Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Gedrosian (Indo-European) origin of Numerals and Alphabet letters

  1. #1
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Gedrosian (Indo-European) origin of Numerals and Alphabet letters



    About proto-IE oḱtṓw "eight": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...%B1t%E1%B9%93w the dual of a stem *(H)oḱto- (“four fingers”).

    This is my theory:


  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    ToBeOrNotToBe's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-12-16
    Posts
    1,116


    Country: United Kingdom



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Arabic numerals I guess are Indo-European as they were devised in India but for the alphabet - so, so wrong. And obviously insanely biased. All products of civilisation were created by ancient Aryans amirite?

  3. #3
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by ToBeOrNotToBe View Post
    Arabic numerals I guess are Indo-European as they were devised in India but for the alphabet - so, so wrong. And obviously insanely biased. All products of civilisation were created by ancient Aryans amirite?
    Ok, Aryans did nothing, the cradle of civilization was in Mesopotamia and all other things were invented in India, does it really matter the world's oldest inscriptions have been found in the land of Aryans?! They certainly copied them from either Mesopotamia or India, they couldn't invent anything!! Would you please tell what they have invented, certainly nothing!

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    344
    Points
    9,381
    Level
    29
    Points: 9,381, Level: 29
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 569
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Ok, Aryans did nothing, the cradle of civilization was in Mesopotamia and all other things were invented in India, does it really matter the world's oldest inscriptions have been found in the land of Aryans?! They certainly copied them from either Mesopotamia or India, they couldn't invent anything!! Would you please tell what they have invented, certainly nothing!
    Either you are t-rolling or there is a miscommunication going on here...
    Anyway, why are you being so reactionary to ToBeOrNotToBe's response? They simply highlighted a specific bias they found in your post.

  5. #5
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Either you are t-rolling or there is a miscommunication going on here...
    Anyway, why are you being so reactionary to ToBeOrNotToBe's response? They simply highlighted a specific bias they found in your post.
    Who is t-rolling, you or me?! Where is the bias?

    I don't know the reason of these personal attacks in this forum, non quis sed quid (what matters is not who says it but what he says), I'm an African, if you believe my theory is wrong, please tell me your reasons.


  6. #6
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    There is a point in Old Persian Cuneiform: https://www.omniglot.com/writing/opcuneiform.htm



    Persian numbers are: "aiva, duva, si, catwar, panca" but Old Persian cuneiform sign for 4 is "ku", not "ka", so the original language was in all probablity a Centum language, like Hittite or Latin, not Satem. For 6 we also see a word similar to Armenian vec, however it is certainly the original IE word, not the one which begins with sh/s under influence of Semitic.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    246
    Points
    1,327
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,327, Level: 9
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 23
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    There is a point in Old Persian Cuneiform: https://www.omniglot.com/writing/opcuneiform.htm



    Persian numbers are: "aiva, duva, si, catwar, panca" but Old Persian cuneiform sign for 4 is "ku", not "ka", so the original language was in all probablity a Centum language, like Hittite or Latin, not Satem. For 6 we also see a word similar to Armenian vec, however it is certainly the original IE word, not the one which begins with sh/s under influence of Semitic.
    Just something to be aware of...the Armenian word for six isn't pronounced "veck" (i.e. with a hard C or K) but rather, a more phonetic spelling would be "vets" or "vetz." The academic spelling of Armenian words using Latin characters can be rather misleading if you don't know how to properly "read" them. Incidentally, the same rule almost applies to Luwian (but z=ts/tz).

  8. #8
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,739
    Points
    28,095
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,095, Level: 51
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    The Proto-Indo-European reconstruction that is at the basis of this hypothesis is totally amateur and inconsistent not just with modern linguistic research, but also within itself, as it is clearly ad hoc, simply taking the root from some much later Indo-European language branch that will fit into the preconceived idea that one already wants to be true (totally contrary to the scientific method). So you have seri, of clearly "satem" Iranian extraction (when most other IE branches make it clear the root was more like tre/tri-), but ketwar, of "centum" extraction, and epta, which does not even make sense in any IE reconstruction because even Greek would have a /h/ instead of the /s/ found in most other IE branches, and an unattested nor unreconstructed feksa since weksa wouldn't fit properly (and, mind you, the reconstructed form is really sweks, but again that inconvenient /s/ would spoil the fun, right?)... A mixed bag. As in every other post, there is a clear sense of wishful thinking and confirmation bias in which wrong premises and, when one could not find proper evidences to confirm the hypothesis, fabricated "evidences" (such as a PIE reconstruction that makes no sense in historical and comparative linguistics) serve to "prove" something that the author is already fully convinced that must be true.

  9. #9
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    The Proto-Indo-European reconstruction that is at the basis of this hypothesis is totally amateur and inconsistent not just with modern linguistic research, but also within itself, as it is clearly ad hoc, simply taking the root from some much later Indo-European language branch that will fit into the preconceived idea that one already wants to be true (totally contrary to the scientific method). So you have seri, of clearly "satem" Iranian extraction (when most other IE branches make it clear the root was more like tre/tri-), but ketwar, of "centum" extraction, and epta, which does not even make sense in any IE reconstruction because even Greek would have a /h/ instead of the /s/ found in most other IE branches, and an unattested nor unreconstructed feksa since weksa wouldn't fit properly (and, mind you, the reconstructed form is really sweks, but again that inconvenient /s/ would spoil the fun, right?)... A mixed bag. As in every other post, there is a clear sense of wishful thinking and confirmation bias in which wrong premises and, when one could not find proper evidences to confirm the hypothesis, fabricated "evidences" (such as a PIE reconstruction that makes no sense in historical and comparative linguistics) serve to "prove" something that the author is already fully convinced that must be true.
    Thanks for your reply.

    1. The Persian word for "three" is si, not seri, we see *t>s/z in the ancient IE languages in this region, like Ancient Greek and Hittite, compare to Ancient Greek su, Hittite zik from proto-IE *tu- "thou, you".
    2. As I said in my previous post, the language is Centum, like Hittite and Greek, not Satem which didn't exist in this period in this region.
    3. About epta, not only we see Old Armenian ewt which shows a local debuccalization but the more important point is that the Phoenician and Arabic letters are pronounced as hard /h/, we see the same sound change in Iranian too (it is also a local sound change and doesn't relate to Satemization)
    4. About weksa (not feksa, I mentioned it for just comparison, Phoenician and Arabic letters are just /w/), linguists certainly believe the original IE word for "six" begins with /w/, not /s/.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •