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

[Ygorcs]

By the way, if you have doubts about my identity and supposedly believe my English may be too "native-like" (I'm flattered, but I definitely disagree about this point), podemos então conversar em bom e claro português para que assim você tire qualquer dúvida e fique bem certificado de que obviamente eu não teria por que inventar uma identidade falsa tão improvável, de um mestiço brasileiro do outro lado do Atlântico, para vir comentar sobre um assunto que obviamente não me interessa em nada mais do que a curiosidade linguística, porque, como deveria ser para você também não fosse uma perceptível agenda cega de nacionalismo, não passa de interesse sobre o passado conturbado da humanidade e não tem relevância alguma para o que você ou sua nação é ou deixa de ser no presente. Any doubts? :wary2:

 

[Zeus10]

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:

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.

What kind of answer is this ?! Using my reasoning against me? You just flooded my reasoning with words, arriving at the same conclusion as I did, but at the end you verdicted me wrong. But doesn't matter, unconsciously, you are embracing my theory.

 

[Zeus10]

By the way, if you have doubts about my identity and supposedly believe my English may be too "native-like" (I'm flattered, but I definitely disagree about this point), podemos então conversar em bom e claro português para que assim você tire qualquer dúvida e fique bem certificado de que obviamente eu não teria por que inventar uma identidade falsa tão improvável, de um mestiço brasileiro do outro lado do Atlântico, para vir comentar sobre um assunto que obviamente não me interessa em nada mais do que a curiosidade linguística, porque, como deveria ser para você também não fosse uma perceptível agenda cega de nacionalismo, não passa de interesse sobre o passado conturbado da humanidade e não tem relevância alguma para o que você ou sua nação é ou deixa de ser no presente. Any doubts? :wary2:

Ygor, your identity, is not that important, but if you are really what you claim to be, the question is why are you so worried about my pressumed nationalistic agenda, when at least in the last postings I tried to avoid the word "Albanian" in my etymological explanation. Meanwhile , you keep repeating it, even in your Portugese speech, like a recorded machine. Did you run out of arguments?

 

[Yetos]

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 11. PIE theory "Pastgone 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.

What Theory man?You came to Forum and you say about your Theory that is correct and modest, and can explain everything, etc etc,
DID YOU PUBLISH YOUR THEORY SOMEWHERE?
DID YOU PRESENT YOUR THEORY SOMEWHERE?
DOES YOUR THEORY HAS A NAME?
WHICH UNIVERSITY SUPPORT YOUR THEORY?
IS THERE AT LEAST ANY INTERNATIONAL LINGUISTIC SYMPOSIUM THAT MADE FOR ADVANCE YOUR THEORY?

WHEN YOU ANSWER THE ABOVE, I MIGHT TAKE YOU LITTLE BIT SERIOUSLY.
UNTIL THEN YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A SPAMMER.

Personally I believe you have no Theory
and you play with sounds to make impressions,
cause IF YOU HAD ONE,
SURELY IT WOULD BE DISCUSED AT LEAST AT ONE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM.
OR IT WOULD BE PUBLISHED AT A SCIENTIFIC MAGAZINE,AND SURELY IT WOULD HAVE YOUR NAME,IS IT LIKE THIS?

In Albanian also exist the word Ligdam for fatcan you tell us with your modest theory more?
and how is passed in Berber vocabulary,since Albanian is tghe mnother og all languages?

and as for your post
''Now I will let the other judge, which theory is more convincing.''

NO YOU DONT.
SINCE NO PUBLICATION THERE IS NO THEORY,
ONLY BAD SPAM, AND AN AGENDA,

ALL YOU DO, and your 'pub fellowship' IS RUINING THREADS, WITH SPAM
OF AN UNATTESTED THEORY, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED.
PLAYING WITH US,

the most simple intelligence can understand,
what is your theory, if there is any!!!


PS
to judge you, one has to look your posts No2 and No 9, is enough.


