simple mechanisms of Understanding IE languages, words, and loans,

Yetos

Regular Member
Messages
5,959
Reaction score
519
Points
113
Location
Makedonia
Ethnic group
Makedonian original
Y-DNA haplogroup
G2a3a
mtDNA haplogroup
X2b
I try to make as simple as it can be on how PIE language is reconstructed<br>
what words were used to certify the changes from PIE to modern languages,<br>
<br>
what is a loan, and when we may understand when a word is a loan.<br>
<br>
etc <br>
<br>
<br>
I will use the more familliar language to me English <br>
and some Latin <br>
I am not familiar to Indo-Iranian-Aryan languages,<br>
<br>
<br>
so <strong>lets make some observartions</strong> among my mother language<br>
and English <br>
<br>
<strong><br>
Greek</strong> .............................   <strong>English</strong><br>
Πους  POD-os .......................FOOT ........ ....    Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ<br>
Πορδη .................................Fart ..................Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ<br>
Oδοντας ..............................Tooth ................Δ(D)->Τ <br>
<br>
the more we see that change, the more we are certain that these words, come from a language that split, <br>
that is a language previous than English and Greek, <strong>possible a group</strong>, like Germanic group, Celtic group, Slavic-group,<br>
the more 'back' combining groups etc we find Late IE forms and language, <br>
Finally we reach a level that is called Proto-IE.<br>
<br>
<br>
<strong>Now lets see the Loan word,<br>
</strong><br>
ok today we all use the words Pottato παττατα chips<br>
or the word Computer κομπιουτερ etc etc,<br>
but we know that are not native in our languages, well maybe compatible to some.<br>
<br>
How do we can distinguish a loan,<br>
<br>
I will use Greek and Latin here,<br>
<br>
<strong>Greek</strong> <strong>Latin English </strong><br>
Βαινω Veni go, <strong>W</strong>ent<br>
Βουλομαι Volo Velit my <strong>W</strong>ill<br>
<br>
so here we see Greek B to be V in Latin,<br>
<br>
so the Greek IE word Βασιλευς in Latin should be Vasil-, if both words came from the exact same group/root of a previous language<br>
<strong>BUT IT IS NOT,<br>
<br>
</strong>so what went wrong,<br>
by combining other languages, we find a more correct form<br>
in the example I will use syllabic Linear B Mycenean<br>
Qa-Si-RE-us is a Mycenean form which helps us understand that in Greek we have a non expected aspiration.<br>
Qa-Ba,<br>
simmilar we find in the word for cattle Βους Βοδι,<br>
it seems like the earlier form/sound of IE was like 'qw-' or 'kw-' and turn to Greek as B (kw* -> B)<br>
so Greek Basileus is IE But Unique since in other IE languages we see the qa-si-re-us as Crown King Kralj Regem Queenn etc <br>
<br>
so when in GREEk/LATIN we see a word with B=B or V=V instead of B=V we thing of a different root=different earlier aspiration, an anomaly, or a <strong>LOAN<br>
</strong>only by that we understand for example that the word Basilica = Cathedral and architectural rythm of a temple, is a loan from Greek to Latin,.<br>
<br>
<br>
<strong>plz NOTICE<br>
</strong>the above is an effort to understand as simple as it can be done the differences among IE languages and how these work.<br>
any effort to correct me or to advance the thread is welcomed
 
Last edited:
I try to make as simple as it can be on how PIE language is reconstructed
what words were used to certify the changes from PIE to modern languages,<br>

what is a loan, and when we may understand when a word is a loan.<br>

etc

I will use the more familliar language to me English
and some Latin <br>
I am not familiar to Indo-Iranian-Aryan languages,

so lets make some observartions among my mother language
and English
Greek;.............................;English
Πους; POD-os .......................FOOT ........ .... Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ
Πορδη .................................Fart ..................Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ
Oδοντας ..............................Tooth ................Δ(D)->Τ

the more we see that change, the more we are certain that these words, come from a language that split, <br>
that is a language previous than English and Greek, <strong>possible a group</strong>, like Germanic group, Celtic group, Slavic-group,<br>
the more 'back' combining groups etc we find Late IE forms and language, <br>
Finally we reach a level that is called Proto-IE.

Now lets see the Loan word,

ok today we all use the words Pottato παττατα chips
or the word Computer κομπιουτερ etc etc,
but we know that are not native in our languages, well maybe compatible to some.<br>

How do we can distinguish a loan,
I will use Greek and Latin here

Greek Latin English
Βαινω Veni go, Went
Βουλομαι Volo Velit my W ill

so here we see Greek B to be V in Latin,

so the Greek IE word Βασιλευς in Latin should be Vasil-, if both words came from the exact same group/root of a previous language<br>
BUT IT IS NOT,

so what went wrong,
by combining other languages, we find a more correct form<br>
in the example I will use syllabic Linear B Mycenean<br>
Qa-Si-RE-us is a Mycenean form which helps us understand that in Greek we have a non expected aspiration.<br>
Qa-Ba,<br>
simmilar we find in the word for cattle Βους Βοδι,<br>
it seems like the earlier form/sound of IE was like 'qw-' or 'kw-' and turn to Greek as B (kw* -> B)<br>
so Greek Basileus is IE But Unique since in other IE languages we see the qa-si-re-us as Crown King Kralj Regem Queenn etc <br>
<br>
so when in GREEk/LATIN we see a word with B=B or V=V instead of B=V we thing of a different root=different earlier aspiration, an anomaly, or a <strong>LOAN<br>
only by that we understand for example that the word Basilica = Cathedral and architectural rythm of a temple, is a loan from Greek to Latin,.<br>

plz NOTICE
the above is an effort to understand as simple as it can be done the differences among IE languages and how these work.
any effort to correct me or to advance the thread is welcomed

