Serbian Himalaya (Homolje) Mountains
Dušan Vukotić
The rough meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon is "roundness, round heap, clod,
cloud, ample, oval object, egg-like" etc. Gon-Bel is a part of my HSF
Xur-Bel-Gon "well-spring" or "generator" of speech. Bel-Gon form is
intrinsically connected to the sun and to the sun-divinity - Bel (Zeus
Belos, Jupiter Belus; Celtic divinity Bel, Semitic divinity Bel,
Belanus etc.). There is an enormous number of words that are derived
from Gon-Bel-Gon basis, where the syllable Gon represents any kind of
movement (phisical as well as mental). Maybe the ancient people
realized that the whole life BEGAN thanks to the sun's activity; so we
could say that "in the beginning was the sun beam" instead of
biblical "word". Probably, it is the reason why we have words "begin"
- Serb. početak, počinjati, pogoniti, polaziti /begin/, Lat. pello,
pellare, pulsus, Gr. βαινω; βάσις /any basis is a "beginning"/;
επικινέω /to be moved/, πολυ-κίνητος, αποκινέω /remove/; Ger.
Beginn, Anfang /beginning/.
Following the above logic of the "beginning" we can easily understand
the further "branching" of words and their meanings: pello => expell,
pulso => expulsio => explosion; Serb. polaziti/pogoniti (start to go;
Beginn), poleteti (fly; Ger. Fliegen; iz-leteti from iz-(po)leteti,
aus-fliegen), ispaliti (shoot); pogoniti (drive) => puknuti (explode).
Nevertheless, let us go back to the "basic" meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon -
roundness, heap! While comparing English heap (Ger. Haufe), inhabit
and heaven with the Slavic words zemlja (earth), gomila (heap; also
known in its metathesized form "mogila"), nebo (heaven, sky) and selo
(village) we can hardly understand the exact relation among all these
word, especially if we try to solve this problem using the standard
linguistic methods. Although the Slavic word zemlja (earth) and
English heaven have different but similar "roots" (g^hðem- and *ke-
men-; Germanic *hibin-, *himin-), there is a small chance that anyone
would say that "zemlja" and "heaven" originated from the same
"source". Everybody can see that English "heap" has a close meaning to
"accumulation", but there are rare people who are able to understand
that this words are the closest cognates. Is there any possibility to
prove that "accumulation" is closely related to "hamlet", "home" and
Serbian "selo" (village)? Who would ever believe you if you said that
English "home" is related to Slavic "dom" or that Latin humus (ground,
earth, soil; cf. Serb. hum /mound/, humka /tomb/) is a counterpart
word for Slavic "gomila" (heap; mogila) and "zemlja" (earth).
Latin globus (globe, ball) is the cognate of the Serbian word lopta
(ball), but if we compare Serb. lopta and Lat. globus with words as
Serb. oblina (roundness; from h/oblina) or M. Lat. ovalis (egg-like;
Lat. volubilitas, probably from h/uolubilita; cf. Serb. uobliti /make
round/) we shall clearly see that all this words are derived from the
Gon-Bel-Gon basis.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> http://www.jat.com/active/en/home/main_menu/travel_info/jat_review/fabruar_2006/homolje.html
>
> The rough meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon is "roundness, round heap, clod,
> cloud, ample, oval object, egg-like" etc. Gon-Bel is a part of my HSF
> Xur-Bel-Gon "well-spring" or "generator" of speech.
I'm glad you wrote "my" this time, to warn the uninitiated that this is
all your own invention.
> Bel-Gon form is
> intrinsically connected to the sun and to the sun-divinity - Bel (Zeus
> Belos, Jupiter Belus; Celtic divinity Bel, Semitic divinity Bel,
> Belanus etc.).
Prove it.
> There is an enormous number of words that are derived
> from Gon-Bel-Gon basis, where the syllable Gon represents any kind of
> movement (phisical as well as mental). Maybe the ancient people
> realized that the whole life BEGAN thanks to the sun's activity; so we
> could say that "in the beginning was the sun beam" instead of
> biblical "word". Probably, it is the reason why we have words "begin"
> - Serb. početak, počinjati, pogoniti, polaziti /begin/, Lat. pello,
> pellare, pulsus, Gr. βαινω; βάσις /any basis is a "beginning"/;
> επικινέω /to be moved/, πολυ-κίνητος, αποκινέω /remove/; Ger.
> Beginn, Anfang /beginning/.
Hmm, a bunch of words that have no particular phonetic resemblance AND
which don't all even mean the seem thing. What do you think this
illustrates?
> Following the above logic of the "beginning" we can easily understand
> the further "branching" of words and their meanings: pello => expell,
> pulso => expulsio => explosion; Serb. polaziti/pogoniti (start to go;
> Beginn), poleteti (fly; Ger. Fliegen; iz-leteti from iz-(po)leteti,
> aus-fliegen), ispaliti (shoot); pogoniti (drive) => puknuti (explode).
The logic that you are following remains hidden in your mind, and you
don't even attempt to explain what it is, do you? Prove *something*,
plesae, for once.
> Nevertheless, let us go back to the "basic" meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon -
> roundness, heap! While comparing English heap (Ger. Haufe), inhabit
> and heaven with the Slavic words zemlja (earth), gomila (heap; also
> known in its metathesized form "mogila"), nebo (heaven, sky) and selo
> (village) we can hardly understand the exact relation among all these
> word, especially if we try to solve this problem using the standard
> linguistic methods. Although the Slavic word zemlja (earth) and
> English heaven have different but similar "roots" (g^hðem- and *ke-
> men-; Germanic *hibin-, *himin-), there is a small chance that anyone
> would say that "zemlja" and "heaven" originated from the same
> "source". Everybody can see that English "heap" has a close meaning to
> "accumulation", but there are rare people who are able to understand
> that this words are the closest cognates.
Prove it.
> Is there any possibility to
> prove that "accumulation" is closely related to "hamlet", "home" and
> Serbian "selo" (village)?
If there is a proof, why don't you show it to us? I mean a proof, not
yet another spewing of words of undemonstrated interrelatedness.
> Who would ever believe you if you said that
> English "home" is related to Slavic "dom" or that Latin humus (ground,
> earth, soil; cf. Serb. hum /mound/, humka /tomb/) is a counterpart
> word for Slavic "gomila" (heap; mogila) and "zemlja" (earth).
You want so badly to be believed, yet you provide no proof.
> Latin globus (globe, ball) is the cognate of the Serbian word lopta
> (ball), but if we compare Serb. lopta and Lat. globus with words as
> Serb. oblina (roundness; from h/oblina) or M. Lat. ovalis (egg-like;
> Lat. volubilitas, probably from h/uolubilita; cf. Serb. uobliti /make
> round/) we shall clearly see that all this words are derived from the
> Gon-Bel-Gon basis.
Prove it.
Brian M. Scott
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote in
<news:67osuuF...@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang:
> Dušan Vukotić wrote:
>> http://www.jat.com/active/en/home/main_menu/travel_info/jat_review/fabruar_2006/homolje.html
>> The rough meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon is "roundness, round heap, clod,
>> cloud, ample, oval object, egg-like" etc. Gon-Bel is a part of my HSF
>> Xur-Bel-Gon "well-spring" or "generator" of speech.
> I'm glad you wrote "my" this time, to warn the uninitiated that this is
> all your own invention.
He could save bandwidth by just posting a link to his blog:
<http://my.opera.com/vukotic/blog/show.dml/1986818>.
[...]
Brian
Peter T. Daniels
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:25:16 -0400, Harlan Messinger
> <news:67osuuF...@mid.individual.net> in sci.lang:
> > Du¹an Vukotiæ wrote:
> >>http://www.jat.com/active/en/home/main_menu/travel_info/jat_review/fa...
> >> The rough meaning of Gon-Bel-Gon is "roundness, round heap, clod,
> >> cloud, ample, oval object, egg-like" etc. Gon-Bel is a part of my HSF
> >> Xur-Bel-Gon "well-spring" or "generator" of speech.
