Ranning away and fearing: IE BELGON basis
Dusan Vukotic
flee); Indo-European basis BEL-GON); Γρ. φεύγω (perf.
πέφευγα = Serb. pobegao fled; povukao se stepped back), Lat.
fuga (flight, fleeing, escape); paveo (frightned) Lit. bū́gstu,
bū́gau, bū́gti intr. (frighten; cfr. Czech uprchnout, Serb. prhnuti
ran away; Alb. frikë fear, Ger. Furcht, Eng. fright); baugìnti
(frighten), baugùs (fearfully); Russ. испуганный
(ispuganiy) frightened пугать (pugatь frighten; Slav. *běgǫ
in Russ. běgu (Inf. běžátь), Little Russian. bihú (run), as
OCS. neologisms priběgnǫ, priběgnǫti etc. (to flee), also OCS.
běžǫ, bežati (to flee), etc;
Ir. búal water… Serb. bojati se (be afraid), bojiti (paint), bujati
(overflow; bujica torrent).
Obviously, running away and fearing are the most closely related
notions.
Dusan Vukotic
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
Therefore, the starting ur-word for fleeing and fearing (or better
flinching) was BELGON (Bel /sun god/ + GON /drive, move, go/); Belgon
derived later to Balkan/ Vulkan and VALJANJE (wallow, Gr. βαλλω I
throw; hence ballistics; Serb. OBALITI throw an object down the coast
/Serb. OBALA coast/). Above mentioned VALJANJE (BALJANJE, wallow,
waltz) is the one form of the basis BELGON; the other one is the Serb.
POGON (propulsion, from POLAŽENJE, POLAZAK, POLAZ outset, beginning,
Lat. PULSE), Greek βαγόνι, Eng. wagen, Eng. BEGIN.
Next time:
What is the relation among the Greek βαγόνι, English WAGON, BEGIN
and Serbian POGON and POČETAK (begining)?
Harlan Messinger
> Next time:
> What is the relation among the Greek βαγόνι, English WAGON, BEGIN
> and Serbian POGON and POČETAK (begining)?
>
Evidently it'll be anything you say it is.
Dusan Vukotic
Let us begin from the beginning? Probably, there is no one (not even
Harlan!) who would have ever supposed that English BEGINNING and
Serbian POČETAK (beginning) originated from the same BELGON womb. The
Serbian verb POČETI has the form POČNI in imperative mood. This
POČNI is the same word as the word POGON (propulsion, drive), where
the velar K has been palatalised to Č (POGON => POKNI => POČNI; Č =
CH). Clearer relation between BEGIN and POČNI could be seen if we
used Serbian noun POČINJANJE (the same meaning as POČETAK -
beginning). In this case, a duplicated GON is well visible in both
words, Serbian POČINJANJE and English BEGINNING, following the BEL
syllable (BEL-GON-GON).
Harlan Messinger
So you do suppose it. Supposing doesn't make it true. Do you have any
evidence for your hypothesis or is this yet another example of "it's
true because it looks neat and it pleases me to think so"?
> The
> Serbian verb POČETI has the form POČNI in imperative mood. This
> POČNI is the same word as the word POGON (propulsion, drive), where
> the velar K has been palatalised to Č (POGON => POKNI => POČNI; Č =
> CH). Clearer relation between BEGIN and POČNI could be seen if we
> used Serbian noun POČINJANJE (the same meaning as POČETAK -
> beginning). In this case, a duplicated GON is well visible in both
> words, Serbian POČINJANJE and English BEGINNING, following the BEL
> syllable (BEL-GON-GON).
I don't suppose that it matters to you that it's known that the "be-" in
"begin" was originally a prefix attached to the root "ginnan" which
therefore has no resemblance to a Slavic root beginning with "p".
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
OK. And what is the meaning of 'ginnan'? It seems that no body knows it
for sure (OE. ginnen, AS. ginnan; OHG. inginnan to begin, open, cut
open)?. What is the meaning of the Serbian ČINJENJE? It means working,
doing, but it was derived from POČINJANJE (beginning). In addition,
there are the other Serbian words as GONJENJE and GANJANJE (driving,
chasing, pursuing), even GINJENJE (dying). Are these Serbian words
related to the English GINNAN or not? I think that only intellectaly
deprived people would not be able to see the striking resemblence among
these words. They are the same morphologically and semantically they
have almost the same meaning.
Harlan Messinger
The point you keep missing is that every single pair of words with a
mutual resemblance is not necessarily related. In fact, it would be a
statistical anomaly if, given the limited phonetic range available,
there *weren't* thousands of pairs of words among various languages that
had superficial phonetic and semantic resemblances. And when one plays
the kind of game you do, a sort of etymological Six Degrees of Kevin
Bacon, where you feel free to create arbitrarily long sequences of
concepts in which any two neighboring concepts are similar but the
concepts on both ends may be completely unrelated, you're bound to turn
up false positives in abundance.
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Are you serious! You are following Kevin's six degrees crap? I thought
we were discussing science and not belief in magical spells, ocult
forces and evil spirits!
Harlan Messinger
Was I that unclear? I was characterizing what *you* do as resembling a
game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
You were clear and it is the reason why I think you must be some kind
of joker. We are talking about the words from the same branch (both
Serbian and English are IE languages or I might be wrong?). Do you not
you see, you are talking about the chance resemblances among brothers
and sisters! Your point of view is logically untenable. This group of
words which denote POGON (POLAZ) i.e. PULSE, PROPULSION, POCINJANJE
(BEGINING), BEŽANJE (BACK, FLINCHING) and BOJANJE (FUNKING) cannot be
unrelated. Their morphology is clear, as their meaning and philosophy
are unambiguous. You have the right to think differently but if you
expect your opinion to be accepted as a serious one, please, show your
argumentation.
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:4utc9uF...@mid.individual.net...
As a Serbian he should know that "po-" in his Serbian
words is also a prefix with various meanings.
The real original slavic roots are nouns ČIN (deed),
GON or HON (chase) and their various declensions.
pjk
Dusan Vukotic
More than 90% of the Slavic words (verbs, nouns, adjectives) contains
the ursyllable GON in a clear or in a more or less hidden form. I told
you before that more than 90% of the Slavic vocabulary is "prefixed".
If you understand the way in which the language has been developing for
millenniums, you will see that your "pre-fixed idea" is of no meaning
at all for our present discussion.
Dusan Vukotic
Beside the word BOJANJE (fearing), the Serbian vocabulary has the
synonymous word PLAŠENJE (fear). In fact, these two words (BOJANJE,
PLAŠENJE) could be compared to the English FUNKING and FLINCHING, the
words that include in themselves the both above-mentioned notion:
running away and fearing. On the other side, there is the English word
FRIGHT (Sw. frukta, Dan. frygte, Goth. faurhtjan) , obviously related
to the Latin ‘periculum’ (It. pericoloso dangerous, PERILOUS) and
the Serbian BRIGA (worry). Now, if we compare the Serbian words BRIGA
(worry, Alb. frikë) and BORENJE (war) we shall see that these words
were derived from the same source (BEL-HOR-GON) as the English WORRY
and WAR.
To the “unfaithful Tomas’”:
Serb. BOJANJE (fear) => FUNKING => Russ. PUGALO (from
пугать/PUGAT* frighten; пугало/PUGALO scarecrow, bugaboo
BOGGLE
Serb. PLAŠENJE (fearing) => FLINCHING
Serb. BRIGA (verb BRINUTI, adj. BRIŽAN) => WORY, WORRYING => FRIGHTEN
Serb. BORENJE => WAR, WARRING
I am looking forward to see Harlan’s answer, but not the one from the
“six degrees” imbecility. In addition, I am surprised that Brian
FLINCHED and BLENCHED from his self-imposed garbage cleaning duty.
*Russ. PUGAT sprung from the BELGON => POGON (propulsion, drive) =>
POGNATI (drive, chase, pursue); here we can see that Serbian BOJANJE
kept the initial B (from BOGNATI => BOGNJATI => BOJATI fear/ Russ.