PS2
MAN INSTEAD OF Tr...ing with our intelligence
Go Publish your theory to a scientific magazine,
you may get even a Nobel prize,
or an Academy reward,
PLZ
and leave us alone,
we are simple minds, infront of your genious Theory,

 

[Ygorcs]

What kind of answer is this ?! Using my reasoning against me? You just flooded my reasoning with words, arriving at the same conclusion as I did, but at the end you verdicted me wrong. But doesn't matter, unconsciously, you are embracing my theory.

Then you urgently need to rethink your conclusions if you really come from the same place that I am. If you really think/thought what I said in my answer, you would never even think of making a connection between "tooth" and the root for "pain" in Modern Albanian, and you also would never believe that there is any inherent problem in linguistic reconstruction by comparative analysis in the self-evident and unavoidable fact that it can only dig to the past until some basic old roots and of course can't go much further than that, much less explain the semantic origins of all words, which may well have been found in earlier forms of the language spoken dozens of thousands of years ago and thus absolutely impossible to be reconstructed. You wouldn't absurdly claim that Greek, even though it can perfectly make complex sentences construed with a certain structure, is a language with "no syntax". And I don't need to also remind you that, were you really as careful and down to earth in your reasoning about ancient etymology as I am, you would've been more careful to not confuse people even more by critiizing the mainstream explanation for the word "past" using the scientific root-based explanation for the word "fart" instead! :-D

As for why, even being Brazilian, I care about what you say, isn't it obvious? I simply don't like conspiratorial, anti-science, fake knowledge, and I oppose it even more strongly when it is not caused by simple lack of information or misguided information, but by some kind of agenda, especially if it is a nationalist or racialist one. I'd think that it is absolutely unsurprising that someone can have an interest in truth just because he likes to find the objective truth about things, and not because of any hidden interest or personal cause/agenda. But maybe, just maybe that kind of disinterested scientific curiosity still surprises you.

 

[Dagne]

Lith. pėda (foot, footprint), padas (sole) are the words that derive directly from PIE, *ped- pōds, not through Latin. And the words are very close

 

[Zeus10]

Then you urgently need to rethink your conclusions if you really come from the same place that I am. If you really think/thought what I said in my answer, you would never even think of making a connection between "tooth" and the root for "pain" in Modern Albanian, and you also would never believe that there is any inherent problem in linguistic reconstruction by comparative analysis in the self-evident and unavoidable fact that it can only dig to the past until some basic old roots and of course can't go much further than that, much less explain the semantic origins of all words, which may well have been found in earlier forms of the language spoken dozens of thousands of years ago and thus absolutely impossible to be reconstructed. You wouldn't absurdly claim that Greek, even though it can perfectly make complex sentences construed with a certain structure, is a language with "no syntax". And I don't need to also remind you that, were you really as careful and down to earth in your reasoning about ancient etymology as I am, you would've been more careful to not confuse people even more by critiizing the mainstream explanation for the word "past" using the scientific root-based explanation for the word "fart" instead! :-D

As for why, even being Brazilian, I care about what you say, isn't it obvious? I simply don't like conspiratorial, anti-science, fake knowledge, and I oppose it even more strongly when it is not caused by simple lack of information or misguided information, but by some kind of agenda, especially if it is a nationalist or racialist one. I'd think that it is absolutely unsurprising that someone can have an interest in truth just because he likes to find the objective truth about things, and not because of any hidden interest or personal cause/agenda. But maybe, just maybe that kind of disinterested scientific curiosity still surprises you.

Ok.....I guess ....my Brasilian friend.