Well, you talk about "reconstruction", and I don't know what "reconstruction" you are referring to, because in your posting examples, standard reconstruction to the hypothetical PIE roots are nowhere to be found.
However you put forward a good observation, about the similarity between Greek and English words, which I agree with:

(1)(2)(3)
Greek.................................English
1.Πους; POD-os .......................FOOT ........ .... Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ
2.Πορδη .................................Fart ..................Π(P)->F Δ(D)->Τ
3.Oδοντας ..............................Tooth ................Δ(D)->Τ

I fully agree with your explanation, about the differences in sound transformation p---ph----f & d--t, and the conclusion that both languages come from a common mother language. But you are unable to go to the bottom of your analysis, to tell how did that "split" from the "mother language" occur. I am pretty sure, you believe, it was an ancient vernacular language, who naturally descended all the similar lexicon to the daughter languages, in our case English and Greek. What you don't seem to know or accept, is that neither Greek nor English were vernacular language, when they presumably split from the mother language.
English has inherited at least 60% of its lexicon from Latin, which together with Greek, are simply CULTIVATED languages and never been vernacular languages on the first place. How do I know this? Well there are some overwhelming logical indications about this and among them the main one that a language like Ancient Greek which lack syntax, can not be a spoken language, but a written one, whose purpose we know for a fact was created for literacy and liturgical reasons. So, now the question is, what language was used to create the aforementioned Greek & Latin, and all the languages related to them? I don't know if it was 1 or more, but I think they must have used at least a vernacular language of the time, and I strongly believe that was the Albanian language. Even if I use your own examples (1)(2)(3) you will see the connection is through Albanian language, which I know for sure, is a beautiful structure full of onomatopoeic and elementary based structure semantics. Let's have a look:

1. The root of Πους is just Πο like in the English 'paw'. English language differentiate an animal foot from a human one paw--foot. So does Albanian put-(ër)---kamba(këmba). You don't know but so does(did) the Greek : Πους(usually for animals) and ἔμβασις or simply βασις in general.
Like you rightly noticed a sound transformation occurs p-->f(p-ph-f), and from the Albanian put(ër-a modern suffix for the indefinite nouns) goes to the English put~phoot~foot. As for the Greek word, it simply 'transforms' the sound t-->s to acquire the notorious noun suffix 'us', by dropping the sound 't'. The real ancient Greek word ἔμβα-σις is simply the Albanian word (k)ëmba , which self-explain itself: to support, to hold, to base upon.

2.Πορδη .................................Fart , I will add on this equation the Albanian 'pordhë', which happens to be 100 % identical to the Greek Πορδη, because this is an onomatopoeic word, without nationality, created based on the sound of the fart, long before modern Greek nationalism farts, which try to hijack all the past history credits.

3. Yes , you are right, 'tooth' is a structure acquired into English after some sound transformation, of a similar word in another language, but that's not the Greek Oδοντας. Let's have a look. Let's eliminate the vocative adjacent preposition 'o' from Oδοντας--> δοντας. Now let's eliminate the suffix ας. The remaining δοντ is the "real" Greek word. But let me ask you a question: does this part selfexplains, the meaning of the word in Greek. No, like most of the Greek lexicon, which the Greeks use on a daily basis, and don't know the meaning/s. This is not the case for Albanian. The word dhëmb(tosk)-dhonmb(geg)[singular] dhonmbt(plural], takes its meaning from another Albanian word dhëmb=pain, because historically a tooth has been synonymous to the pain.
Now the plural 'dhonmbt' which in Albanian is usually used to name the teeth as a set in singular , was the exact expression used by a common Ancient Greek , in the regular life, until the Church decided to create the language adding in reverse:
(O) + δοντ + (ας). In this process we have sound treatment dhon(mb)t--> o+ dont+as and voila, the new word in a 'new' language, which has been claimed to be the oldest.

Now probably, you cant understand this, or most likely you don't want to, but I have to show you this, because the truth prevails at the end, always.
 
What do you mean by "Ancient Greek lack syntax"? That's of course, at least from a technical/linguistical point of view, absolutely false. Also, complex or simple morphologies and syntaxes have nothing to do with a language's being vernacular ou cultivated. All cultivated languages are just elaborated versions of a former vernacular language and in constant interaction with the vernacular sociolect of the same language, unless you are implying that Greek or Latin were something like an Ancient Esperanto or Ancient Klingon, which is of course false again, even, honestly, delirious. And, obviously, "popular etymology" won't help anyone get closer to the truth in these linguistic and, consequently, scientific matters. (so now Albanian "tooth" comes from "pain", not directly and solely from the older term for "tooth", even though virtually all other IE languages have an extremely similar root for "tooth", too? Oh my! That makes no sense, unless you now want us to believe that Albanian is the direct modern dialect of Proto-Indo-European)
 
I had some difficulty to understand the Yetos explanation, but I avow Zeuss is clearer; helas, I fear he believes Albanian language is the direct and close descendant of proto-IE as Ygorcs said... Maybe we have a new wave of linguistics magicians? It's a cyclical phenomenon. Let's look at the huge scholars works on this matter before to affirm things.
 
I had some difficulty to understand the Yetos explanation, but I avow Zeuss is clearer; helas, I fear he believes Albanian language is the direct and close descendant of proto-IE as Ygorcs said... Maybe we have a new wave of linguistics magicians? It's a cyclical phenomenon. Let's look at the huge scholars works on this matter before to affirm things.
Wait is it the Baltic languages closest to IE????
 
What do you mean by "Ancient Greek lack syntax"? That's of course, at least from a technical/linguistical point of view, absolutely false.

What do you consider false, the fact that the so called Ancient Greek(which is in fact the Byzantine Church Language), is missing syntax, or the the logical conclusion that a language without a word structure configuration can not be comprehended unless is a written one?

Also, complex or simple morphologies and syntaxes have nothing to do with a language's being vernacular ou cultivated. All cultivated languages are just elaborated versions of a former vernacular language and in constant interaction with the vernacular sociolect of the same language, unless you are implying that Greek or Latin were something like an Ancient Esperanto or Ancient Klingon, which is of course false again, even, honestly, delirious.

Wasn't I saying this all along?! I even named the language, which they used to CREATE Ancient Greek. You indirectly assume that was the spoken Greek itself serving as a basis for the written one, but you missed the point that was little `Greekness` to that `Greek`. But probably you are completely unaware, that although the Modern Greek individual today, can grasp a big deal of Ancient Greek at morphological and lexical level, yet they are semantically in dark because syntactically, the Old Language 'misses', the "ingredient", which makes a language a spoken one.

And, obviously, "popular etymology" won't help anyone get closer to the truth in these linguistic and, consequently, scientific matters. (so now Albanian "tooth" comes from "pain", not directly and solely from the older term for "tooth", even though virtually all other IE languages have an extremely similar root for "tooth", too? Oh my! That makes no sense, unless you now want us to believe that Albanian is the direct modern dialect of Proto-Indo-European)

Well, there are 2 ways, to perform etymology, one is the `scientific`way, or the `Comparative Linguistics`, and it`s nothing wrong with it, beside the fact that brings to the `PIE primitive roots` which need etymological explanation themselves. This huge handicap, make people like me, to use `popular etymology`, being the second path, which to be fair, is way more convincing than the usual crap studied at universities all around the world.
 
[B said:
Zeus10[/B];533166]


1.The root of Πους is just Πο like in the English 'paw'.
Now probably, you cant understand this, or most likely you don't want to, but I have to show you this, because the truth preEnglish language differentiate an animal foot from a human one paw--foot. So does Albanian put-(ër)---kamba(këmba). You don't know but so does(did) the Greek : Πους(usually for animals) and ἔμβασις or simply βασις in general.
Like you rightly noticed a sound transformation occurs p-->f(p-ph-f), and from the Albanian put(ër-a modern suffix for the indefinite nouns) goes to the English put~phoot~foot. As for the Greek word, it simply 'transforms' the sound t-->s to acquire the notorious noun suffix 'us', by dropping the sound 't'. The real ancient Greek word ἔμβα-σις is simply the Albanian word (k)ëmba , which self-explain itself: to support, to hold, to base upon.

ZEUS PLZ MAN

YOU IGNORANT AT GREEK LANGUAGE
AND CEARLY NOT AT LINGUISTICS,
NOT EVEN A SIMPLE COMMON PHILLOGIST

SINGLE TENSE
ΠΟΥΣ
ΠΟΔ-ΟΣ
ΠΟΔ
ΠΟΔ-Α
ΠΟΥΣ

PLURAL
ΠΟΔ-ΕΣ
ΠΟΔ-ΩΝ
ΠΟ(ΔΕ)-ΣΙΝ
ΠΟΔ-ΑΣ
ΠΟΔ-ΕΣ


your criticise lacks of knowledge of Greek, generally grammar
and is full of τηε Egoism of an ημιμαθης ιδιωτης,
All you are showing us is just .........
:LOL: :LOL::LOL::LOL:

πούς < ινδοευρωπαϊκή (ρίζα)*pṓds < *ped- (περπατώ, βαδίζω). Συγγενές με τα (λατινικά) pes, (αγγλοσαξονικά) fot και (αγγλικά) foot
 
What do you consider false, the fact that the so called Ancient Greek(which is in fact the Byzantine Church Language), is missing syntax, or the the logical conclusion that a language without a word structure configuration can not be comprehended unless is a written one?



Wasn't I saying this all along?! I even named the language, which they used to CREATE Ancient Greek. You indirectly assume that was the spoken Greek itself serving as a basis for the written one, but you missed the point that was little `Greekness` to that `Greek`. But probably you are completely unaware, that although the Modern Greek individual today, can grasp a big deal of Ancient Greek at morphological and lexical level, yet they are semantically in dark because syntactically, the Old Language 'misses', the "ingredient", which makes a language a spoken one.



Well, there are 2 ways, to perform etymology, one is the `scientific`way, or the `Comparative Linguistics`, and it`s nothing wrong with it, beside the fact that brings to the `PIE primitive roots` which need etymological explanation themselves. This huge handicap, make people like me, to use `popular etymology`, being the second path, which to be fair, is way more convincing than the usual crap studied at universities all around the world.