> > I'm glad you wrote "my" this time, to warn the uninitiated that this is
> > all your own invention.
>
> He could save bandwidth by just posting a link to his blog:
> <http://my.opera.com/vukotic/blog/show.dml/1986818>.
He actually provided the key to his "system" in the fairly long reply
to my request for an explanation (when he offered a choice of 3
responses, and the correct one was [3] I don't understand) which no
one commented on.
It turns out that he operates strictly on semantic similarity and has
no interest in surface form at all.
VK
> It turns out that he operates strictly on semantic similarity and has
> no interest in surface form at all.
He does, but in his very particular way: "die Sprache spricht" with
him. I already once mentioned possible grounds of his writings at
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/e2de51919be1c971
This way his etymology is not an explanation of the current form out
of previous sources. His etymology is an explanation of the current
form as a reflection of the "unpacking senses" of the infospace.
The often source of irritation with Dusan is that he still cannot take
a decision what does he want to be: a philosopher or a PIE specialist.
Sometimes he changes his mind several times on the run of a single
post.
Craoi...@gmail.com
> The often source of irritation with Dusan is that he still cannot take
> a decision what does he want to be: a philosopher or a PIE specialist.
> Sometimes he changes his mind several times on the run of a single
> post.
It would be nice if he could make up his mind and go into philosophy.
That's where all the kooks should head anyway. They would fit in well,
nobody would see any difference between them and the average academic.
But then, it is possible that they all started there...
Dušan Vukotić
> On Apr 29, 8:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > It turns out that he operates strictly on semantic similarity and has
> > no interest in surface form at all.
>
> He does, but in his very particular way: "die Sprache spricht" with
>
> This way his etymology is not an explanation of the current form out
> of previous sources. His etymology is an explanation of the current
> form as a reflection of the "unpacking senses" of the infospace.
>
> The often source of irritation with Dusan is that he still cannot take
> a decision what does he want to be: a philosopher or a PIE specialist.
> Sometimes he changes his mind several times on the run of a single
> post.
VK would you mind telling us your name and gander. Where are you from?
I hope you are not ashamed of your mental and physical appearance.
Generally, I do not like to "debate" with "nameless" people. Even if
you do not want to be "recognized" as a man of flesh and blood, you
can still chose some other (fake) human name instad of these ghostlike
VK initials.
I see you are obssesed with Nalimov (the post you indicated above) and
his crappy philosophy. What is the meaning of "infospace" and, do you
know what the syntagm "unpacked senses" is aiming at? If Nalimov had
not been the "enemy" of the "Evil Empire" nobody in the West would
have ever heard of him. He made his own kind of psycho-philosophical
"borshch" of Jung's "collective unconscious" and Heideger's "unhidden"
and "hidden" (senses, dimensions or godknowswhat).
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Following the semantic values of words, it is possible to explain any
other phonetic or morphological/structural forms. In reality, if we
were able to determine the exact meanings of words, their mutual
relatedness, diachronic development and possible shifting, any of the
other, either "surface" or "depth" forms would be a "piece of cake".
Red is roho in Spanish, France rouge, Swe. röd, Irish ruadh, Lit.
raudà and in Serbian ridj is red-headed (Fr. roux), rujno vino is “red
wine”, ruditi (to become red)... Are these words related or not? If
they are, there is no problem to establish all the morphological and
phonetic changes/rules.
Nevertheless, here we have a problem with Latin rubeo -ere (red) as
well as rufus (red) and russus (red, russet). Is it possible that
Latin rubeo is derived from the *reudh- IE root? Latin rubeo seems to
be corresponding to Serbian rumen/crven (flush, red)? It looks obvious
that we cannot resolve this problem of the Latin word rubeo as long as
we are unable to understand a complete semantic relation among russus,
rufus and rubeo; i.e. we cannot be sure what phonetic changes (if any)
have been applied in this case (b => f => h; or h => f => b; as for
me, both seem equally unacceptable).
DV
Peter T. Daniels
What about all the cognates whose semantic resemblance was lost long,
long ago?
Your method will only find a small number of true cognates and (as is
obvious) find a very large number of false cognates.