (to cut short); praeseco (cut short); Aramaic pesqā
(section, cut; maybe omission of the sound "r"; cf. Latin praeseco;
Serb. preseći, presekao (cut in half). It seems that this word is much
clear in IE than in Semitic.
> Arabic: Q-(I)-T English: C-A-T K-(I)-TT-(EN) French: CH-A-T German: K-
> A-TZ
Probably Serb. domaćin, Lat. dominus; apheresis do-maćica (hostess) =>
maca => mačka (cat); Serb. domaći (domestic; domaće životinje live-
stock); cf. Latin do-matrix => mater. mother.
> Arabic:H-U-SH [house courtyard] English: H-(OU)-S-(E) German: (H-
> (AU)-S
Serb. kuća (house), Slovene hiša (house), Eng. hut
> Arabic: D-A-M [staying somewhere] Serbian: D-O-M Latin: D-O-M-(US)
This word 'dom' is related to 'sky' (Serb. nebo), inhabit (Serb.
naseobina) but it demands a long explanation and I have no time at the
moment to write how it has been developed; try to relate Ger. Nebel
and Slavic dim/dimljenje (smoke/smoking; Turkish duman smoke)
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
> fire.serpe...@gmail.com skreiv:
I will not even attempt to answer what you say here :"Semitic
morphology, like any other natural system, however contrived it may
look, originated by accident. "
Neither you nor I were there. Anything we say on how roots appeared
will be pure speculation. What you declare is mere theory and no one
will ever have any proof to substantiate it. So I regard that as
futile.
Coming the the first paragraph you quoted frommy previous post, I am
quite surprised that you have not yet come across any literature in
linguistic spheres of interest that places the semitic tongues right
down at the bottom of the linguistic family tree. A similar theory
based upon the so-called "Nostratic" gives a common ancestry to IE and
semitic tongues in the "proto-Nostratic" which is a theory that is not
accepted by all linguists, but which nevertheless contains enough
substance to save it from being dismissed.
You may like to read Derek Bickerton, Language and Species ,
University of Chicago Press, 1990. Also Prof. M.A. Mazhar, Sanskrit
traced to Arabic, Faisalabad, Sheikh Aziz Ahmad, 1982.
Dušan Vukotić
Don't you think that talking about the "mother of all languages"
sounds childish and ridiculous? There were a lot "scientists" who
solemnly declared urbi et orbi that they found the "mother tongue" -
beginning with the Sanskrit for which the most of modern linguists,
even today, believe that it was the first descendant of the PIE. All
the PIE reconstructions were made as a mirrored image of Sanskrit and
therefore they all were/are wrong.
All IE languages must be of the same age as well as all Semitic
languages must have been born at the same time. In case that IE and
Semitic used the same primeval basis (Xur-Bel-Gon) it would have meant
that IE and Semitic are coeval languages. The world wasn't always a
"global village" and some groups people were often separated one from
another by natural disasters, sometimes for periods longer than the
millennium/s. When they met again, logically, they were unable to
understand eachother because their former common language has been
bifurcated into two different (unintelligible) tongues.
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
>
> Don't you think that talking about the "mother of all languages"
> sounds childish and ridiculous? There were a lot "scientists" who
> solemnly declared urbi et orbi that they found the "mother tongue" -
> beginning with the Sanskrit for which the most of modern linguists,
> even today, believe that it was the first descendant of the PIE. All
> the PIE reconstructions were made as a mirrored image of Sanskrit and
> therefore they all were/are wrong.
>
> All IE languages must be of the same age as well as all Semitic
> languages must have been born at the same time. In case that IE and
> Semitic used the same primeval basis (Xur-Bel-Gon) it would have meant
> that IE and Semitic are coeval languages. The world wasn't always a
> "global village" and some groups people were often separated one from
> another by natural disasters, sometimes for periods longer than the
> millennium/s. When they met again, logically, they were unable to
> understand eachother because their former common language has been
> bifurcated into two different (unintelligible) tongues.
>
No, I don't think it is childish. Do you think that the fact that
human beings all migrated out of Africa and went on to populate the
world is a childish theory, when it has solid basis in genetics?
Everything points to a common ancestry. There is nothing intrinsically
impossible in there being an initial tongue which changed in different
ways as people moved away from their source, to give birth to modified
versions of the first language (i.e. new languages).
I agree that former PIE reconstructions were wrong in many areas. But
this does not mean that languages being born from a much older, common
language is not valid.
I disagree with the statement that all IE languages must be of the
same age. Just take one look at modern English, and you will see that
it evolved from being a Germanic tongue with all its declensions to
becoming something very, very different today. Take a glance at the
Lord's Prayer in Old English alongside a comprehensible translation:
[1] Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Father ours, thou that art in
heaven,
[2] Si þin nama gehalgod. Be thy name hallowed.