испуганный/ IS-PUGANIY (frightened)
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Dusan Vukotic wrote:
>>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point you keep missing is that every single pair of words with a
>>>> mutual resemblance is not necessarily related. In fact, it would be a
>>>> statistical anomaly if, given the limited phonetic range available,
>>>> there *weren't* thousands of pairs of words among various languages that
>>>> had superficial phonetic and semantic resemblances. And when one plays
>>>> the kind of game you do, a sort of etymological Six Degrees of Kevin
>>>> Bacon, where you feel free to create arbitrarily long sequences of
>>>> concepts in which any two neighboring concepts are similar but the
>>>> concepts on both ends may be completely unrelated, you're bound to turn
>>>> up false positives in abundance.
>>>>
>>>> They are the same morphologically and semantically they
>>>>> have almost the same meaning.
>>> Are you serious! You are following Kevin's six degrees crap? I thought
>>> we were discussing science and not belief in magical spells, ocult
>>> forces and evil spirits!
>> Was I that unclear? I was characterizing what *you* do as resembling a
>> game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
>
> You were clear and it is the reason why I think you must be some kind
> of joker. We are talking about the words from the same branch (both
> Serbian and English are IE languages or I might be wrong?).
"Day" and Spanish "día" are from IE and the have nothing to do with each
other. "Bad" and Persian "bad", which means "bad", are both from IE and
have nothing to do with each other. For the umpteenth time, similarity
in both phonetics and semantics aren't sufficient, *especially* when you
craft rather long strings of concepts together to make two words
*look* like they're semantically similar, as you do time and time again.
> Do you not
> you see, you are talking about the chance resemblances among brothers
> and sisters!
Yes, it happens! It happens! All the time! Even in the *same* language,
not every pair of words with similar sounds and meanings are related!
Really! It's a fact! So you can come up with these similarities until
you turn blue, but until you can find a meaningful pattern, and reduce
the amount of arbitrariness that you admit in finding "similarities"
between meanings, you won't have anything sufficiently solid to find
interesting.
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Sp. dia from Lat. DIES! The basis DI-GON is well visible. Who ever told
you that Spanish and English DIES/DAY are not related, is an obvious
charlatan. The same basis wombed the words as Latin 'digno/dignare'
(condescend, deign, think worthy, Serb. DINAR nickel), Spanish
'dignidad' (dignity), Lat. 'educo/educare' (educate), Serbian 'douka'
(učenje learning, đak pupil). The Serbs have a syntagma
“podignuti/dignuti dete” (to raise a child, Lat. dignus, digna).
When the sun rises up (Serb. DIGNE, dizanje = rising) in the morning, a
new day (Serb. DAN day; Skt. dina) begins. Actually, the basis DI-GON
is a derivative from the duplicated GON syllable (for instance, Serb.
điknuti to rise quickly, skok, skoknuti jump, leap, spring, bounce).
Probably, the Latin ‘diurnus/diurnal’ (daily; Italian giornata,
giorno day) is the reason why some linguists believe that ‘day’ and
‘dies’ are not cognates.
As for the Persian BAD, compare the Serbian word BEDA (that which is
below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency) and the English
BADNESS (that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or
decency) and you will see that you must not believe blindly in
everything what BIG authorities are telling you.
Dusan Vukotic
The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PEĆI (bake). Are
these words cognates or not? If they are, how did their common "root"
sound?
Let us see what the etymology books are saying about the "root" BHELGH-
((Pokorny bhelh- 125.) wich is the closest one to the ur-basis BEL-GON:
DEFINITION: To swell. Extension of bhel-2. Oldest form *bhelh-,
becoming *bhelgh- in centum languages. 1. O-grade form *bholgh-.
bellows, belly, from Old English bel(i)g, bælig, bag, bellows, from
Germanic *balgiz. 2. Zero-grade form *bhgh-. billow, from Old Norse
bylgja, a wave, from Germanic *bulgjan. 3. Zero-grade form *bhgh-.
bolster, from Old English bolster, cushion, from Germanic *bulgstraz.
4. O-grade form *bholgh-. blagging, budget, bulge, from Latin bulga,
leather sack, from Celtic *bolg-.
Obviously, Gr. φώγω (roast, fry), Old English *bæcce, OHG.
bahhan, O.Ice. baka,, MHG. sich becheln ` Bask, get warm, lounge in the
sun '; OHG. backan, NHG. backen and Serb. peći (bake), according to
the modern linguistic findings, do not belong to the "root' BHELGH-.
We shall try to prove that the BAKE also originated from the "root"
BHELGH- or from the ancient ur-basis BELGON. If we observe carefully
above explanation, we shall see that English BLISTER was not included
in words that stemmed from the BHELGH- root. Pokorny put the word
’blister’ under the root bhleu-. The Latin word FOLLICULUM,
FOLLICULI (sack or bag) is derived from BULGE (bag). In Serbian
blister is PLIK (Gr. φούσκα, φλυκταίνα) and this word
sprung from the previous form which sounded similar to BLUKTANJE. In
fact, in order to understand what has really happened here, we must go
back to the primeval basis BEL-GON, which had been branched into four
main directions:
Fire (Serb. PLANUTI, BUKNUTI /blaze up/, PLAMEN flame, PALJENJE),
Water (Serb. OBLAK cloud, OBLINUTI splash, suffuses, PLINUTI, PLIMA
tide),
Light (Serb. BELO white, BELJENJE bleaching, BOJENJE painting,
BLJESNUTI flash),
Explosion (Serb. PUKNUTI burst, puncture, rift, PUCANJE shooting).
Form (Serb. OBLIK)
In the case of the word ‘blister’ (Serb. PLIK) the logic is clear:
BLISTER is an elevation (BULGE, Serb. BUDŽA) of the skin that was
irritated by fire (BLAZE, Serb. BUKNUTI; from BULKNUTI). After the
BLAZING of the skin, the man feels burning (BAKING, Serb. BUKTANJE,
PALJENJE) effect in the place where the burning occurred. So, after the
BLAZING comes BULGING and, finally, the burned part of the skin will
look like a BUG (Lat. BULGE).
BEL-GON => Serb. BU(l)KNUTI, PLANUTI, PEĆI (PLANUTI => PLAMEN, Eng.
FLAME)
BEL-GON => Eng. BLAZING, BAKE
Serb. PLIK <=> Eng. BLISTER
BULGE => BAG
Serb. BU(l)DŽAK (store, pantry, corner) => BUDŽAK => DŽAK (bag,
sack); BUDŽENJE (inflating)
Serb. BISAGE (bag, sack) were derived from BEŠENJE/ VEŠANJE/ VISAK
(gibbet, hanging, bob; also BEL-GON basis)
Cf. billowing, blowing <=> pillow, bolster <=> blister!
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Additional explanation:
Serb. BISAGE pl. the kind of bags used to be hanged on the horse back.
The word is derived from BEŠENJE (hanging) similar as VISAK (bob) from
VIŠENJE, VISITI (hang).
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PEĆI
> (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
'to warm', and Serbian <peći> is from PIE *pekW- 'to cook'.
But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
*b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
yields *f- in Gmc.
[...]
Dusan Vukotic
BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
BAKER = PEKAR
BLAZE = PLANUTI
BLISTER = PLIK
FLAME = PLAM
How do you explain above relations? Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have
meaning 'cook' but BAKE!
Please, do not make a fool of yourself.
It seems, you are trying to prove that anything I say must be
incorrect. I think, you have chosen a wrong strategy.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Dusan Vukotic wrote:
>>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> "Day" and Spanish "día" are from IE and the have nothing to do with each
>> other. "Bad" and Persian "bad", which means "bad", are both from IE and
>> have nothing to do with each other. For the umpteenth time, similarity
>> in both phonetics and semantics aren't sufficient, *especially* when you
>> craft rather long strings of concepts together to make two words
>> *look* like they're semantically similar, as you do time and time again.
>>
>>> Do you not
>>> you see, you are talking about the chance resemblances among brothers
>>> and sisters!
>> Yes, it happens! It happens! All the time! Even in the *same* language,
>> not every pair of words with similar sounds and meanings are related!
>> Really! It's a fact! So you can come up with these similarities until
>> you turn blue, but until you can find a meaningful pattern, and reduce
>> the amount of arbitrariness that you admit in finding "similarities"
>> between meanings, you won't have anything sufficiently solid to find
>> interesting.
>
> Sp. dia from Lat. DIES! The basis DI-GON is well visible.
You made up "di-gon", so it isn't visible to anyone but you.
> Who ever told
> you that Spanish and English DIES/DAY are not related, is an obvious
> charlatan.
Your disbelief doesn't make people charlatans.
> The same basis wombed the words as Latin 'digno/dignare'
> (condescend, deign, think worthy, Serb. DINAR nickel), Spanish
> 'dignidad' (dignity), Lat. 'educo/educare' (educate), Serbian 'douka'
> (učenje learning, đak pupil).
No it didn't.
> The Serbs have a syntagma
> “podignuti/dignuti dete” (to raise a child, Lat. dignus, digna).
How nice for them.
> When the sun rises up (Serb. DIGNE, dizanje = rising) in the morning, a
> new day (Serb. DAN day; Skt. dina) begins. Actually, the basis DI-GON
> is a derivative from the duplicated GON syllable (for instance, Serb.
> điknuti to rise quickly, skok, skoknuti jump, leap, spring, bounce).
> Probably, the Latin ‘diurnus/diurnal’ (daily; Italian giornata,
> giorno day) is the reason why some linguists believe that ‘day’ and
> ‘dies’ are not cognates.
No, they know that they aren't cognates because unlike you who are
guessing based on superficial correspondences within what little you
know about these languages, the professional linguists have, compared to
you, an enormous body of evidence to work from, and they know these
words are from different origins.
You're like someone who believes fever is caused by demons because it's
"obvious" that the fire in his head feels just like the fire a demon
would produce, and he doesn't personally have a microscope so he won't
believe anyone who claims that bacteria or viruses are what causes fever.
>
> As for the Persian BAD, compare the Serbian word BEDA (that which is
> below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency) and the English
> BADNESS (that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or
> decency) and you will see that you must not believe blindly in
> everything what BIG authorities are telling you.
I'm trying to figure out why you expect anyone to blindly trust *you*
when what you say is so much less convincing than what they say, because
it's based on much flimsier evidence.
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2006 10:49:19 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PEÆI
> > (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
>
> Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
> 'to warm', and Serbian <peæi> is from PIE *pekW- 'to cook'.
> But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
> be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
> *b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
> yields *f- in Gmc.
>
> [...]
You are amazing Brainy!
I do not bielive that PIE *p- existed, because voiced bilabial stop B
is older than voiced labiodental V, voiceless fricative F and voiceless
stop P; i.e. B yielded V, P and F, of course differently in Germanic,
Roman, Greek or Slavic languages.
There is no problem to follow all kind of sound changes among IE
languages; it is well visible. It is the reason why I think that the
key etymological results could be achieved in the field of semantics
and philosophy of language.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> You are amazing Brainy!
>
> BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
> BAKER = PEKAR
> BLAZE = PLANUTI
> BLISTER = PLIK
> FLAME = PLAM
>
> How do you explain above relations? Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have
> meaning 'cook' but BAKE!
That's an obstacle for *you*? Baking and cooking are an awful lot more
closely related than many pairs of concepts for which you've argued a
connection.
Dusan Vukotic
>
> > The same basis wombed the words as Latin 'digno/dignare'
> > (condescend, deign, think worthy, Serb. DINAR nickel), Spanish
> > 'dignidad' (dignity), Lat. 'educo/educare' (educate), Serbian 'douka'
> > (učenje learning, đak pupil).
>
> No it didn't.
"re-assuring" negations?
> No, they know that they aren't cognates because unlike you who are
> guessing based on superficial correspondences within what little you
> know about these languages, the professional linguists have, compared to
> you, an enormous body of evidence to work from, and they know these
> words are from different origins.
Would you stop explaining what other (professional linguists) have done
and, for a change, start to thing with your own head? What are the
evidences you are talking about? Would you mind to point them out!?
> > As for the Persian BAD, compare the Serbian word BEDA (that which is
> > below standard or expectations as of ethics or decency) and the English
> > BADNESS (that which is below standard or expectations as of ethics or
> > decency) and you will see that you must not believe blindly in
> > everything what BIG authorities are telling you.
Again Serbian BEDA/ BEDNOĆA has the same meaning as the English
BADNESS. It is not an isolated case, there are thousands of such
examples. Over 90% of English vocabulary can be "covered" with Serbian/
Slavic words.
>
> I'm trying to figure out why you expect anyone to blindly trust *you*
> when what you say is so much less convincing than what they say, because
> it's based on much flimsier evidence.
I would be ready to accept your opinion only in case if you have
evidences to sustain your above claimings. Otherwise, you are just
trying to shoot from an empty gun.
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
I do not believe that any one knows what you wanted to say above.
Cooking is cooking and baking is baking,
Linguistically, cook (kuvar) is not related to baker (pekar) even if
they were brothers!
Please, cool down and try to be logical and consistent.
DV
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Dusan Vukotic wrote:
>>> You are amazing Brainy!
>>>
>>> BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
>>> BAKER = PEKAR
>>> BLAZE = PLANUTI
>>> BLISTER = PLIK
>>> FLAME = PLAM
>>>
>>> How do you explain above relations? Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have
>>> meaning 'cook' but BAKE!
>> That's an obstacle for *you*? Baking and cooking are an awful lot more
>> closely related than many pairs of concepts for which you've argued a
>> connection.
>
> I do not believe that any one knows what you wanted to say above.
On top of everything else you have psychic powers?
> Cooking is cooking and baking is baking,
You've decide that beginning and fleeing and fearing and throwing are
related, but to you cooking and baking are irreconcilably distinct concepts?
> Linguistically, cook (kuvar) is not related to baker (pekar) even if
> they were brothers!
>
> Please, cool down and try to be logical and consistent.
You are no champion of logic or consistency.
Harlan Messinger
>> > The same basis wombed the words as Latin 'digno/dignare'
>>> (condescend, deign, think worthy, Serb. DINAR nickel), Spanish
>>> 'dignidad' (dignity), Lat. 'educo/educare' (educate), Serbian 'douka'
>>> (učenje learning, đak pupil).
>> No it didn't.
> It is easy to say "no it didn't", Could you somehow substantiate your
> "re-assuring" negations?
If it did, then your conclusion would be justified. But your conclusion
is false. By a reductio ad absurdum, it didn't. QED.
>
>> No, they know that they aren't cognates because unlike you who are
>> guessing based on superficial correspondences within what little you
>> know about these languages, the professional linguists have, compared to
>> you, an enormous body of evidence to work from, and they know these
>> words are from different origins.
>
> Would you stop explaining what other (professional linguists) have done
> and, for a change, start to thing with your own head?
I am. My head has learned how historical linguistics works, and it makes
perfectly good sense. Your head would benefit from realizing that the
results the professionals have obtained were obtained for a reason.
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167166179.5...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> Dusan Vukotic wrote:
[...]
>>> Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have meaning 'cook' but
>>> BAKE!
>> That's an obstacle for *you*? Baking and cooking are an
>> awful lot more closely related than many pairs of
>> concepts for which you've argued a connection.
> I do not believe that any one knows what you wanted to say
> above.
On the contrary, what he said is perfectly straightforward.
Anyone who thinks that there's a close semantic connection
between 'to roll about' and 'to swim', for instance, has no
business complaining about the comparatively small semantic
distance between 'to cook' and 'to bake'.
> Cooking is cooking and baking is baking,
Rolling about is rolling about, and swimming is swimming.
[...]
> Please, cool down and try to be logical and consistent.
As Harlan just pointed out, *you* are being inconsistent.
Dusan Vukotic
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> You've decide that beginning and fleeing and fearing and throwing are
> related, but to you cooking and baking are irreconcilably distinct concepts?
I have never told something like that. Beggining and fleeing are the
words from the same BEL-GON basis (pulse, beggin, back) but
historically they were developed in defferent times and under different
circumstances.
It seems you are not following me well, it is one thing if we talk
about Serbian/ Slavic words and quite another when we speak about
relations inside Germanic or discuss relations among all IE branches.
Serb. KUHINJA = Eng. KITCHEN
Serb. PEKARA = Eng. BAKERY
According to you and Brainy this is just a chance resemblence!
What a logic!
DV
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167167465.5...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Serb. KUHINJA = Eng. KITCHEN
> Serb. PEKARA = Eng. BAKERY
> According to you and Brainy this is just a chance resemblence!
No. The resemblance between <pekara> and <bakery> is
accidental, but the resemblance between <kuhinja> and
<kitchen> is not. Serb. <kuhinja> is a borrowing of OHG
<kuchina>, which, like Eng. <kitchen>, is from VLat.
<cuci:na>.
> What a logic!