 

[Zeus10]

Lith. pėda (foot, footprint), padas (sole) are the words that derive directly from PIE, *ped- pōds, not through Latin. And the words are very close

I disagree with you, but this doesn't mean that I am writing this to prove you wrong. I don't think your Lithuanian expression 'pėda' comes DIRECTLY from PIE language, and I will tell you why. I don't even think that PIE language, ever existed on the first place at all. That language, is an invention, created by the modern linguists, in an effort to give an answer to the similarity of the words, in different languages.I will keep it simple and clean. Our example:

pėda(lithuan)------piede(ital)------pied(french)---pie or pata(spanish)

they all come DIRECTLY from Latin NOT directly from PIE language

You should keep in mind, that Latin language is the language of the Latin Church, NOT the language of the Latin people(it became afterwards). I don't even need to look at the religion the Lithuanian people beleive, and just by that expression I could tell that at some point in time the Latin Church, must have been established in Lithuania.

Therefore, it is the the Latin 'ped' the real word which was pronounced pėda in lithuan, piede in italian, pied in french), pie or pata(spanish), languages which become as such after being a local respective dialect.

Now let's study the word itself, it variate from pé(portugese) to ped(+ending vowel) to the rest of the Romance languages, and it has the tendency to change the ending "d" to the easily pronounceable homologues, the voiceless "t". Now pat-a(spanish) is easily comparable to the Albanian put(ër-a modern ending), and this last one is easily comparable to the English foot(after phonetic transformation p--ph--f).
The English itself, although developed a new term from the original Latin "ped", maintained these root, to create relative terminology, like: pedestrian, centipede, expedite, impediment, pedometer, pedestal etc.
As for the Greek being an older version of the same Church language, preserve the same phonetic vector, from the Latin pes-ped to the Greek πους-πόδι, which "gave birth" to the other Greek word παις(AG)--παιδί(MG)=child.
This is the real way the language lexicon is acquired, within the language and from language to language. Then the PIE language is a scientific bs.

 

[Yetos]

OK

that is enough

I disagree with you,
The English itself, although developed a new term from the original Latin "ped", maintained these root, to create relative terminology, like: pedestrian, centipede, expedite, impediment, pedometer, pedestal etc.
As for the Greek being an older version of the same Church language, preserve the same phonetic vector, from the Latin pes-ped to the Greek πους-πόδι, which "gave birth" to the other Greek word παις(AG)--παιδί(MG)=child.

the man can not distinguish amont 'hundredfeet' and 'centipede',
which is Germanic/English and which is a loan from Latin
and among Foot and male child πους/παιδι
and among teeth and pain/πονος

So I ask moderators to erase or move all posts except No1 and No 26

THE THREAD IS ABOUT IE LANGUAGES,
NOT ABOUT ZEUS10 GENIOUS METHOD,

I wonder what next? Sanshqrit and Aryan and Armenian are also church languages, or they sprunk from Albanian?

UNTIL HE PUBLISHES HIS METHOD At a Scientific magazine or at a Symposium.
THERE IS NO METHOD,
JUST SPAM

 

[Ygorcs]

You should keep in mind, that Latin language is the language of the Latin Church, NOT the language of the Latin people(it became afterwards). I don't even need to look at the religion the Lithuanian people beleive, and just by that expression I could tell that at some point in time the Latin Church, must have been established in Lithuania.

Actually, you should look at the religion the Lithuanian people believed. Lithuania is historically famous for being the last country in Europe to undergo a process of Christianization and to be under the big influence of the Catholic Church. Only in the 15th century did Lithuania become really exposed to the influences of the Church and become a Christian-majority country in the usual way that many nations also were Christianized, that is, their nobility adopted the new religion (mostly out of sheer political and economic pressure) and made their subjects convert to it. So, in fact, Lithuanian is less likely than virtually any European language to have very basic vocabulary, like "foot", derived from a Church liturgical language. Your hypothesis historically doesn't hold much water. But linguistically it is, unsurprisingly, disastrous.

I won't even discuss all this nonsense that Latin was something like the Klingon developed out of the blue by the Church to preach to people that never even spoke that language - I wonder how Christian missionaries would've been so sucessful in just a few centuries using that crazy strategy, hehehe).