[3] To becume þin rice, Come thy rich(kingdom),
[4] gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Worth(manifest) thy will, on earth also as in heaven.
[5] Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, Our daily loaf
sell(give) us today,
[6] and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
and forgive us our guilts as also we forgive our guilty(lit.
guiltants).
[7] And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.
And 'ne lead'(lead not) thou us in temptation, ac(but) loose(release)
us of evil. Soothly.
Modern English is not as old as Old English. Old English itself must
have sprung from something even more ancient.
Anyway, I think I have said enough onthis topic and will now let you
guys continue with your original subject.
It has been stimulating. Thank you all!
Dušan Vukotić
> No, I don't think it is childish. Do you think that the fact that
> human beings all migrated out of Africa and went on to populate the
> world is a childish theory, when it has solid basis in genetics?
> Everything points to a common ancestry. There is nothing intrinsically
> impossible in there being an initial tongue which changed in different
> ways as people moved away from their source, to give birth to modified
> versions of the first language (i.e. new languages).
>
> I agree that former PIE reconstructions were wrong in many areas. But
> this does not mean that languages being born from a much older, common
> language is not valid.
> I disagree with the statement that all IE languages must be of the
> same age. Just take one look at modern English, and you will see that
> it evolved from being a Germanic tongue with all its declensions to
> becoming something very, very different today. Take a glance at the
> Lord's Prayer in Old English alongside a comprehensible translation:
One natural language cannot be "born" from another "older" one. For
instance, could anyone say which one of the German dialects is
"older": Frisian, Frankish, Alemannic, Bavarian or Middle/Low German?
Being "born" implies a precise moment of "creation" and it implies
sudden existence and more or less quick perishing. Natural languages
are developing enormously slowly and therefore "invisible". We can see
a "grown up" natural language but we cannot see its "childhood".
English cannot be taken as an example of naturally (normally)
developed language because the conqerers of the British Isles mixed
their language with the language of native people to a great extent.
DV
Joachim Pense
>
>
> One natural language cannot be "born" from another "older" one. For
> instance, could anyone say which one of the German dialects is
> "older": Frisian, Frankish, Alemannic, Bavarian or Middle/Low German?
> Being "born" implies a precise moment of "creation" and it implies
> sudden existence and more or less quick perishing. Natural languages
> are developing enormously slowly and therefore "invisible". We can see
> a "grown up" natural language but we cannot see its "childhood".
> English cannot be taken as an example of naturally (normally)
> developed language because the conqerers of the British Isles mixed
> their language with the language of native people to a great extent.
>
And what makes you feel that this is not an example of normal development?
Joachim
fire.s...@gmail.com
Thank you for that, Joachim, you are right. Languages very often do
not develop in a linear fashion, their development is normally
affected by languages all around. Unless they develop in total
isolation, which is the exception rather than the rule.
DV, I understand what you mean when you say that a language is not
'born' all of a sudden. That is of course not what I meant. The birth
of a language takes place over a period of time, just like a new
animal species is born from a previous one. It takes on new aspects
such as different grammar, pronunciation, semantics, etc. When it is
different enough, it can be called a new language. It sticks around
more or less unchanged for a period of time and when it will have
changed enough, after several centuries perhaps, it will 'give birth'
to another a new language.
Otherwise, will you say that a mammal is the same creature as a
reptile, which is the same creature as an amphibian, which is the same
as a fish, which is the same as an invertebrate, which is the same as
a single-celled organism?? Obviously there is a continuum that runs
through this line of evolution, but the creatures appearing along the
line are not the same as the original life-form from which they
sprang.
Dušan Vukotić
Old English has been heavilly "polluted" during its history: first by
Scandinavians (8th and 9th centuries) and than by Normans (11th
century). Old English vocabulary and grammar were changed by force
(unnaturally) and therefore the Modern English language could be
considered as a sort of mixed language.
Slavic languages are most naturally developed languages among all IE
tongues, thanks to the small (negligible) influence of foreign
speeches to their internal logic and philosophical patterns, being
used in the process of their evolution.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> Thank you for that, Joachim, you are right. Languages very often do
> not develop in a linear fashion, their development is normally
> affected by languages all around. Unless they develop in total
> isolation, which is the exception rather than the rule.
Any of particular language families of today must have expirenced a
prior phase of "total isolation", which sometimes lasted for hundreds
of thousands of years, maybe millenniums.
> DV, I understand what you mean when you say that a language is not
> 'born' all of a sudden. That is of course not what I meant. The birth
> of a language takes place over a period of time, just like a new
> animal species is born from a previous one. It takes on new aspects
> such as different grammar, pronunciation, semantics, etc. When it is
> different enough, it can be called a new language. It sticks around
> more or less unchanged for a period of time and when it will have
> changed enough, after several centuries perhaps, it will 'give birth'
> to another a new language.