Precisely: Harlan and I prefer logic and knowledge to
untrammeled fantasy and wilful ignorance.
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
What makes you so sure that PEKARA - BAKERY and PEKAR - BAKER are not
related? I could understand your suspicion if there were compared two
distant languages as English and Blackfoot, for instance. Have you ever
been thinking, what are the chances that two words from unrelated
languages could be the same phonetically and semantically?
It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
but I think there is no way in which you can prove it.
Would you mind to present your argumentation (if you have any) for such
an idea?
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On the contrary, what he said is perfectly straightforward.
> Anyone who thinks that there's a close semantic connection
> between 'to roll about' and 'to swim', for instance, has no
> business complaining about the comparatively small semantic
> distance between 'to cook' and 'to bake'.
What's wrong with you Brainy?
Of course, there is no close semantic connection between 'roll about'
and 'swim', except in sense of movement, and I never said that. I said
that there was connection between Serbian words KOBELJANJE (to roll
about) and KUPANJE (swimming).
Please, do not falsify my words in the future.
I think, it does not befit you to give a wrong interpretation.
DV
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167174236.9...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On the contrary, what he said is perfectly straightforward.
>> Anyone who thinks that there's a close semantic connection
>> between 'to roll about' and 'to swim', for instance, has no
>> business complaining about the comparatively small semantic
>> distance between 'to cook' and 'to bake'.
> What's wrong with you Brainy?
> Of course, there is no close semantic connection between
> 'roll about' and 'swim', except in sense of movement, and
> I never said that. I said that there was connection
> between Serbian words KOBELJANJE (to roll about) and
> KUPANJE (swimming).
Which makes no sense at all unless you're also claiming a
semantic connection.
> Please, do not falsify my words in the future.
I didn't. Either (1) you don't understand what you wrote
before, (2) you had no basis at all besides their vague
resemblance to claim a connection between <kobeljanje> and
<kupanje>, or (3) you're lying about what you meant when you
wrote that post.
[...]
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Anyone can easily find and see what I wrote before.
Maybe you began your career playing harlequin! ((-:
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
Here is that post again:
Who is lying?
This words appeared to be clearly related to the Gothic diwan (OHG.
touwen, Serb. daviti). Serbian 'daviti' sprang from the GON-BEL-GON
basis (Serb. gnavljenje badgering, Greek goddess Nebo, Egyptian Kneph;
GNABEL => GABEL => ĐABEL => ĐAVL => Serb. ĐAVO-L => Lat. DIABOLUS
devil).
Although we have the Serbian verb 'divljati' (rampage, ramp), derived
from 'đavoljati' (devilish behavior) the verb 'daviti' did come from
the other side; i.e. from the words 'dubljenje' (deepen) and 'dubina'
(deepness, Germ. Tiefe; Serb. DUBLJENJE /deepening/ => DAVLJENJE
/drowning, strangling). If we compare the above-mentioned Serbian word
GNAVLJENJE (badgering) with KOBELJANJE (roll about) we shall see that
this 'rolling' will give the Serbian noun KUPANJE (swimming), while
DUBLJENJE (deepening) will be the source of the Serbian words TOPLJENJE
and UTAPANJE (merging, drowning).
The logic is clear here and now we are able to understand the history
of the words as German TAUFEN (baptize, christen) TAUB (deaf), TAUBE
(dove; from O.E. dufan to dive, duck, sink: in fact, to dip, submerge,
Serb. DUBINA, Germ. TIEF). Interesting, Greek τυφλός, does not
have meaning ‘deaf’, as we might have expected, but ‘blind’.
Logically, the silence is as deeper as we deeper submerge into the
water, but, also, our sight is as more impaired as far as the distance
from the water surface is increased.
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167164007....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2006 10:49:19 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
>> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>> The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PEÆI
>>> (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
>> Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
>> 'to warm', and Serbian <peæi> is from PIE *pekW- 'to cook'.
>> But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
>> be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
>> *b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
>> yields *f- in Gmc.
> You are amazing Brainy!
> BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
> BAKER = PEKAR
> BLAZE = PLANUTI
> BLISTER = PLIK
> FLAME = PLAM
> How do you explain above relations?
The connection between the <pekara> and <pekar> is real and
unsurprising, but neither is related to Eng. <bake>,
<baker>, or <bakery> (though it wouldn't surprise me if the
suffix <-ar> in <pekar> was in origin identical to Eng.
<-er> in <baker> . <Plam> is unrelated both to <pekar> and
to English <flame>. Eng. <blaze> and <blister> are
obviously not cognate with Serb. <planuti> and <plik>, for
the same reason that Serb. <peći> can't be cognate with Eng.
<bake>.
> Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have meaning 'cook'
No one said that it did.
> but BAKE!
> Please, do not make a fool of yourself.
My dear fellow, *I* am not the one who is making a fool of
himself!
> It seems, you are trying to prove that anything I say must be
> incorrect.
Not in the least: I haven't nearly enough time for that.
Brian M. Scott
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 19:38:42 -0500, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
<news:17vh7ykwnftw9.j5snct6q1o3y$.d...@40tude.net> in
sci.lang:
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> You are amazing Brainy!
> <-er> in <baker>,
... either from or related to Latin <-a:rius>.
> <Plam> is unrelated both to <pekar> and
> to English <flame>. Eng. <blaze> and <blister> are
> obviously not cognate with Serb. <planuti> and <plik>, for
> the same reason that Serb. <peći> can't be cognate with Eng.
> <bake>.
>> Serbian PEĆI (PEKAO) does not have meaning 'cook'
> No one said that it did.
>> but BAKE!
>> Please, do not make a fool of yourself.
> My dear fellow, *I* am not the one who is making a fool of
> himself!
>> It seems, you are trying to prove that anything I say must be
>> incorrect.
> Not in the least: I haven't nearly enough time for that.
>> I think, you have chosen a wrong strategy.
>> I do not bielive that PIE *p- existed, [...]
PIE *p- couldn't care less.
>> There is no problem to follow all kind of sound changes
>> among IE languages; it is well visible. [...]
Really? Then why do you appear to be largely ignorant of IE
sound changes?
[...]
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2006 12:13:27 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:1167164007....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On 26 Dec 2006 10:49:19 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
> >> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang:
>
> >>> The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PE¯I
> >>> (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
>
> >> Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
> >> 'to warm', and Serbian <pe¿i> is from PIE *pekW- 'to cook'.
> >> But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
> >> be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
> >> *b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
> >> yields *f- in Gmc.
>
> > You are amazing Brainy!
>
> > BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
> > BAKER = PEKAR
> > BLAZE = PLANUTI
> > BLISTER = PLIK
> > FLAME = PLAM
>
> > How do you explain above relations?
>
> The connection between the <pekara> and <pekar> is real and
> unsurprising, but neither is related to Eng. <bake>,
> <baker>, or <bakery> (though it wouldn't surprise me if the
> suffix <-ar> in <pekar> was in origin identical to Eng.
> <-er> in <baker> . <Plam> is unrelated both to <pekar> and
> to English <flame>. Eng. <blaze> and <blister> are
> obviously not cognate with Serb. <planuti> and <plik>, for
> the same reason that Serb. <peãi> can't be cognate with Eng.
> <bake>.
>
>
>
>
> > Serbian PEÃI (PEKAO) does not have meaning 'cook'
>
> No one said that it did.
>
> > but BAKE!
>
> > Please, do not make a fool of yourself.
>
> My dear fellow, *I* am not the one who is making a fool of
> himself!
>
> > It seems, you are trying to prove that anything I say must be
> > incorrect.
>
> Not in the least: I haven't nearly enough time for that.
>
> > I think, you have chosen a wrong strategy.
>
> > I do not bielive that PIE *p- existed, because voiced bilabial stop B
> > is older than voiced labiodental V, voiceless fricative F and voiceless
> > stop P; i.e. B yielded V, P and F, of course differently in Germanic,
> > Roman, Greek or Slavic languages.
>
> > There is no problem to follow all kind of sound changes among IE
> > languages; it is well visible. It is the reason why I think that the
> > key etymological results could be achieved in the field of semantics
> > and philosophy of language.
Poor Brainy!
Stop being ridiculous and stop believing everything you see, hear or
read; and do not take as infallible everything what the ROOTED
"authorities" are telling to you.
See this: ahd. PACHAN, mhd. bachen, nnl. bakken, ags. bacan, engl.
bake...