All you do is spam nosenses from you head,
Just to make impressions

THE WORD SYNTAX IS GREEK, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ/ΣΥΝΤΑΚΤΙΚΟ
AND IN GREEK MEENS THE CORRECT PLACE OF VIRB, PERSON, OBJECT ETC ETC



[h=3]Etymology[edit][/h]From Ancient Greek [FONT=&quot]σύνταξις (súntaxis).[/FONT]
[h=3]Pronunciation[edit][/h]
  • IPA(key): /ˈsindaksi/
  • Hyphenation: σύ‧ντα‧ξη
[h=3]Noun[edit][/h]σύνταξη (sýntaxi) f (plural συντάξεις)

  1. (grammar, linguistics) syntax
  2. writing, drafting, composition (the act of creating a document)
  3. retirement (from work)
  4. pension (money received after retirement)
 
All you do is spam nosenses from you head,
Just to make impressions

Of course it will come from my head, and apparently it goes beyond your comprehension, since you are offered to consider it a nonsense, but you at the same time appeared impressed because it resonates right.

THE WORD SYNTAX IS GREEK, JUST THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ/ΣΥΝΤΑΚΤΙΚΟ
AND IN GREEK MEENS THE CORRECT PLACE OF VIRB, PERSON, OBJECT ETC ETC



Etymology[edit]

From Ancient Greekσύνταξις (súntaxis).
Pronunciation[edit]


  • IPA(key): /ˈsindaksi/
  • Hyphenation: σύ‧ντα‧ξη
Noun[edit]

σύνταξη (sýntaxi) f (plural συντάξεις)

  1. (grammar, linguistics) syntax
  2. writing, drafting, composition (the act of creating a document)
  3. retirement (from work)
  4. pension (money received after retirement)
Well, you are right, it comes from the so called 'Greek', like many other scientific terminology originating from Greek and Latin, which doesn't mean anything. Since you mentioned it, let me further elaborate it. It's a compound word compounded from preposition σύν(beside, with, together) +ταχός(quick, fast), which means "quickly put together". I can go further on, to elaborate it, but I am afraid you want like it very much, because further on I go, further on it will loose its "greekness".
 
Of course it will come from my head, and apparently it goes beyond your comprehension, since you are offered to consider it a nonsense, but you at the same time appeared impressed because it resonates right.


Well, you are right, it comes from the so called 'Greek', like many other scientific terminology originating from Greek and Latin, which doesn't mean anything. Since you mentioned it, let me further elaborate it. It's a compound word compounded from preposition σύν(beside, with, together) +ταχός(quick, fast), which means "quickly put together". I can go further on, to elaborate it, but I am afraid you want like it very much, because further on I go, further on it will loose its "greekness".
:wtf: :wtf:


AGAIN YOU MAKE YOURSHELF RIDICULOUS
PLZ MAN STOP.
YOU ARE IGNORANT OF ANY KIND OF LINGUISTIC AND PHILOLOGICAL AFFAIRS

ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ = from ΣΥΝ + ΤΑΣΣΩ passive ΤΑΣΣΟΜΑΙ from IE *teh₂g-


VIRB ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΣΣΩ
NOUN ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΞΙΣ
PERSON ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΚΤΗΣ

ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΣΣΩ Ι PUT IN CORRECT ORDER
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΞΙΣ IN ORDER
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΚΤΗΣ THE ONE IN CHARGE OF PUTTING IN ORDER
ΤΑΞΙΣ = ORDER

SAME ROOT / SYNONYMS
ΑΝΑ-ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ = Regroup to Order
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΓΗ = Recipee
A-Συνταχτος = not in order, can not cooperate, rebel, not joined.
Δια-ταγη = official order/demand
Δια-τασσω = I give the order


ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ = STATE ORDER / CONSTTUTION

from where you find out that comes from Greek Ταχος/ταχυς = FAST?
and you write all these bullshit at your post?


STOP MAKING THE RIDICULOUS
YOU DO NOT KNOW GREEK,
AND YOU ARE NEITHER A PHILOLOGIST.


at the end the further you will go,
the more the clown you will prove yourshelf

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
@Jetos

Forgive me to intervene in your discussion, i must say that you remind me the stages of truth.



1. The first stage is ridicule. When a new idea or concept is brought up, it’s so strange that it’s completely absurd. People cannot fathom this idea and how it fits into their lives, so they simply laugh at how impossible it seems.


2. The second stage is opposition. After a new concept hasn’t made it past the first stage, people begin to worry that it’s here to stay. A few might support the concept, but most will resist because they see it as a threat to everything they’re familiar with.


3. The third stage is self-evident. There is increasing evidence that supports the idea, which goes from having a few early supporters to entering the mainstream. A majority of people support the fact and come to accept it as a given.


You've got an answer that you didn't like and so you have focused only in 1 word, while you skipped answering for the other 2 so i believe you're on the 2nd stage.. ;)

[ πορδη - pordhë ] - fart
[ (Ο) δοντας' - dhëmbë ] - tooth
 
It`s so hard for some people to concentrate on the post(s) and not on the poster?
 
the spam of the 'pub members'
Lingua-holics gather and regroup,

LAB
I just seen the first,And I realize the spirit,
Wanted or Not
IT REMIND ME YOUR POSTS, about the stupidity of 1900 'Scholars' :grin: :grin:
MAYBE YOU DRINK AT THE SAME Drink at the same PUB, :beer1: :beer1: :drunk:

Even a first year philologist understand the correct and the worng, and the 'drunken' :crab:


ZEUS Sorry man,
your problem is that you guys at the 'pub' are stucked with the same Idea,
and you can not reject it as wrong,
It is like smoking.
 