In case of the genesis of languages there is/was no the "previous
one". There are no languages that can be considered "older" or
"younger" - languages exist in a form we see them today and their
historical development could be traced back less or more deep into the
past, but not more than two to three milleniums.
> Otherwise, will you say that a mammal is the same creature as a
> reptile, which is the same creature as an amphibian, which is the same
> as a fish, which is the same as an invertebrate, which is the same as
> a single-celled organism?? Obviously there is a continuum that runs
> through this line of evolution, but the creatures appearing along the
> line are not the same as the original life-form from which they
> sprang.- Hide quoted text -
I think you have chosen a good example: which one of the living
creatures is the "oldest" one on the Planet Earth? You could say
"none" and you could say "all" and both answers would be equally
correct. All the "earthly living creatures" must be of the same age,
because all of them have the common ancestor - a single microscopic
living cell!
If you say that Arabic is a "mother tongue" it automatically implies
that Arabs taught IE people how to use the tongue as a mean of
communication. You can believe but you cannot prove it with a few
words you mentioned in one of your earlier posts. As a matter of fact,
I think that I managed to show the history of those words much better
than you succeded to prove your Arabic-Mother-Language "hypothesis".
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> Thank you for that, Joachim, you are right. Languages very often do
> not develop in a linear fashion, their development is normally
> affected by languages all around. Unless they develop in total
> isolation, which is the exception rather than the rule.
Any of particular language families of today must have expirenced a
prior phase of "total isolation", which sometimes lasted for hundreds
of thousands of years, maybe millenniums.
> DV, I understand what you mean when you say that a language is not
> 'born' all of a sudden. That is of course not what I meant. The birth
> of a language takes place over a period of time, just like a new
> animal species is born from a previous one. It takes on new aspects
> such as different grammar, pronunciation, semantics, etc. When it is
> different enough, it can be called a new language. It sticks around
> more or less unchanged for a period of time and when it will have
> changed enough, after several centuries perhaps, it will 'give birth'
> to another a new language.
In case of the genesis of languages there is/was no the "previous
one". There are no languages that can be considered "older" or
"younger" - languages exist in a form we see them today and their
historical development could be traced back less or more deep into the
past, but not more than two to three milleniums.
> Otherwise, will you say that a mammal is the same creature as a
> reptile, which is the same creature as an amphibian, which is the same
> as a fish, which is the same as an invertebrate, which is the same as
> a single-celled organism?? Obviously there is a continuum that runs
> through this line of evolution, but the creatures appearing along the
> line are not the same as the original life-form from which they
fire.s...@gmail.com
There is one thing that you seem to overlook. It is that when you
demonstrate what the root of a word is in IE, often you will find that
the meaning of the root is not known, or the meanings proposed do not
make sense.
In stark contrast, in semitic languages, the root-words are themselves
used as words of daily use in the language, and all their basic
meanings are known. Every word built on these roots has a logical link
to the meaning of the root-word.
In IE, often the root-word can be discovered, but the meaning thereof
remains subject to speculation, because the root words are most often
not words in themselves and are normally used only in their expanded
forms. In semitic tongues, like I said, this is not the case.
For example, the word SUKKAR in Arabic (sugar) is derived from the
root S-K-R which means "to make drunk". This word is still used today.
And the link is obvious: sugar is the basis of alcohol production,
whence drunkenness. This is the case scenario for every single word in
semitic tongues.
Trying to find the meanings of root-words in other language families
is much more complicated, and is often purely speculative. The links
made between the imagined root-word meanings and expanded words are
often very tortuous and questionable as to their logicity. That is
because, unlike semitic languages, other language families have to a
large extent lost the original meanings of their root-words.
The root-word history in semitic languages is therefore very secure
from the ravages of time, and there is no need for gross speculation
as in the case of Indo-European, or other, tongues.
I did not mean to prove that Arabic is the mother of all languages by
quoting only a few examples chosen at random. You can hardly expect me
to produce the thousands of words I have studied, here on this forum!
You will find that IE languages share a very large number of common
roots with semitic. But that the meanings of these roots is known in
semitic, but not always known in IE.
Try to reflect on the reason for that.
Meanings of root-words do not appear later on in history. They appear
at the start. They are forgotten later on. Not the other way round.
So wherever root-meanings are still there, it will be a case of
languages in a very ancient form. Wherever they have been forgotten,
it will be a case of languages in a more recent form.
You are an intelligent scholarly person, DV, so do reflect on that.
Or perhaps you can show me that ALL the root-words (from which IE
words are derived) have known meanings that are in full use even today
in their simplest forms, and which are not hypothetical or deduced
speculatively by linguists.
You know, and I know, that you will not be able to do that.
But you can do it in semitic.
Dušan Vukotić
> For example, the word SUKKAR in Arabic (sugar) is derived from the
> root S-K-R which means "to make drunk". This word is still used today.