GIPACHAN => GEBACHEN => GEBACKEN
...doch erscheint ausnahmsweise schon ahd. PACKAN, bacchan (GRAFF 3,
24) und PECCHO...
I hope you finally understood that the propping on the ROOTS crutches
could be very dangerous. In addition, your knowledge about the sound
changes inside Germanic languages seems to be extremely poor.
DV
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?lemid=GB00080
BACKEN, coquere, torrere, frigere, ahd. pachan, mhd. bachen (: machen,
sachen), nnl. bakken, ags. bacan, engl. bake, altn. baka, schw. baka,
dän. bage. bei älteren süddeutschen schriftstellern immer bachen,
und noch heute so in Schwaben, Baiern, Östreich, erst LUTHER setzte
backen durch, das so unhochdeutsch scheint, als macken, sacken für
machen, sachen wäre; doch erscheint ausnahmsweise schon ahd. packan,
bacchan (GRAFF 3, 24) und peccho, mhd. becke pistor. die organische
flexion ist stark, ahd. puoch, mhd. buoch und buoc, nhd. buch und buk
und überall mit dem part. gipachan, gebachen, gebacken; mnl. boek,
nnl. bakte, altn. bakaði, schw. bakade, dän. bagede. LUTHER setzt
neben backen noch buch 1 Mos. 19, 3; buchs (buk es) 1 Sam. 28, 24;
buchen 2 Mos. 12, 39. das part. praet. steht in altbacken,
frischbacken, neubacken, hausbacken ohne ge.
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
but I think there is no way in which you can prove it. Would you mind
to present your argumentation (if you have any) for such an idea?
Anyone can easily find and see what I wrote before.
Maybe, you begun your carriere playing harlequin! ((-:
First, you do not know that original Serbian word for 'kitchen' was
'kuvinja'. It becomes more clear if we compare Serbian word for 'cook'
- 'kuvar' and 'kuvanje' (cooking). It can be seen that 'kuvanje'
(cooking) contains syllable KVA, the same one we can find in other
Serbian words connected to water like 'kvasiti' (soak). Here is one
example where we eventually have a chance resemblance: Serbian
KVASHENJE (soaking) > Ger. WASCHEN, WASH, although, it has to be
precisely explored. Are the German Wasser and English water closely
related?
Could you assume a situation where Serbian 'kvašenje' and German
'waschen' appeared to be the "next of kin"! As you see, Wasser and
waschen are going nicely together, but the T > Š (water - wash) sound
change does not seem natural in English at all. In German we have the
word KÖPELN (käupeln; rocking, dandle, swaying) which is close to the
meaning of the Serbian word KOBELJANJE. In fact, KUVANJE (cooking) is
KUVELJANJE (Serb. surname KUVELJA); i.e. an uninterrupted movement of
the hot (simmering) water.
Of course, we must not forget the Serbian word KOLEBANJE (vibration,
reel, oscillation, vacillation), probably obtained by metatheses
(KOBELJANJE => KOLEBANJE), wherefrom we have the Serbian word KOLEVKA
(cradle). Riding a horse is also a rocking or swaying movement and the
Latin name for horse is CABALLUS! In Serbian CABALUS is of feminine
gender and has the name KOBILA (mare).
Well I will stop here for now just to see Brainy's CABALISTIC reaction
to CABALLUS (KOBILA). Neverthless, I think, the best solution for
Brainy is to remain silent and not allow everyone to see the giant
hammerhead on his shoulders.
DV
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
> 'kuvinja'.
What was the original protoSlavic word?
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think a lot of fuss was made by introducing the so-called
proto-language into the serious linguistic work, commenced almost two
centuries ago. Actually, IE languages started their incredible journey
from a fiew selfgenerated lingua-wellsprings - XUR, BEL, GON, UM.
What is the meaning of proto-language?
None at all!
Ursprache is a nice game for leisure time.
Serbian KUVANJE sprang from the primeval basis GON-BEL-GON ((-:
DV
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> > > It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
> > > First, you do not know that original Serbian word for 'kitchen' was
> > > 'kuvinja'.
> >
> > What was the original protoSlavic word?
>
> I think a lot of fuss was made by introducing the so-called
> proto-language into the serious linguistic work, commenced almost two
> centuries ago. Actually, IE languages started their incredible journey
> from a fiew selfgenerated lingua-wellsprings - XUR, BEL, GON, UM.
>
> What is the meaning of proto-language?
> None at all!
Then, why do slavic languages have similar words and not the same
words? Similar grammars but not the same? In short, why are they
different languages? That is, why don't Russians and Poles speak
Serbian?
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
When I say "primeval basis" I do not think that was only the basis for
Slavic. It was the basis for the all IE languages. Maybe, you wanted to
ask why people do not speak the same languge. All around the world!.
- Should we go back to the primary school?
You must see that your above question is redundant here.
DV
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167230979.0...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> First, you do not know that original Serbian word for
> 'kitchen' was 'kuvinja'.
I have no reason to believe that this is true.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167230979.0...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
[...]
> Are the German Wasser and English water closely related?
Yes, you ignorant dolt.
[...]
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
You have more important questions to answer?
Everyone see that you are trying to go around the key matters by
spreading your infantile bullshit here.
I think it is time for you to grow up!
Once again, Brainy Dunderhead!
Stop being ridiculous and stop believing everything you see, hear or
read; and do not take as infallible everything what the ROOTED
"authorities" are telling to you.
See this: ahd. PACHAN, mhd. bachen, nnl. bakken, ags. bacan, engl.
bake...
GIPACHAN => GEBACHEN => GEBACKEN
...doch erscheint ausnahmsweise schon ahd. PACKAN, bacchan (GRAFF 3,
24) und PECCHO...
I hope you finally understood that the propping on the ROOTS crutches
could be very dangerous. In addition, your knowledge about the sound
changes inside Germanic languages seems to be extremely poor.
DV
http://germazope.uni-trier.de/Projects/WBB/woerterbuecher/dwb/wbgui?l...
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> > > What is the meaning of proto-language?
> > > None at all!
> > > Ursprache is a nice game for leisure time.
> > > Serbian KUVANJE sprang from the primeval basis GON-BEL-GON ((-:
>
> When I say "primeval basis" I do not think that was only the basis for
> Slavic. It was the basis for the all IE languages.
Gol Bel Gon was a word in what language?
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> > ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > What is the meaning of proto-language?
> > > > None at all!
>
> > > > Ursprache is a nice game for leisure time.
> > > > Serbian KUVANJE sprang from the primeval basis GON-BEL-GON ((-:
> >
> > When I say "primeval basis" I do not think that was only the basis for
> > Slavic. It was the basis for the all IE languages.
>
> Gol Bel Gon was a word in what language?
>
It was RANJIT-HOG language!
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
Domestic, of course!
DV
Brian M. Scott
<dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:1167246108.6...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 27 Dec 2006 06:49:39 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
>> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:1167230979.0...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>> [...]
>>> Are the German Wasser and English water closely related?
>> Yes, you ignorant dolt.
[...]
> In addition, your knowledge about the sound changes inside
> Germanic languages seems to be extremely poor.
How would you know? Your quesion above indicates that
you're ignorant of what is probably the best-known one of
them all.
Dusan Vukotic
Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2006 11:01:48 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> <news:1167246108.6...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> >> On 27 Dec 2006 06:49:39 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
> >> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> <news:1167230979.0...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> >> in sci.lang:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >>> Are the German Wasser and English water closely related?
>
> >> Yes, you ignorant dolt.
>
> [...]
>
> > In addition, your knowledge about the sound changes inside
> > Germanic languages seems to be extremely poor.
>
> How would you know? Your quesion above indicates that
> you're ignorant of what is probably the best-known one of
> them all.
You had better stop running away and try to rest and heal your horrible
psychophysical traumas. I have not intention to punish you any more,
because you are already bleeding severely of the self-inflicted wounds.
I wish you a quick recovery!
DV
calm_weather
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> Please, do not falsify my words in the future.
Karl Pooper's crappy theory may be able to help you.
##minty...
Dusan Vukotic
calm_weather wrote:
Hey Crappy Minotaur!
Maybe you wanted to say Karl Popper?
I do not bielive that his philosophy is suitable for your bovine mind.
DV
calm_weather
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> calm_weather wrote:
>
> > Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> > > Please, do not falsify my words in the future.