It`s so hard for some people to concentrate on the post(s) and not on the poster?

and to others to see the moon and not the finger
cause you did not see what the post writes,
neither you search,

the moon shines at night,
NOT the finger
 
:wtf: :wtf:

AGAIN YOU MAKE YOURSHELF RIDICULOUS
PLZ MAN STOP.
I use my shelf, to store books, which I continuously read.
:wtf:
YOU ARE IGNORANT OF ANY KIND OF LINGUISTIC AND PHILOLOGICAL AFFAIRS
ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ = from ΣΥΝ + ΤΑΣΣΩ passive ΤΑΣΣΟΜΑΙ from IE *teh₂g-
VIRB ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΣΣΩ
NOUN ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΞΙΣ
PERSON ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΚΤΗΣ

ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΣΣΩ Ι PUT IN CORRECT ORDER
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΞΙΣ IN ORDER
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΚΤΗΣ THE ONE IN CHARGE OF PUTTING IN ORDER
ΤΑΞΙΣ = ORDER
SAME ROOT / SYNONYMS
ΑΝΑ-ΣΥΝΤΑΞΙΣ = Regroup to Order
ΣΥΝ-ΤΑΓΗ = Recipee
A-Συνταχτος = not in order, can not cooperate, rebel, not joined.
Δια-ταγη = official order/demand
Δια-τασσω = I give the order
ΣΥΝΤΑΓΜΑ = STATE ORDER / CONSTTUTION
from where you find out that comes from Greek Ταχος/ταχυς = FAST?
and you write all these bullshit at your post?

STOP MAKING THE RIDICULOUS
YOU DO NOT KNOW GREEK,
AND YOU ARE NEITHER A PHILOLOGIST.
at the end the further you will go,
the more the clown you will prove yourshelf
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
I follow one rule: You never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, all this pseudo-science and proud distrust of linguistics and linguists that the user Zeus demonstrates smells of spam or even worse, of a detrimental agenda that purposefully wants to confuse people and make pseudo-scientific folk etymology more credible than scientific hard work (of course it is to such a person, because folk etymology can say everything that one wants it to confirm, you just need to invent the most convenient fantasies and myths out of the blue and, voilà, your nationalist/racialist insanities are now totally proven!). This forum should not bear such ludicrous but, much worse than that, deliberately anti-science and deliriously nationalist discourse.

Frankly, if some user proudly believes that resorting to popular amateur "etymology" based on random coincidences, look-alikes and etymological myths... then I'll refrain to keep talking with that person. It's of no use to discuss about a matter that is obviously the object of science with someone who has as one's very principles not to trust what science studies and concludes and prefer to merely and endlessly repeat one's own fanciul thoughts without any modicum of systematic and methodical demonstration of the evidences. How can we even maintain a useful and mature discussion when someone denies that a language even has any syntax, in written form or not (this is irrelevant despite all the insanity the fact remains that writing is nothing but the visual representation of phonetic structures), when it is self-evident that every language in the world that has been used effectively as a means of communication necessarily has some syntactic structure, otherwise its "code" would be unintelligible? Such a lack of minimum knowledge of linguistics, even of basic common sense is unbearable.

"Hey it looks so much like that word, isn't it obvious that one of these words derive from each other?" Hmmm, sorry, I once also played that I was an archaeologist that made fantastic discoveries with just a few observations. I had 7 or 8 years old. But now I'm sorry to say that you can't reach any conclusion in historical and linguistical matters without professional, systematic work. Being "popular" to avoid these "inconvenient" things like method, proofs and demonstration of premises is simply like a child's play.
 
Ok Ygor, I have vowed not to throw stones at every dog that barks, but your "barking" although more civil and non-vulgar, is totally an attack on personal level, and I need to scrap every pretense in it.

Honestly, all this pseudo-science and proud distrust of linguistics and linguists that the user Zeus demonstrates smells of spam....

The main characteristics of a spammer is the great number of his postings. Now look at my profile, I have been registered on July 2012,since then I have 126 posts, which means an average 20 posts each year or less than 2 posts every month. Still a spammer? I don't think so. The next thing with a spammer, is that his postings are long, full of unnecessary crap, tiresome and boring. My posts are anything but this. The only thing that they cause tiredness, is the fact that they bring a different view on the discussion, which doesn't fit very well some people interest, benefiting from the status quo.


or even worse, of a detrimental agenda that purposefully wants to confuse people.....

and again, I would have needed more posts, to fulfill a hidden agenda, or at least I would have it associated with some political discussion,if you assumed this, when you wrote that I try to harm somebody with my posts.My posts are strictly linguistic, short, and as you must have inevitably noticed, use the same object which has been already brought in the discussion,without flooding the forum with extra material which I possess in abundance.


and make pseudo-scientific folketymology more credible than scientific hard work (of course it is to such aperson, because folk etymology can say everything that one wants it to confirm,you just need to invent the most convenient fantasies and myths out of the blueand, voilà, your nationalist/racialist insanities are now totally proven!).This forum should not bear such ludicrous but, much worse than that,deliberately anti-science and deliriously nationalist discourse.

Now is getting more serious. Your skin-deep hate against other presumed nationalistic behavior, which make you attack even on a personal level, is a self-defense mechanism, to preserve your own nationalistic construction, built above false foundation of "systematic scientific" historical and linguistic b-s. I bring my opinion, whose methods it's true are not part of "scientific accepted" mainstream b-s, but like I said before, they are not part of a strategy, to show nationalistic superiority or protagonism.

Frankly, if some user proudly believesthat resorting to popular amateur "etymology" based on randomcoincidences, look-alikes and etymological myths...