> And the link is obvious: sugar is the basis of alcohol production,
> whence drunkenness. This is the case scenario for every single word in
> semitic tongues.
No, you are wrong: Arabic sukkar is the Greek loanword (Gr. σακχαρ
sugar) and this Greek word is related to ισχνωσις (drying up); i.e.
Serbian šećer (sugar) is related to Serbian sušenje (drying up) and to
the word sušara (dryer, drying room); cf. Skt. śarkarā (sugar);
śuṣyati (dry up; Serb. sušiti dry up). Arabic s-k-r (sukr drunkennes)
could be related to sukkar in sense of consumption of "sweet drinks"
but the word sukkar wasn't derived from the Semitic root SKR but from
the primal IE basis Sur-Hor. I hope I do not need to remind you that
you cannot produce sugar without the process of drying of cane juice
(the earliest sugar refining methods used the sun's heat energy; Skt.
sahasradhāman the sun; sūryakiraṇaḥ sun-beam; Serb. zrak).
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
Sukkar, a loan-word from Greek? Where DO you get your information
from, DV?! :-)
Between SUKKAR (sugar) coming from DRUNKENNESS, which is very precise,
and SUKKAR coming from DRY, which is very general and could apply to a
whole load of things, I think I know which one a logical person will
choose!
Yours is a typical example of tortuous and forced etymological
derivation. What more can I say.
I notice you haven't commented on what I said about semitic root-words
having preserved all their meanings up to today.
One thing I had forgotten to add is that in IE, root words have gone
through complicated processes of sound-shifts, making the retracing of
roots very difficult. Letters in the root have been changed, some
letters within the root have swopped place through the process of
metastasis. A root word are lying totally transformed within modern IE
words, because of the changes they have undergone in sound and shape.
In semitic languages, though, the roots remain unchanged. There has
been no sound-shift or metastasis of letters in Arabic, although some
has occurred in Hebrew. This means that the ORDER of letters never
changes. SKR can never become SRK in Arabic. And SKR cannot become SKK
or SKD of SGT in Arabic. The root always remains unchanged. Because
that is how this ancient language functions, and because rootwords are
still used in their simplest forms within the language today. So, the
basic lexemes are preserved without any change in either letter-
position or sound throughout the millenia. This is far from being the
case in the IE family.
Another thing you will notice is that languages in more ancient forms
preserve their declensions. Languages in more recent forms have
dropped them in a natural process of simplification. If you find a
language that has simplified its ancient word-endings, then it is in a
more recent form.
Arabic has retained all its declensions, whereas Hebrew has dropped
most of them. Arabic has also retained all the complex plurals that
can be made from root-words, all of which can be found in the most
ancient forms of Semitic. Again, Hebrew has dropped most of them.
I would recommend you a thorough study of Arabic as a language so that
you could appreciate the fascinating aspects of this ancient tongue
born at the juncture between Africa and Europe/Asia.
Dušan Vukotić
related to Arabic ssahha (cloudless. clear; Hebr. tsakh dry, glow,
dazzling, bright; Serb. suh dry; sijati glow, sjajan dazzling; Amharic
s'ähäy sun)?
The primeval basis of all these words is Sur-Gon (Serb. Zor-njača
Venus; Sunce Sun; from Sur-Gon => sur-nke => sur-nce => sunce sun);
hence the Serbian words zrak (beam), zriknuti (look), Russian зеркало/
zerkalo (mirror); Serb. zrno (grain; according to the round shape of
the sun; sunce (sun; the omission of the sound r) <= surnce => zornica/
zornjača (Venus) => zrnce (grain). Now is clear that Serbian word suho
(dry) is derived from the noun sunce (sun) and the verb sunčati (to
sun); hence sušenje (drying; from suhenje /h => š palatalization/).
Sahara desert is nothing else but Serbian suhara (sušara /driying
place/) or Semitic sakh (dry; Serb. suh dry) and the relation between
the words sun (Arabic shams), sunny (shiny), Arabic ssahha (clear;
Hebrew tzakh dry, bright) and Serbian suh (dry) and sjajan (shiny;
also Serb. sinuti brighten) is more than obvious.
Finally, if we compare Arabic sahhar (dawn) and Serbian zora (dawn) we
will understand that any story about "mother" language is pointless;
cf. feminine personal name Zuhra, Zorah (dawn) and Serbian Zora/Zorica
(dawn); Zohreh (planet Venus; Serb. Zornjača Venus).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some of the linguists compared Sanskrit śarkarā (gravel)
śarkarākhaṃḍaḥ (pebble) and Greek κροκαλη (pebble; from κροκυς flock;
an orderly crowd; from Gr. krykos circle; Serb. krug circle). Serbian
zrno (grain) is derived from the Hor-Gon basis (krug circle; from the
rounded form similar to the shape of the Sun; Slavic sun divinity
Hors). It means that sugar could have aquired its name in accordance
to its granular structure. If we know that Hor-Gon basis is just the
same as Sur-Gon (both basis came from Xur-Gon) we can compare sugar to
the Serbian adjective zaokružen (rounded) which is equal to English
surrounded; all from Sur-Hor-Gon basis (Serb. šećerenje sweetening;
zgrudvati to lump; gruda lump of soil; Arabic arsz Earth; Hebrew
erets); cf. Arabic qarasa make rigid; Hebrew kheh'res earthen; Semitic
q-r-s harden; English hard; Serbian krut).
And look at the following miraculous "overturn": Serbian verbs
izgoreti and sagoreti (burn down) are clearly related to the words
mentioned earlier as Serbian sušara (drying place) and sagoreti (burn
down) is related to Serbian skoreti (encrust) and, in addition, that
skoreti (encrust) is related to zgrud-vati (to lump) and ukrutiti
(harden).
Finally, Latin sugo, sugere (suck) is related to Serbian sisanje
(sucking; from sihanje; suhenje => sušenje drying up, sisa/sika
nipple, mammary gland, woman's breast); cf. Lat. sicco -are (to make
dry , to dry).
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
You know what? This conversation is pointless, because you will first
need to acquire thorough knowledge of semitic.
Sahraa - derived from the root S-H-R - could NEVER be derived from a
word like sušara or suh, because these letters cannot be added to or
subtracted from a root to form another root in Arabic. S-H-R can never
come from s-š-r or s-h. Sounds simply cannot and do not change in
Arabic roots.
Although I understand that you are trying to apply IE derivation to
Arabic because that is the only method you seem to know, what you are
demonstrating here is that you have no understanding whatsoever of how
roots function in Arabic in particular and semitic in general.
Comparing Sahraa to Zohraa is also a clear example of how you do not
understand that s and z are NOT interchangeable in Arabic. In Arabic
NO consonants are interchangeable. They ARE interchangeable in IE.
Do not confuse apples with oranges please!
Therefore, like I said before, please go and learn Arabic thoroughly
before you attempt to apply IE models to this ancient language.
Trond Engen
> On Feb 15, 9:59 am, "Dušan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you know the etymology of the Arabic word ssahhra (Sahara); is it
>> related to Arabic ssahha (cloudless. clear; Hebr. tsakh dry, glow,
>> dazzling, bright; Serb. suh dry; sijati glow, sjajan dazzling;
>> Amharic s'ähäy sun)?
>>
>> The primeval basis of all these words is Sur-Gon [...]
>>
>> Sahara desert is nothing else but Serbian suhara (sušara /driying
>> place/) or Semitic sakh (dry; Serb. suh dry) and the relation
>> between the words sun (Arabic shams), sunny (shiny), Arabic ssahha
>> (clear; Hebrew tzakh dry, bright) and Serbian suh (dry) and sjajan
>> (shiny; also Serb. sinuti brighten) is more than obvious.
>>
>> Finally, if we compare Arabic sahhar (dawn) and Serbian zora (dawn)
>> we will understand that any story about "mother" language is
>> pointless; cf. feminine personal name Zuhra, Zorah (dawn) and
>> Serbian Zora/Zorica (dawn); Zohreh (planet Venus; Serb. Zornjača
>> Venus).
>
> You know what? This conversation is pointless, because you will first
> need to acquire thorough knowledge of semitic.
True ...
> [...]
>
> Although I understand that you are trying to apply IE derivation to
> Arabic because that is the only method you seem to know,
... but what makes you think that Dusan's SUR-realistic approach has
anything in common with "IE derivation"?
--
Trond Engen
- SUR-rendering objections
fire.s...@gmail.com
> fire.serpe...@gmail.com skreiv:
I agree, Trond, his is a surrealistic approach, which has little to do
with reality and fact.
Fire.serpent1
Not SUR-prised
Dušan Vukotić
In other words, this "conversation is pointless unless you accept my
doctrine".
;-)
> Sahraa - derived from the root S-H-R - could NEVER be derived from a
> word like sušara or suh, because these letters cannot be added to or
> subtracted from a root to form another root in Arabic. S-H-R can never
> come from s-š-r or s-h. Sounds simply cannot and do not change in
> Arabic roots.
I did not say that Sahra is derived from any IE word.
> Although I understand that you are trying to apply IE derivation to
> Arabic because that is the only method you seem to know, what you are
> demonstrating here is that you have no understanding whatsoever of how
> roots function in Arabic in particular and semitic in general.
If you did not see I used the basis Sur-Hor (it is from my Xur-Bel-Gon
Theory; Human Speech Formula) and it is quite different from PIE
reconstruction. I am not saying that Semitic is "derived" from IE
while you are trying to suggest that IE is a "child" of Semitic. My
opinion is that both of these two families were born from the same
source (Xur-Bel-Gon).