> >
> > Karl Pooper's crappy theory may be able to help you.
> >
> > ##minty...
>
> Hey Crappy Minotaur!
Are you going to impress me with the way you're gonna link Minotaur
with minty?
> Maybe you wanted to say Karl Popper?
Is that your boyfriend? He's dead, get over it.
> I do not bielive that his philosophy is suitable for your bovine mind.
>
You seem to be suffering from bovine spongiform encephalitus. The
humane thing would be just to put you down. No amount of humour
injections will help you.
##minty...
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> > <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
> > <news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang:
> >
> > > The English verb BAKE has its pair in Serbian word PEÆI
> > > (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
> >
> > Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
> > But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
> > be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
> > *b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
> > yields *f- in Gmc.
> >
>
> You are amazing Brainy!
>
> BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
> BAKER = PEKAR
> BLAZE = PLANUTI
> BLISTER = PLIK
> FLAME = PLAM
>
> How do you explain above relations?
Simple. They both came from Tamil [we:kuga]->
vekka to cook; n. heat; vekkuka to heat
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:268.burrow
Dusan Vukotic
calm_weather wrote:
Minotaur,
Be careful, Theseus is somewhere around.
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:1167231663....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
Vasmer says about "ку́хня":
начиная с 1717 г., Шереметев; до этого времени -- поварня
So it seems that until 1717 the Russian word was "povarnya"
("po-" = over, "var" = boil).
I guess, until late 1600s other Slavic languages would
use the same or some similar word.
He also says:
укр. ку́хня. Через польск. kuchnia из чеш. kuchyně,
The R/Ukrainian word was borrowed from Polish "kuchnia"
which was borrowed from Czech "kuchyně".
I expected that to have been borrowed from Germanic "kuchen"
but he says it's from Latin.
kuchī̆na "кухня" от лат. соquīnа, народнолат. сосinа;
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:1b6xphmiat4wa$.5k0xou7a5z8z.dlg@40tude.net...
And so are "vodka" and "voda".
He should keep off the diminutive before breakfast.
pjk
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
Nothing unusual. Tamil contains a great percent of Sanskrit words; Skt.
pac (bake)
DV
Paul J Kriha
See a few well-known ones at:
http://www.shqiptarortodoks.com/tekste/albanologji/indo-european.html
By now, you should know these and few others by heart. :-)
pjk
Paul J Kriha
news:1167263777.9...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>Dusan Vukotic wrote:
>> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> > On 26 Dec 2006 10:49:19 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
>> > <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> > <news:1167158959.4...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>> > in sci.lang:
>> >
>> > > (bake). Are these words cognates or not?
>> >
>> > Not. English <bake> is from an extended form of PIE *bHeh1-
>> > But one needn't know the PIE roots to know that they can't
>> > be the same: PIE *bH-, the source of Gmc. *b-, also yields
>> > *b- in Slavic, while PIE *p-, the source of Slavic *p-,
>> > yields *f- in Gmc.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> You are amazing Brainy!
>>
>> BAKERY = Serb. PEKARA
>> BAKER = PEKAR
>> BLAZE = PLANUTI
>> BLISTER = PLIK
>> FLAME = PLAM
>>
>> How do you explain above relations?
>
>Simple. They both came from Tamil [we:kuga]->
>
>vekka to cook; n. heat; vekkuka to heat
>http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:268.burrow
Thanks Ranjit, that explains the Czech "veka",
the narrow stick of white bread, a'la French une baguette.
:-)
pjk
Dusan Vukotic
I told you, Serb. KOBELJANJE (rool about, fluctuate; from the ur-basis
GON-BEL-GON) was the source of the Serbian words KUVELJANJE, which
from its side gave todays KULJANJE (effusing, gushing, pouring) and
KUVANJE (its meaning is not only 'coockery' but it means 'brewage' and
'seethe over' also).
'Kuhinja' (kitchen) and 'kuhanje' are the words borrowed in Serbian/
Slavic form German, not from Latin (obviously Vasmer was wrong here).
On the other side, Latin coquina could be related to the Serbian word
'kuća' (house) and 'kućenje' (housekeeping; kućenje = kitchen?),
because both words sprang from the geminated GON_GON basis.
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Paul J Kriha wrote:
Obviously, German 'Wasser' is closely related to Albanian. 'uje'! ((:
DV
calm_weather
The men in white coats will be knocking on your door presently.
##minty
Dusan Vukotic
Paul J Kriha wrote:
Relation between German 'Wasser'(OHG. waჳჳar) and English 'water'
seem to be explainable only through the Serbian/ Slavic vocabulary. The
basis of the Serbian 'voda' was the ancient BEL-GON. There is the
Serbian word VIDRA (otter), obviosly 'vod-hura' (basis BEL-GON-HOR),
the animal that lives in waterr (watter => otter). In German 'vidra' is
also Otter (cf. Eng. adder); i.e. it is water and not Wasser animal!
As we see, there is no logical explanation for such a sound change as
the one seen in Germanic water-wasser relation.
DV
Dusan Vukotic
calm_weather wrote:
Do not waste your precious time. Ran Minty, run! Try to find Ariadne's
Thread as soon as possible!
DV
calm_weather
Better than having cobwebs in your brain Dusan.
You really ought to remove that big beam in your eye before taking the
splinter out of mine.
##minty...
Dusan Vukotic
calm_weather wrote:
Must you be so sensitive? Just a joke! OK?
DV
Harlan Messinger
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
> news:1b6xphmiat4wa$.5k0xou7a5z8z.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On 27 Dec 2006 06:49:39 -0800, Dusan Vukotic
>> <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <news:1167230979.0...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
>> in sci.lang:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Are the German Wasser and English water closely related?
>> Yes, you ignorant dolt.
>>
>> [...]
>
> And so are "vodka" and "voda".
And whiskey.
Nikolaj
> Relation between German 'Wasser'(OHG. waჳჳar) and English 'water'
> seem to be explainable only through the Serbian/ Slavic vocabulary. The
> basis of the Serbian 'voda' was the ancient BEL-GON. There is the
> Serbian word VIDRA (otter), obviosly 'vod-hura' (basis BEL-GON-HOR),
> the animal that lives in waterr (watter => otter). In German 'vidra' is
> also Otter (cf. Eng. adder); i.e. it is water and not Wasser animal!
> As we see, there is no logical explanation for such a sound change as
> the one seen in Germanic water-wasser relation.
Once I found, to my utter amazement, the word 'voda' in the Sanskrit
Dictionary of Monier-Williams. It says that the word is used only as an
adjective. It would be nice to find out in which Lexicon (L.) was the
word mentioned and its age...
I thought it might come from the Skt verb 'ud' (to wet, etc), but the
derivation here would be ud->voda, and that is actually the reverse of
what is standard defivation in Skt - the verbal root is usually
strenghtend with guNa: div->deva.
Actually the article about that was published in some general newspaper
(not scientific) and it seems (I haven't been able to get the article)
it compared, among else, the following Sanskrit and Slovene sentences:
- (slov.) plavava naga v hladni vodi.
- (skt.) plavavaH nagnau hladake vode |
- (eng.) We two are swimming naked in a cold water. (duals in slovene
and sanskrit)
-------------
http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
*voda* mfn. = %{Ardra} L.
*Ardra* mf(%{A})n. (%{ard} Un2. ii , 18) wet, moist, damp RV. TS. S3Br.
MBh. Mn. Sus3r. Megh. &c.;
fresh, not dry, succulent, green (as a plant), living AV. S3Br.
R. Sus3r. MBh. &c.;
fresh , new Katha1s.;
soft , tender , full of feeling , warm ; loose , flaccid
Katha1s. Megh. Pan5cat. &c. ;
m. N. of a grandson of Pr2ithu Hariv. VP. ;
(%{A}) f. the fourth or sixth Nakshatra or lunar mansion AV. MBh.
VarBr2S. ;
(%{am}) n. fresh ginger Vishn2us.; dampness, moisture Hariv.
Paul J Kriha
news:4vhs8tF...@mid.individual.net...
Oh yes, whiskey from whisky, from whiskybae, from uisge beatha,
water of life... Quite poetic.
Or was it usquebaugh first?
pjk
Dusan Vukotic
Nikolaj wrote:
It is not surprising at all. If we said that the history of IE group of
languages could not be solved without the use of Slavic, especially
South Slavic languages (Serbian, Slovenian and Bulgarian), I suppose,
we could have hardly found supporters for such an idea among the modern
lingua-scientists.