A-hah, I will stop a little bit on these"coincidences" and "look-alikes", they are a little too many to be considered as such, and thinking I have made public, only a very small part of them. But deep inside you already know what a norm is: a frequent and typical occurrence, right? That's what it is with my examples and theory.

then I'll refrain to keep talkingwith that person.

ok, I offer you, to keep the discussion up, since you appear yourself so knowledgeable, but a little less personal

It's of no use to discuss about a matter that is obviouslythe object of science with someone who has as one's very principles not totrust what science studies and concludes and prefer to merely and endlesslyrepeat one's own fanciul thoughts without any modicum of systematic andmethodical demonstration of the evidences. How can we even maintain a usefuland mature discussion when someone denies that a language even has any syntax,in written form or not (this is irrelevant despite all the insanity the factremains that writing is nothing but the visual representation of phoneticstructures), when it is self-evident that every language in the world that hasbeen used effectively as a means of communication necessarily has some syntactic structure, otherwise its"code" would be unintelligible? Such a lack of minimum knowledge oflinguistics, even of basic common sense is unbearable.

You have mish-mashed a bit, the idea what concerns you, the fact that I am against the mainstream, the "fact" that I misuse the very basis of standard linguistics (which I am against on the first place), or the "immaturity" of my discussion.
First of all, how possibly I should not be against, the standard linguistics, since it divides the languages in political divisions. Have a look at the Centum-Satem isoglosses,

24265y1.jpg


even a quick look tells you this is political. Looks like we are talking EU against non-EU countries. And thinking, I have brought numerous examples, that the palatovelars and sibilants division theory , doesn't hold any water, because it appears, that many "Western"(including English and French) clearly can't be classified as Centum languages following the criteria used to make that distinction, and Albanian language, is clearly a Centum language, following the same criteria.
Secondly, the mainstream "scientific" linguistics(comparative linguistics), consists in a reconstruction of primitive words, through empirical reconstruction process (till now not justified), to some hypothetical roots. And then what? The truth is that this set of "primitive roots" means nothing, we might need a second theory, to decrypt these roots, and probably a third one after.
Thirdly, I will keep using my "folk" etymology, as long as I am convinced, that the "scientific" path, is not only overrated but wrong and what's worst, it serves a political agenda of World domination.

"Hey it looks so much like thatword, isn't it obvious that one of these words derive from each other?"Hmmm, sorry, I once also played that I was an archaeologist that made fantasticdiscoveries with just a few observations. I had 7 or 8 years old. But now I'msorry to say that you can't reach any conclusion in historical and linguisticmatters without professional, systematic work. Being "popular" to avoid these "inconvenient" things like method, proofs and demonstration of premises is simply like a child's play.

Ok, have you asked yourself, why my postings have such an impact on you among many others? Is it possible, that my theory, which avoids the "inconvenience" of the mainstream, for the reasons that find it wrong, might be correct, and it's not "coincidence" the reason why most of the explanations are so convincing?
At the end, I wish you luck in your post- 7 or 8 years old observations.
 
Ok Ygor, I have vowed not to throw stones at every dog that barks, but your "barking" although more civil and non-vulgar, is totally an attack on personal level, and I need to scrap every pretense in it.

The main characteristics of a spammer is the great number of his postings. Now look at my profile, I have been registered on July 2012,since then I have 126 posts, which means an average 20 posts each year or less than 2 posts every month. Still a spammer? I don't think so. The next thing with a spammer, is that his postings are long, full of unnecessary crap, tiresome and boring. My posts are anything but this. The only thing that they cause tiredness, is the fact that they bring a different view on the discussion, which doesn't fit very well some people interest, benefiting from the status quo.




and again, I would have needed more posts, to fulfill a hidden agenda, or at least I would have it associated with some political discussion,if you assumed this, when you wrote that I try to harm somebody with my posts.My posts are strictly linguistic, short, and as you must have inevitably noticed, use the same object which has been already brought in the discussion,without flooding the forum with extra material which I possess in abundance.




Now is getting more serious. Your skin-deep hate against other presumed nationalistic behavior, which make you attack even on a personal level, is a self-defense mechanism, to preserve your own nationalistic construction, built above false foundation of "systematic scientific" historical and linguistic b-s. I bring my opinion, whose methods it's true are not part of "scientific accepted" mainstream b-s, but like I said before, they are not part of a strategy, to show nationalistic superiority or protagonism.



A-hah, I will stop a little bit on these"coincidences" and "look-alikes", they are a little too many to be considered as such, and thinking I have made public, only a very small part of them. But deep inside you already know what a norm is: a frequent and typical occurrence, right? That's what it is with my examples and theory.



ok, I offer you, to keep the discussion up, since you appear yourself so knowledgeable, but a little less personal



You have mish-mashed a bit, the idea what concerns you, the fact that I am against the mainstream, the "fact" that I misuse the very basis of standard linguistics (which I am against on the first place), or the "immaturity" of my discussion.
First of all, how possibly I should not be against, the standard linguistics, since it divides the languages in political divisions. Have a look at the Centum-Satem isoglosses,



even a quick look tells you this is political. Looks like we are talking EU against non-EU countries. And thinking, I have brought numerous examples, that the palatovelars and sibilants division theory , doesn't hold any water, because it appears, that many "Western"(including English and French) clearly can't be classified as Centum languages following the criteria used to make that distinction, and Albanian language, is clearly a Centum language, following the same criteria.
Secondly, the mainstream "scientific" linguistics(comparative linguistics), consists in a reconstruction of primitive words, through empirical reconstruction process (till now not justified), to some hypothetical roots. And then what? The truth is that this set of "primitive roots" means nothing, we might need a second theory, to decrypt these roots, and probably a third one after.
Thirdly, I will keep using my "folk" etymology, as long as I am convinced, that the "scientific" path, is not only overrated but wrong and what's worst, it serves a political agenda of World domination.