> Comparing Sahraa to Zohraa is also a clear example of how you do not
> understand that s and z are NOT interchangeable in Arabic. In Arabic
> NO consonants are interchangeable. They ARE interchangeable in IE.
Not truth! Compare sharq (East), sahhar (dawn) and Zuhara (Venus),
Sanskrit śukra (Venus);
Or gharb (West), gharib (foreigner), harb (war), harb (hostility);
gharib (camel's back); ghariba (go dawn, sunset)
Arabic sachuna (be warm) is clearly related to Serbian suh, sunčanje,
sušenje and sunce (the sun), Arabic shams (the sun)
> Do not confuse apples with oranges please!
>
> Therefore, like I said before, please go and learn Arabic thoroughly
> before you attempt to apply IE models to this ancient language
Once again, where did you see that I tried to apply any "IE
model" (whatever you regard as "IE model")? The reality is quite the
opposite, you are trying to impose your theory about alleged "Arabic
origin of IE". Read your words above (the last paragraph) and you will
see that only Arabic is an "ancient language".
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> fire.serpe...@gmail.com skreiv:
Very good Trendy!
You may start your SUR-misable-miserable brain Engine! :-)
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
Your examples are, I am afraid, pure fantasy. Whatever model you are
applying just does not work with Arabic.
I rest my case.
Like I said, learn Arabic. It will benefit you.
Bye, DV.
Dušan Vukotić
Bye Serpent, bye!
I believed it would be easy for you to demonstrate that my above
examples were wrong. Instead of showing your extraordinary knowledge
of Arabic, you decided to run away without "paying the bill"!
Unfortunately, you missed another chance to prove that Arabic is the
ANCESTOR of all the other languages in the world.
What a pity!
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
Grow up DV. No need to be so childish. Was the importance of 'winning
and proving' all you had in mind, all this time? What a shame.
Nothing I don't say will change facts. And nothing you say will change
facts either. Fora such as these are not places where theories can be
proved or disproved. It is a place for the exchange of ideas and
opions. You have fixed opions, and that is your right. I have
discovered things in the course of my studies that have opened my mind
to a whole new vision in the field of linguistics, and I am thankful
and made humble by the vast knowledge that I have yet to learn.
To me, all this was just a pleasant exchange of views, no more. I do
not enjoy vindictive attitudes.
Now, behave like an adult, please. It will give more shine to your
scholarliness.
Bye now, DV.
Dušan Vukotić
> > Bye Serpent, bye!
> > I believed it would be easy for you to demonstrate that my above
> > examples were wrong. Instead of showing your extraordinary knowledge
> > of Arabic, you decided to run away without "paying the bill"!
> > Unfortunately, you missed another chance to prove that Arabic is the
> > ANCESTOR of all the other languages in the world.
> > What a pity!
>
> > DV
>
> Grow up DV. No need to be so childish. Was the importance of 'winning
> and proving' all you had in mind, all this time? What a shame.
>
> Nothing I don't say will change facts. And nothing you say will change
> facts either. Fora such as these are not places where theories can be
> proved or disproved. It is a place for the exchange of ideas and
> opions. You have fixed opions, and that is your right. I have
> discovered things in the course of my studies that have opened my mind
> to a whole new vision in the field of linguistics, and I am thankful
> and made humble by the vast knowledge that I have yet to learn.
>
> To me, all this was just a pleasant exchange of views, no more. I do
> not enjoy vindictive attitudes.
>
> Now, behave like an adult, please. It will give more shine to your
> scholarliness.
>
> Bye now, DV.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You initiated these discussion and you chose a few examples trying to
corroborate your point of vew and your opinion that Arabic is the most
ancient language in the world; i.e. that Arabic is "the tongue of all
the tongues". After receiving rebutting arguments, which were not in
accordance with your Arabic "mother language", you found yourself
somewhere between infantile indignation and adolescent anxiety.
I sympathize your "providential care" and I am really sorry that I
couldn't help you to accomplish such a "holy mission" on this
"unimportant" forum. I hope that your new "linguistic vision" will be
accepted among serious "scientific circles" as soon as possible.
Good luck!
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
Wow!
lora...@cs.com
> The Sanskrit vocabulary is not logically arranged according to the
> meaning of words. The Sanskrit words cannot be traced back to its
> original source (basis, root) without the help of European languages
> (Slavic, Germanic, Romance and Greek). The similar internal lexical
> confusion is visible in Albanian (probably in Armenian) and in all
> other eventual languages where the number of loanwords surpassed the
> number of native words.
I'd like to point out to everyone that there is no proof that Slavic,
Germanic, Romance or Greek existed at the putative time of the Aryan
incursion into India (which I am putting ca 1500bc).
> >It is
> > generally recognised that Sanskrit is derived from an Aryan tongue of
> > invaders into India. Yes, the native population of India all acquired
> > vocabulary from these invaders. But you must not forget that the Aryan
> > invaders also acquired vocabulary from the conquered peoples of India.