In addition, any one who would dare to say that the Slavic languages
are match older than Sanskrit would be put at risk of being called
crackpot, quack or even lunatic.
Any serious scientist in the field of history of language must be aware
of the fact that the first condition he must fulfill in order to
understand the evolution of human speech is a good familiarity with the
one of the Slavic or South-Slavic languages (the best is Serbian
because that language preserved its ‘shepherd’ structure).
DV
Christopher Culver
> Any serious scientist in the field of history of language must be aware
> of the fact that the first condition he must fulfill in order to
> understand the evolution of human speech is a good familiarity with the
> one of the Slavic or South-Slavic languages (the best is Serbian
> because that language preserved its ‘shepherd’ structure).
Where are the yers and yuses in Serbian? Maybe hiding somewhere where
only you can see them? I think I'd much rather stick with Old Church
Slavonic for my historical linguistics needs, thank you very much.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Dusan Vukotic
Christopher Culver wrote:
OCS is OK! There is no much diference!
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
The primeval basis BEL-GON, as we saw earlier, yielded Serbian words as
POGON (propulsion, drive), POGNATI (chase), BEŽATI/ BEGATI (run away)
and BOJATI SE (be afraid) . In a similar way, the Serbian words POGNUTI
(stoop, crouch, duck) sprung from the same source as the above
mentioned words. Here we can see the evolution of Serbian vocabulary
through the simple change of the middle syllabic vowel (a => u; pognati
pognuti. Of course, there are the other ways for the changing of
meanings of the basis BEL-GON. One of them is changing of the initial
consonant B into P, V, or F. For instance, we shell see that the
Serbian word VIJUGANJE has the same meaning as the Gothic BIUGAN (bend;
OHG ‘biogan’). In the same way are related Serbian VIJUGA and
German BEUGE (bend, crook). On the other side, there is Latin FLECTO
(as we see, also from the BEL-GON basis) with the meanings bow, curl,
bend, curve and even persuade, prevail on. This Latin word has its pair
in Serbian word UVLAKA (UVLAČENJE); i.e. VLAČENJE (VLEGANJE >
ULEGANJE, ULEGNUĆE dent, recess); and this Serbian words appeared as a
contrast to the word OBALA (coast), OBLINA (roundness) i.e. UVALA
(valley).
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Dusan Vukotic wrote:
I have replaced this post because I erroneously wrote "front vowel"
instead of "initial consonant"
DV
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> In addition, any one who would dare to say that the Slavic languages
> are match older than Sanskrit would be put at risk of being called
> crackpot, quack or even lunatic.
Why anyone who says that Bulgarian*, Russian* and Sorbian/Wendisch*
were spoken languages long before Vedic was a spoken language NOT be
called a crackpot?
* these are among "the Slavic languages" as you put it
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
As for me, you are allowed to call anyone (myself included) as you
like!
DV
Nikolaj
> In addition, any one who would dare to say that the Slavic languages
> are match older than Sanskrit would be put at risk of being called
> crackpot, quack or even lunatic.
To me such similarities show only that there was a relationship between
the languages (Slavic and Sanskrt for instance). But I can not say
anything about the relative age and similar.
Science certainly must be able to explain how so that there are such
similarities in various grammatical forms (verbs, pronouns) in Slovene
and Sanskrit. Verbs, for instance, have retained such a similar
structure, so that if the root is the same, both paradigms generate
almost identical forms, especially in the dual. In first person singular
and plural the form is a bit different, but even then it has retained
same consonants in the declensional endigns: m,v,m.
to swim - plavāmi|plavam plavāvaḥ|plavava plavāmaḥ|plavamo
(plu) plavasi|plavaš plavathaḥ|plavata plavatha|plavate
plavati|plava plavataḥ|plavata plavanti|plavajo
Are such similarities, or better is exactly this example that I quote,
also present in OCS? Has OCS the dual form? If it doesn't, it doesn't
explain a lot about the relationship of Slovenian and Sanskrt.
Also I can see that different Slavic languages have retained different
structures, that exist in Sanskrit - Slovene has dual and few other
similar constructions as Sanskrit, but everything else is completely
changed. Croatian and Serbian have vocative, aorist, imperfect which
Slovene lacks etc... You also have to take Baltic languages into
account, they are known for some nominal forms which are identical to
those of Sanskrit, and other languages as well, of course, and build a
consistent theory that takes into account all parts of the language:
phonetics, morphology and syntax.
Dusan Vukotic
Internal logic of the language is talking much about its age. In
Slavic, every single word has its own place and it is well visible,
which word is parent and which one is offspring. For instance, BEL is
the well-known ancient sun god. What are the main characteristic of the
sun?
1. The sun (BEL) irradiates light energy (Serb. BELO white, BELJENJE
whitening, bleaching, BOJENJE painting)
2. The sun (BEL) is the source of heat energy for the planet Earth
(PALJENJE incineration, ignition, PLAMEN flame, BUKTANJE flaming,
blazing, BUKNUTI blaze, BLJESNUTI flash, PALUCATI flickering, Ger.
Blitz...
- With the heat always comes noise (Serb. BUKA noise, clamor, PUKNUTI -
PUCATI shoot, fire)
3. The sun (BEL) has the round form (Serb. OBLO round, OBLIK form,
OBLINA roundness, OBLIČJE form, LICE face, LIČNO personal - in this
case we are seeing the way in which the other words with different
meanings are derived, but with the absolutely clear logic; later
similar derivative are getting prefixed to achive some additional
meanings as, for instance, ODLIKA characteristic, ODLIČNO excellent,
DOLIČNO seemly, DOLIČITI befit etc. We could continue this analysis:
- OBLO round, OBLAK cloud, OBLOGA linning, dresseng, coating...here we
can see that OBLAK cloud OBLAČI clothes BELA (the sun) according to
the same logic in English CLOUD CLOTHES the sun.
- Or OBLO round, OBALA coast, OBLITI suffuse, PLIVATI swim, PLOVITI
sail, PLUTATI float; OBLITI - LITI pour, ZALITI, ODLITI, PRELITI etc.
In a few words I tried to show the clear internal logic and
consequentness of the Serbian language. The same could be done in other
Slavic tongues, but it would be very difficult to make such a try
either in live Roman, Greek and Germanic or in dead languages as in
Latin and Sanskrit.
DV
lora...@cs.com
Paul J Kriha wrote:
> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167231663....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> > > It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
> > > First, you do not know that original Serbian word for 'kitchen' was
> > > 'kuvinja'.
> >
> > What was the original protoSlavic word?
>
> Vasmer says about "ку́хня":
> начиная с 1717 г., Шереметев; до этого времени -- поварня
> So it seems that until 1717 the Russian word was "povarnya"
> ("po-" = over, "var" = boil).
That makes perfect sense as "povarnya" can be intelligibly traced from
a Baltic prefix 'po' + 'varit' meaning 'to boil' (a little).
> I guess, until late 1600s other Slavic languages would
> use the same or some similar word.
>
> He also says:
> укр. ку́хня. Через польск. kuchnia из чеш. kuchyně,
>
> The R/Ukrainian word was borrowed from Polish "kuchnia"
> which was borrowed from Czech "kuchyně".
> I expected that to have been borrowed from Germanic "kuchen"
> but he says it's from Latin.
> kuchī̆na "кухня" от лат. соquīnа, народнолат. сосinа;
> pjk
That looks likely because there is no obvious Baltic antecedent.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
lora...@cs.com wrote:
> Paul J Kriha wrote:
> > <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1167231663....@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> > > Dusan Vukotic wrote:
> > > > It is pretty easy to say that Serb. 'kuhinja' is a borrowing from OHG,
> > > > First, you do not know that original Serbian word for 'kitchen' was
> > > > 'kuvinja'.
> > >
> > > What was the original protoSlavic word?
> >
> > Vasmer says about "ку́хня":
> > начиная с 1717 г., Шереметев; до этого времени -- поварня
> > So it seems that until 1717 the Russian word was "povarnya"
> > ("po-" = over, "var" = boil).
>
> That makes perfect sense as "povarnya" can be intelligibly traced from
> a Baltic prefix 'po' + 'varit' meaning 'to boil' (a little).