Ok, have you asked yourself, why my postings have such an impact on you among many others? Is it possible, that my theory, which avoids the "inconvenience" of the mainstream, for the reasons that find it wrong, might be correct, and it's not "coincidence" the reason why most of the explanations are so convincing?
At the end, I wish you luck in your post- 7 or 8 years old observations.

Oh, dear, you don't really know me. What personal nationalist interest can I, a mixed-race African-Portuguese-Amerindian Brazilian living 8,000 km away, have in the petty little discussions among Balkanic nationalists? Simply put, I couldn't care less about who is the real owner of this or that land (what a ludicrous discussion at least from the point of someone who lives in a former colony and of course understands very well how humans historically "acquired" their homelands) and who is the real owner of this or that civilization or language. My interest is in history as it was, period. The world out there is sooooo larger than your nationalist narratives seem to grasp. The same way, the real complexity and unsurprising lack of too many fanciful big stories in science is out of reach for people who need to cling to their delirious nationalism to feel "proud" of something that, even if it were true, happened thousands of years ago and had nothing to do with them living in the 21st century AD.

Your posts are deeply troublesome because you proudly declare that, since the scientific method did not and will not be able to give you the answers that you want, you wittingly resort to "popular etymology" and to your own amateur studies with total disregard of the scientific method and of the systematic analysis of the actual evidences. You also resort to self-evidently impossible statements (at least for anyone who cares just a little about linguistics) like the lack of syntax in Greek and the comparison, trying to establish an etymological cognate relationship, between milennia-old PIE roots and Modern Albanian roots. Your posts have an anti-science and conspiratorial tone. It's not their content that is problematic, it's the way your portray science as an enemy of the "historic truth", and that of course that "truth" necessarily puts your own kind in some kind of "jewel of the crown" rank.

But of course by your post I still get that you think that you can perfectly combine coincidences and look-alikes - it doesn't matter if they are "too many" - that are extremeley far away in chronology (as far as 6,000 years!) and, of course, in linguistic evolution. Besides, beware of your "quick looks" to reach conclusions about complex topics. You mix different historic periods and stages of phonetic evolution portraying the past as simply an archaic form of our contemporary times. For example, of course French looks "satem", because obviously it was significantly "satemized" in the Middle Ages unlike other Latin-derived languages, but this process has nothing to do with linguistic events 3,000-4,000 years earlier. Your meddling of politics with linguistic findings is another extreme form of anachronism, especially since you conveniently forgets that several Baltic and Slavic-language (satem) languages are part of the EU, whereas Tocharian (centum) is strangely placed well into the lands of present-day and decidely non-European Central Asians.

You simply can't expect us to take such arguments seriously, but the way you write them make you appear not just like a naive or uninformed person, or merely someone who got the wrong information but is always willing to learn more and better (like me), but like someone who is well informed enough to know better but still deliberately prefers to spread confusion and pseudo-science because they give you much more "convenient" answers to fit your nationalist purposes. And I, who fortunately come from a country whose troubled and often contradictory history is much nearer to us contemporaries, know all too well how ridiculous all these glorious and heroic narratives of the past in fact are, also easily identify when someone simply has a problem with the inconveniences of our human past and wants it to forcibly fit our little dreams of a "proud important nation". Sigh...
 
Oh, dear, you don't really know me. What personal nationalist interest can I, a mixed-race African-Portuguese-Amerindian Brazilian living 8,000 km away, have in the petty little discussions among Balkanic nationalists? Simply put, I couldn't care less about who is the real owner of this or that land (what a ludicrous discussion at least from the point of someone who lives in a former colony and of course understands very well how humans historically "acquired" their homelands) and who is the real owners of this or that civilization or language. My interest is in history as it was, period. The world out there is [/FONT][/COLOR]sooooo larger than your nationalist narratives seem to grasp. The same way, the real complexity and unsurprising lack of too many fanciful big stories in science is out of reach for people who need to cling to their delirious nationalism to feel "proud" of something that, even if it were true, happened thousands of years ago and had nothing to do with them living in the 21st century AD. Your posts are deeply troublesome because you proudly declare that, since the scientific method did not and will not be able to give you the answers that you want, you wittingly resort to "popular etymology" and to your own amateur studies with total disregard of the scientific method and of the systematic analysis of the actual evidences. You also resort to self-evidently impossible statements (at least for anyone who cares just a little about linguistics) like the lack of syntax in Greek and the comparison, trying to establish an etymological cognate relationship, between milennia-old PIE roots and Modern Albanian roots. Your posts have an anti-science and conspiratorial tone. It's not their content that is problematic, it's the way your portray science as an enemy of the "historic truth", and that of course that "truth" necessarily puts your own kind in some kind of "jewel of the crown" rank.

Yes, you're right, i don't know you, if you really are who you say you are, or an undercover direct Hellenic descendant of Alexander the Great himself, or philosopher Plato, writing philosophy in an excellent English, like a native English-speaker. Congratulation if you perfected the language on your own, in Brasil. By the way, they say Plato was not white too, so here we go, another possible connection with you.