>
> Possible, but the percentage of those words is negligible.
>
> > Sanskrit contains so much IE that it would be safer to say that it is
> > an IE tongue that contains elements of Indian tongues in it, and not
> > the other way round.
>
> Yes, I agree. Sanskrit is an IE language thanks to massive IE
> loanwords.
>
Nah..
The language used by the invaders of India was already IE.
The language influence progressed from north to south.. the
gradiational evidence of which still exists today.
Dušan Vukotić
> I'd like to point out to everyone that there is no proof that Slavic,
> Germanic, Romance or Greek existed at the putative time of the Aryan
> incursion into India (which I am putting ca 1500bc).
Didn't you know that Baltic languages are in fact Slavic... with
speech defect. ;-)
DV
António Marques
> Anyway, logic dictates that if languages lose roots gradually over
> time, then the languages that contain the most roots are the most
> ancient ones.
I don't even know where you got this idea from ('languages lose roots
gradually over time') or what it means exactly, BUT, IF langauges lose
roots over time, THEN the languages that contain the most roots
(whatever that means) must be the most RECENT ones (again, whatever that
means). If they were ancient, they would have lost a lot of roots (they
*'lose roots' over time*, remember?).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
fire.s...@gmail.com
Yes, viewed the way you are looking at it, this theory seems to be the
opposite of what I meant. Actually, what I had meant was: take any
language back as far as you can go in time. Then count the number of
root-words it contains.
By this process, it will appear that Semitic tongues contain the
greatest number of roots in their remote past - the past as far as we
can go.
Offshoots of any language always contain less root-words than the
language from which it was derived. Take any creole language today and
you will see that its 'mother' tongue was richer in root-words than it
is itself.
Languages which are more recent offshoots of the ancient Semitic
languages also contain, even in their remote past, far fewer root-
words than their 'parent' languages.
So, the more root-words a living language contains today, the more
ancient it will be. It had so many tens of thousands of root-words to
begin with that even with the passage of time, many thousands of such
root-words remain intact. Those languages that started off with far
less roots to begin with - because they were offshoots of an ancient
language, and offshoots always have less than the parent language -
will today have even less roots left to function with.
It is known that semitic languages are among the most ancient on
record. Yet, they are also known to contain an enormous number of root-
words. Also, root-words in semitic languages are very resistant to
change in sound or to metastasis of letters within the root. As
offshoot-languages move away from their source, shifts in sound occur
which weaken the stability of the root-word. In other terms, the root-
word becomes weakened and unstable, and begins to change. Stubbornly
stable Semitic roots can hardly be born from roots found in other
languages which are apt to show enormous variation in their sounds,
letter order and morphology. It is much more plausible that the
relatively small number of weak, changeable roots in Indo-European
were born from the very large number of ancient, stable ones found in
Semitic.
That is why I find the theory that IE languages are offshoots of
Semitic tongues appealing. The changeable root is born from the stable
root. And the recent is born from the ancient. It makes sense to me!
Dušan Vukotić
> On Feb 20, 1:37 pm, António Marques <m...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > fire.serpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Anyway, logic dictates that if languages lose roots gradually over
> > > time, then the languages that contain the most roots are the most
> > > ancient ones.
>
> > I don't even know where you got this idea from ('languages lose roots
> > gradually over time') or what it means exactly, BUT, IF langauges lose
> > roots over time, THEN the languages that contain the most roots
> > (whatever that means) must be the most RECENT ones (again, whatever that
> > means). If they were ancient, they would have lost a lot of roots (they
> > *'lose roots' over time*, remember?).
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> Yes, viewed the way you are looking at it, this theory seems to be the
> opposite of what I meant. Actually, what I had meant was: take any
> language back as far as you can go in time. Then count the number of
> root-words it contains.
António made a good point by noticing that you yourself have
"uprooted" your "ancient-root-Arabic-theory".
> By this process, it will appear that Semitic tongues contain the
> greatest number of roots in their remote past - the past as far as we
> can go.
Once again, you are trying to jumble together two different notions:
"the basic unit of words" (stems) and "distant diachronic roots".
> Offshoots of any language always contain less root-words than the
> language from which it was derived. Take any creole language today and
> you will see that its 'mother' tongue was richer in root-words than it
> is itself.
What "mother" tongue? Don't you know that Creole is a tongue that
originates from contact between two languages?
There are people who believe in fairy-tales; they are either too young
(small children) or grown-up (adult) morons!
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
Dušan Vukotić
That wasn't even addressed to you. By your attitude, you have only
shown that you are rude and immature.
You can't stop butting in, you are obsessed with having to comment on
everything. What is this obsession?
Control yourself, Dušan, and like I had said before, behave like a
mature person, and mind your own business.
If you want to contribute something to this forum, at least have the
decency to use pleasant and polite words.