Any relation to a Finno-Ugaric word, I wonder.
varhk- (water) to boil
Dravidian Etymological Dictionary
Dusan Vukotic
ranjit_...@yahoo.com wrote:
This word sprung out from the secondary IE basis BR-GON ("opposite
driving"); compare Serb. vrenje and English brewing (beer), Serb.
varenje (purenje, prženje) and English burn; Serb. vrteti (obrt) and
English orbit (vortex, Serb. vrteška), Serb. vršenje and English
work. I hope you understood what I was talking about.
Hungarin 'furunkulus' (boil, anthrax from Latin 'furuncle'), verseny
(competition, heat); Finnish varsin (quite, fairly, pretty, very,
extremely; comparatively; Serb. vrsno excellent), varoke (fuse; Serb.
varenje), varkaus (theft; Serb, varka cheat, swindle).
Finnish veden-, vesi- (water-), Hungarian 'viz' (vater)
Obviously, all the above Finno-Ugaric words are from the IE origin;
i.e. borrowings from the neighboring IE tongues.
Serbian 'furuna' (purenje) furnice
DV
lora...@cs.com
> lora...@cs.com wrote:
> > Paul J Kriha wrote:
> > > Vasmer says about "ку́хня":
> > > начиная с 1717 г., Шереметев; до этого времени -- поварня
> > > So it seems that until 1717 the Russian word was "povarnya"
> > > ("po-" = over, "var" = boil).
> >
> > That makes perfect sense as "povarnya" can be intelligibly traced from
> > a Baltic prefix 'po' + 'varit' meaning 'to boil' (a little).
>
> Any relation to a Finno-Ugaric word, I wonder.
>
> varhk- (water) to boil
> Dravidian Etymological Dictionary
If so, I am unaware of any.
I know that some researchers have attempted to link Uralic with
Dravidian, but my knowledge of any potential Dravidian-Uralic/Ugric
correspondences is limited to Baltic substrates and loans that exist in
Uralic - which may(or not) be related to those found in Dravidian.
But Baltic 'varit' might well be related to Dravidian "varhk- (water)
to boil"...
On the same page I see "to boil; (S.3) vatr- (vatir-) to boil over" -
and am also aware that Baltic 'vetr' means 'storm'.
[and so also perhaps distanlty related to the English 'weather'?]
[tempests in teapots, anyone?]
At any rate, here are some more terms that I quickly picked out that
seem interesting and worth pursuing:
Dravidian "tar(u)cu, traccu to churn"
Baltic 'traucu' - to disturb
Dravidian "Ka. āvi, āvari, āviri - steam, vapour, heat."
Baltic 'varit' - to boil (second reference)
Dravidian "(W) undáná to drink"
Baltic 'udens' - water
Dravidian "rāpuḍu rubbing, friction, filing"
Baltic 'skrapet' - to scrape
Baltic 'raput' - to crawl
...and since much of Dravidian seems to be derived from Sanskrit:
Sanskrit "panna-kshîrâ, a. f. giving good milk"
Baltic 'piena shkira' - milk producer (literally 'parted from milk' )
Sanskrit "dhuma (p. 133) [ dhû-má ] m. (sg. & pl.) smoke, vapour"
Baltic 'duma' - smoke
Sanskrit "dhumra (p. 133) [ dhûm-rá ] a. smoke-coloured, dun, grey;
obscured (reason)"
Baltic - 'dumains' - smoky or grey colored
Baltic - 'dumsh' - one with obscured reasoning ability
Sanskrit " puskara (p. 165) [ púsh-kara ] n. blue lotus flower"
Baltic 'pushka' - flower
Sanskrit "kalasi (p. 064) [ kalas-i ] f. churn."
Baltic 'kulet' - to churn
..etc etc
PS: Do you think it is possible that 'Dravida' could have been derived
from a previous putative 'Sudravida' ?
Dusan Vukotic
(Serb. 'tresti', 'trese' disturb, shake, agitate)
> Baltic 'traucu' - to disturb
>
> Dravidian "Ka. āvi, āvari, āviri - steam, vapour, heat."
(Serb. 'variti' boil)
> Baltic 'varit' - to boil (second reference)
>
> Dravidian "(W) undáná to drink"
(Serb. 'voda', 'vodeno' water)
> Baltic 'udens' - water
>
> Dravidian "rāpuḍu rubbing, friction, filing"
(Serb, 'grebati', 'izgrebati', 'škrabati' scrape, scribe)
> Baltic 'skrapet' - to scrape
> Baltic 'raput' - to crawl
>
> ...and since much of Dravidian seems to be derived from Sanskrit:
>
> Sanskrit "panna-kshîrâ, a. f. giving good milk"
(Skt. kshira is coagulated milk, Serb. 'sir' cheese; Skt. panna means
fallen, fallen down; Serb. 'padnuti', 'panuti' fall down)
> Baltic 'piena shkira' - milk producer (literally 'parted from milk' )
>
> Sanskrit "dhuma (p. 133) [ dhû-má ] m. (sg. & pl.) smoke, vapour"
(Serb. 'dim' smoke)
> Baltic 'duma' - smoke
>
> Sanskrit "dhumra (p. 133) [ dhûm-rá ] a. smoke-coloured, dun, grey
> obscured (reason)"
> Baltic - 'dumains' - smoky or grey colored
> Baltic - 'dumsh' - one with obscured reasoning ability
>
> Sanskrit " puskara (p. 165) [ púsh-kara ] n. blue lotus flower"
(Serb. 'pušika' - a sort of grasslike plant)
> Baltic 'pushka' - flower
>
> Sanskrit "kalasi (p. 064) [ kalas-i ] f. churn."
(Serb. 'kolati' circling motion, move in circles)
> Baltic 'kulet' - to churn
>
> ..etc etc
>
> PS: Do you think it is possible that 'Dravida' could have been derived
> from a previous putative 'Sudravida' ?
I hope you would not mind if I try to answer above question.
Skt. draviNodA means "granting wealth or any desired good" and this
word is close to the Serbian 'darovano' (granted) or DAROVITI (gifted,
talented); Skt. sudraviNas having splendid riches or treasures; Serbian
salutation 'zdravo!" hallo!, 'zdravica' toast, 'zdravlje' health
The other one, less attractive possibilitiy is that Dravidian, after
regarded as degraded Kshatriyas, were 'driven' away; Skt. drAva going
quickly , speed , flight ; fusing , liquefaction; heat.
DV
Dusan Vukotic
Vasmer dictionary compares word 'zdrav' with the firmness of a tree
(Russ. дубовый oaky, oak-like). Greek δροόν
ἰσχυρόν "mighty tree (Greek δρύς oak). Latin 'traba' (a
beam of wood, a timber, tree-trunk, ship, table) seems to be also from
the same source as the Serbian 'drvo'. In addition, I compared Serbian
word 'trava' (grass) with 'drvo' (tree) and found (at my big surprise!)
that both these Serbian words are closely related to the Latin word
'herba'. In fact, Latin 'herba' is Serbian 'gorobilje' (mountain
plants)...
Is there anyone interested? Maybe we should continue our discussion
after the holidays...
Happy New Year & Merry Christmas!
DV
Paul J Kriha
news:1167419315....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>I consulted Vasmer about word здоровый (Serb. zdrav healthy).
>Vasmer dictionary compares word 'zdrav' with the firmness of a tree
>(Russ. дубовый oaky, oak-like). Greek δροόν
>ἰσχυρόν "mighty tree (Greek δρύς oak). Latin 'traba' (a
>beam of wood, a timber, tree-trunk, ship, table) seems to be also from
>the same source as the Serbian 'drvo'. In addition, I compared Serbian
>word 'trava' (grass) with 'drvo' (tree) and found (at my big surprise!)
>that both these Serbian words are closely related to the Latin word
>'herba'. In fact, Latin 'herba' is Serbian 'gorobilje' (mountain
>plants)...
My goodness, Dusan quotes from Vasmer, and
more-or-less correctly too.
Can anybody see from their window, has Hell frozen over?
:-)
>Is there anyone interested? Maybe we should continue our discussion
>after the holidays...
>
>Happy New Year & Merry Christmas!
ditto
pjk
>DV
Dusan Vukotic
Paul J Kriha wrote:
Instead of being unreasonably surprised it would be better if you cuold
answer are the words DRVO, TRABA and HERBA related or not?
DV