Linguistics must become serious and exact science!
Dušan Vukotić
linguistic (especially historical) should be treated with care,
experience and philosophical attention. If you compare all the words I
mentioned below you will see a great number of phonetic changes (some
regular and much more irregular), which clearly indicate that
phonetics and phonology cannot be the basic subdisciplines for the
understanding of the development of language/s. As I told many times,
the primary weapon of the linguistics should be the semantics and the
philosophy of language.
***
[...Vishnu is the Supreme Being equal to Serbian Višnji (Lord) or Sve-
višnji (Almighty). This name is derived from Bel-Gon ur-basis. Name
Vishnu could be compared to English 'big' and Serbian velik (big; cf.
Lat. pollex the big toe; Eng. bulge; Serb. buđža big man, but, club).
Sanskrit Vishnu and Serbian Višnji are the words referring to 'height'
or 'highness' (Serb. visina height). Indirectly, these words are also
connected to the Serbian words blag (benign, mild) and blažen
(blessed). Serbian syntagm "blagi Bog" (the merciful God) clearly
shows that Serbian modern name for god (bog) is derived from Bel-Gon
basis; i.e. from the word velik (velik <= belik => bulge => big).
I hope there is no need to point out that English words big, bulge and
bless clearly correspond to Serbian velik (big), budža (big man), and
blažen (blessed). In addition, we must say that Serbian visina
(height) is related to the verb visiti (hang) and adjective obešen/
ovešen (hanged, suspended; cf. Serb.vešanje hanging; vešala gallows).
The Serbian adjective obešen indicates that all the above-mentioned
words are the cognates of the Serbian word nebo (sky) and Latin
nebula. Following the simple laws of Xur-Bel-Gon formula (HSF) we are
getting to a conclusion that Latin G/nobilis is most closely related
to Serbian nebo (sky), Greek καλύπτω in sense of "throw a cloud
over", νέφος (cloud), Latin nebula and German Nebel. The basic
meaning of the Greek word kalypto (also known as καλύβη/kalybe) is
"to cover with" and it is the older cognate of the "modern" cap (Serb.
kapa /cap/ and kaput /coat/).
The world is small, really! Now we can understand the etymology of
words like cup (Srb. kupa/kupelj; Greek κύπελλον) or Greek κύφελλα
(clouds), Serb. oblak (cloud) and even Serbian koliba (hut). Also it
bacame clear that Greek Calypso was a nymph and her name originated
from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis, wherefrom originated all the above Greek,
English and Serbian words (cf. Latin. nimbus). In fact, the sky (or
clouds) was understood as a kind of cover/armor around the body of
Earth (Serb. oklop armor, cover).
Calypso and nimph are the words that sprang from the same ur-basis
(above-mentioned Gon-Bel-Gon) and their literal meaning is "covering".
Of course, in this case we know that nymphs are spiritual and
"veiled" (concealed) creatures and Calypso is also "covered" (Greek
kalypto /to cover/; Serb. oklopiti cover) with "clouds" and hardly
visible.
Conclusion: Vishnu is a distant cousin of Calypso!
DV
p.s.
Linguistics is a serious and exact science ;-)
Peter T. Daniels
> This text underneath is a small example showing the way in which the
> linguistic (especially historical) should be treated with care,
> experience and philosophical attention. If you compare all the words I
> mentioned below you will see a great number of phonetic changes (some
> regular and much more irregular), which clearly indicate that
> phonetics and phonology cannot be the basic subdisciplines for the
> understanding of the development of language/s. As I told many times,
> the primary weapon of the linguistics should be the semantics and the
> philosophy of language.
That puts you firmly back in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
We don't use weapons.
phog...@abo.fi
You are being way too friendly. It puts him firmly back in the Bedlam,
I would say.
Brian M. Scott
wrote in
<news:be74e42a-af64-4271...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang:
> On Jan 21, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2:24 pm, "Duąan Vukotić" <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This text underneath is a small example showing the way in which the
>>> linguistic (especially historical) should be treated with care,
>>> experience and philosophical attention. If you compare all the words I
>>> mentioned below you will see a great number of phonetic changes (some
>>> regular and much more irregular), which clearly indicate that
>>> phonetics and phonology cannot be the basic subdisciplines for the
>>> understanding of the development of language/s. As I told many times,
>>> the primary weapon of the linguistics should be the semantics and the
>>> philosophy of language.
>> That puts you firmly back in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
>> We don't use weapons.
> You are being way too friendly. It puts him firmly back in the Bedlam,
> I would say.
The Star of Bedlam, as it were.
Brian
Dušan Vukotić
Those were the times of mighty "tongue warriors" ! :-)
Do you understand why the linguists haven't "scored" any significant
breakthrough in the field of diachronic linguistics and comparative
philology during many decades of "in-depth researches"?
> We don't use weapons.
Of course, not! You are using a fanciful computer animation!
DV
Dušan Vukotić
- Who is talking?
- Shy and timid Hog Loony!
DV
Dušan Vukotić
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:40:52 -0800 (PST), <phogl...@abo.fi>
> wrote in
> <news:be74e42a-af64-4271...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang:
>
> > On Jan 21, 11:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> This text underneath is a small example showing the way in which the
> >>> linguistic (especially historical) should be treated with care,
> >>> experience and philosophical attention. If you compare all the words I
> >>> mentioned below you will see a great number of phonetic changes (some
> >>> regular and much more irregular), which clearly indicate that
> >>> phonetics and phonology cannot be the basic subdisciplines for the
> >>> understanding of the development of language/s. As I told many times,
> >>> the primary weapon of the linguistics should be the semantics and the
> >>> philosophy of language.
> >> That puts you firmly back in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
> >> We don't use weapons.
> > You are being way too friendly. It puts him firmly back in the Bedlam,
> > I would say.
>
> The Star of Bedlam, as it were.
>
> Brian
Come on copy-paste Brainy Brian!
I think you can do it much better... with more copied
originality. ;-)
DV