Dušan Vukotić
>
> That wasn't even addressed to you.
Than go and chat privately; this is a discussion group... if you
didn't know.
>By your attitude, you have only
> shown that you are rude and immature.
> You can't stop butting in
Not butting but rebutting
>you are obsessed with having to comment on
> everything.
Of course, I am... On the contrary, I wouldn't be here at all ;-)
>What is this obsession?
Don't you know? Have you ever heard for a "scientific truth-
pursuit"? ;-)
> Control yourself, Du¹an, and like I had said before, behave like a
> mature person, and mind your own business.
Mature and well-mannered person would have continued this "politely
conducted" debate:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/9620fe2d89e71fcd?
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
"...There are people who believe in fairy-tales; they are either too
young
(small children) or grown-up (adult) morons! "
Was that an example of your "scientific truth-pursuit"?
Wake up Dušan.
Yes, it's a discussion group. You are turning it into a platform to
air your personal vendettas against people who are doing nothing more
than presenting their opinions.
So no more calling people morons, or the like. Remember and practise
the good manners I am certain your good mother must have taught you
when you were little.
Dušan Vukotić
>
> "...There are people who believe in fairy-tales; they are either too
> young
> (small children) or grown-up (adult) morons! "
>
> Was that an example of your "scientific truth-pursuit"?
>
> Wake up Duðan.
>
> Yes, it's a discussion group. You are turning it into a platform to
> air your personal vendettas against people who are doing nothing more
> than presenting their opinions.
You tried to present your opinion but you stumbled even over the first
(bottom) step. You are the one who shunned the field of a serious
debate!
> So no more calling people morons, or the like. Remember and practise
> the good manners I am certain your good mother must have taught you
> when you were little.
Only morons and fanatics might believe in "scientific postulates"
without being able to understand or corroborate them.
DV
fire.s...@gmail.com
RUDE, but you don't realise it. You could easily have put forward your
arguments politely, but no, you chose to be rude and ill-mannered. You
won't win anyone over to your theories like that, mate.
Perhaps you have issues in your love life, that you just can't handle.
It's obvious there is something you are extremely unhappy about. Maybe
you're unemployed. Well, I wish you well, and I won't blame you for
being so disrespectful, if you have serious troubles in your life.
And I won't descend to your level of insults. So, go on, exult and
jubilate like a immature juvenile if you want to. By doing so, you
will only expose your weaknesses further to everyone here. But then
again, maybe you ARE only eighteen years old, which would explain a
lot of this uncouth behaviour. I guess we'll never know, will we.
Farewell, Dušan Vukotić.
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
> On Feb 21, 6:39�pm, fire.serpe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > "...There are people who believe in fairy-tales; they are either too
> > young
> > (small children) or grown-up (adult) morons! "
> >
> > Was that an example of your "scientific truth-pursuit"?
> >
> > Wake up Du�an.
Dušan Vukotić
> I must say, you're one of the quaintest person I've ever met. You are
> RUDE, but you don't realise it. You could easily have put forward your
> arguments politely, but no, you chose to be rude and ill-mannered. You
> won't win anyone over to your theories like that, mate.
>
> Perhaps you have issues in your love life, that you just can't handle.
> It's obvious there is something you are extremely unhappy about. Maybe
> you're unemployed. Well, I wish you well, and I won't blame you for
> being so disrespectful, if you have serious troubles in your life.
>
> And I won't descend to your level of insults. So, go on, exult and
> jubilate like a immature juvenile if you want to. By doing so, you
> will only expose your weaknesses further to everyone here. But then
> again, maybe you ARE only eighteen years old, which would explain a
> lot of this uncouth behaviour. I guess we'll never know, will we.
>
> Farewell, Dušan Vukotić.
Listen, you are young man ("immature juvenile" as you say), very
impatient and short-tempered because someone "infected" you with an
odd idea about "the most ancient" Arabic "mother language".
My intention was not to offend you in any way but to provoke you to
continue our previous "politely conducted" discussion and, all in
order to give you a chance to understand that your "mother language
theory", based on "millions of Arabic roots" is nothing else but a bad
judgment based on a pure fantasy.
Nevertheless, I know that time is on the side of young people (as you
and Stefan are) who are willing and eager to push forward the
frontiers of an individual and common knowledge.
And I do appreciate it very much.
First thing a young person (as you are) has to learn is the fact that
the human senses could often be unbelievable deceptive. There are many
book written on this subject but the best way to understand it is a
personal experience; but you must be prepared to acknowledge your own
delusions and misapprehensions and to learn from them.
Finally, I am an "old man" for you; I am 54 but still in a good
physical condition; for instance, a few hours ago I ran 7.000 meters
in just 34 minutes (a good result for my age, isn't it?). It is the
way I neutralize all my eventual "bad feelings" or
"aggressiveness". ;-)
All the best,
Dušan