But of course by your post I still get that you think that you can perfectly combine coincidences and look-alikes - it doesn't matter if they are "too many" - that are extremeley far away in chronology (as far as 6,000 years!) and, of course, in linguistic evolution. Besides, beware of your "quick looks" to reach conclusions about complex topics. You mix different historic periods and stages of phonetic evolution portraying the past as simply an archaic form of our contemporary times. For example, of course French looks "satem", because obviously it was significantly "satemized" in the Middle Ages unlike other Latin-derived languages, but this process has nothing to do with linguistic events 3,000-4,000 years earlier. Your meddling of politics with linguistic findings is another extreme form of anachronism, especially since you conveniently forgets that several Baltic and Slavic-language (satem) languages are part of the EU, whereas Tocharian (centum) is strangely placed well into the lands of present-day and decidely non-European Central Asians.
I didn't know I should trace the Proto-French 3000-4000 years ago. I thought Old-French was just a Medieval Romance dialect, developed from Vulgar Latin at the earliest 8th CE century. Also I didn't know that satemization process was still occurring during Middle Ages. I thought, the whole essence of centum-satemization split theory is, that this process is an early one, that ended long before, when languages split from their respective proto-language (which is still an absurdity, but let's not go there). As for the Tocharian, man, is this a joke? Tocharian is a language, whose manuscript are found in today north-west China, and I dont know who and for what reasons they included Tocharian inside IE language family. Not only they don't know how it sounded, to decide if they were using palatovelars or sibilants, but at the same time, it's been decided and all agree, that Tocharian was a Buddhist liturgical language, with no connection with IE languages. And on the top of that is a dead language.
You simply can't expect us to take such arguments seriously, but the way you write them make you appear not just like a naive or uninformed person, or merely someone who got the wrong information but is always willing to learn more and better (like me), but like someone who is well informed enough to know better but still deliberately prefers to spread confusion and pseudo-science because they give you much more "convenient" answers to fit your nationalist purposes. And I, who fortunately come from a country whose troubled and often contradictory history is much nearer to us contemporaries, know all too well how ridiculous all these glorious and heroic narratives of the past in fact are, also easily identify when someone simply has a problem with the inconveniences of our human past and wants it to forcibly fit our little dreams of a "proud important nation". Sigh...
Ok Ygor, I think we can discuss infinitely, without convincing each-other about the past and the present. The best thing to do, is to take a simple example but very meaningful, and I will do this exactly for the English expression : "past". I wont involve any other language, in this etymological process, and I will keep it simple, in order that everyone can grasp it.
Now we have 2 theories:
1. Standard etymological, "scientific" "well-known", "mainstream", "well-accepted" theory, which find a etymological explanation, to the empiric-hypothetical PIE primitive roots(!).
2. My modest theory, which finds the etymological explanation, to other words, which carry a primitive meaning or borrow their meaning from the sounds in nature.
Let's take them 1 by 1
1. PIE theory
"Past
gone by in time and no longer existing."
ok, so far so good
[If had not been obvious that the word "past" is acquired from another word, like they do with majority of the words (my explanation)], the theory will explain like this:
origin: from the PIE root *pesd or stative *psd-éh₁ye-ti bullshit.
Ok.....and then what?!
2. My theory
"Past" is a transformation of the participle of the verb "pass" -->passed, after a vowel treatment between two ending consonants, occurring at the same time with shifting from the voiced 'd' to the homologous unvoiced 't'. As a matter of fact 'past' and 'passed' are pronounced the same. All we have to do is to find the origin of the word pass, which the theory (1) inevitably mistakenly finds on the primitive root *pess- which presumably yields the old English : 'fæsl'.
By the way, the same primitive root *pess-, yield 'πέος' in Greek and 'penis' in Latin .
Now I will let the other judge, which theory is more convincing.
 
Last edited:
Actually, all dictionaries of "mainstream, scientific, well-accepted inguists" agree that "past" comes from Middle English "passed", which then comes from French "passer", which then comes from Latin "passus", "step", ultimately possibly from PIE *peth2-, "spread out". No source that I ever looked reconstructs this word directly from an ancient PIE word, but from Latin, especially because this is an extremely "easy" one to deduce, because the form "past" in English is extremely similar to the equivalent words "passado" in Spanish/Portuguese and "passato" in Italian. This is much more credible and historically plausible than either of the 2 hypothesis you presented, including your own. Maybe you just didn't look at other sources by credible linguists, or you may be just confused. The root *psd-éh₁ye-ti that you present as the "mainstream" explanation for "past" is actually given for the Balto-Slavic reconstructed form of "fart", and the other root *pesd- is given as the reconstructed "mainstream, scientific" explanation for the Italic form of "fart"! What does that have to do with "past"?! :grin::LOL:

You need to reconstruct the whole chain if possible, and also, of course, you need to simply deal with the fact that of course that reconstruction (the phonetic and also the semantic one) will have to stop at some point, because it's simply delirious to think that we will be able to reconstruct the semantic etymology of even the most basic lexemes like "tooth", which as most of other basic parts of the vocabulary certainly dates to milennia before even the earliest possible reconstruction of any word whatsoever. Reconstruction has to stop when you have no further evidence to keep hypothesizing. Going further than that becomes nothing but wishful thinking.

No language appeared out of nowhere just a few thousands of years ago and suddenly had to create from scratch their entire vocabulary, even the most basic words like "tooth" or "mouth" (and even if that had happened I'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to find the semantic origin of such deeply ancient terms just by looking at the modern forms of words of a modern language spoken now, several milennia later!). In the vast majority of cases those roots will derive from older forms of these words or very semantically similar words milennia and milennia before. And anyone who takes linguistics seriously and not as some fanciful hobby alone will simply have to accept that we can't reconstruct all words and much less than that all semantic origins of the words, most of which are of course lost to the very deep layers of ancient history.
 

This thread has been viewed 18339 times.

Back
Top