 

[Yetos]

@ ZEUS10

read this,
or you have a new Method for history also?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gediminas

THE CHAMPION OF LAST EUROPEAN PAGANS He was cremated as a part of a fully pagan ceremony in 1342


SAMOGITIAN THE LAST PAGAN CASTLEs,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samogitia


the christianization of Balts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Władysław_II_Jagiełło


what are you talking about Zeus10?

These land came in contact with Latin and Greek before few centuries,
How the hell their primary language is affected by the religion of latin and greek?

OR YOU WANT TO TELL US, USING YOUR METHOD,
THAT BALTIC LANGUAGES WERE CREATED AFTER THEIR CHRISTIANIZATION (Latino/Catholic).

After their Christianization, Balts never reach the glory and advance that had at 14nth Century,
reason of Christianization, amber natural deposits

MAN just pathetic

 

[Zeus10]

OK
that is enough
the man can not distinguish among.............
and among teeth and pain/πονος

Yetos some say the truth is bitter. By the way the Ancient ""Greek"" word πονος, is just the Albanian word pun-ë, you know....just by adding the parasitive famous suffix ος and became obsolete in the Modern Greek, but of course remained in Albanian. Just like this.
I almost forgot, the "Greek" for pain is in fact ανια a composite of the Albanian α=short form of is +νια which is Albanian ni(geg) or ndi-ej(tosk) meaning to feel smth physical or spiritual.

 

[Yetos]

they all come DIRECTLY from Latin NOT directly from PIE language

You should keep in mind, that Latin language is the language of the Latin Church, NOT the language of the Latin people(it became afterwards). I don't even need to look at the religion the Lithuanian people beleive, and just by that expression I could tell that at some point in time the Latin Church, must have been established in Lithuania.

Therefore, it is the the Latin 'ped' the real word which was pronounced pėda in lithuan, piede in italian, pied in french), pie or pata(spanish), languages which become as such after being a local respective dialect.
.

MODERATORS

plz Erase or Move all posts except 1 and 26

The man Now is telling us that Baltic Language is a creation of Church, From Latin language
so propably established after 1400 AD. With his theory and method,

WHICH HE NEVER PUBLISHED,
CAUSE WHO WILL ACCEPT TO PUBLISH SUCH THEORY AND METHOD !!!!!!

 

[Angela]

There have been some complaints about this thread, which is unfortunate, because the poster Ygorcs has posted some very good information.

I don't want to see any insults, and I also don't want to see made up nonsense unsupported by any academic analysis. Am I clear, Zeus? If this escalates I'm going to have to close yet another thread about the Balkans.

 

[Zeus10]

There have been some complaints about this thread, which is unfortunate, because the poster Ygorcs has posted some very good information.

I don't want to see any insults, and I also don't want to see made up nonsense unsupported by any academic analysis. Am I clear, Zeus? If this escalates I'm going to have to close yet another thread about the Balkans.

Nobody intends to insult nobody, but can you please help me to find that " very good information" ygorcs posted, especially the part which is "academically supported".
Thank you in advance

 

[Angela]

Trying to be cute? Everything Ygorcs posted is good information, and anyone who has read in linguistics knows that he isn't straying from published linguistic analysis. Sorry to say, but the same can't be said for your content.

 

[MOESAN]

I fear that if we should open a new thread about linguistic we should have again to endure Zeus10 who builts very unbased theories and we should loose our time. Pity...

 

[LAB]

I fear that if we should open a new thread about linguistic we should have again to endure Zeus10 who builts very unbased theories and we should loose our time. Pity...

The right word is non-mainstream, since these theories exist 2 centuries now they must be based somewhere don't you think?

 

[Ygorcs]

The right word is non-mainstream, since these theories exist 2 centuries now they must be based somewhere don't you think?

It's not just non-mainstream, it's unbased. If I tell you a very unequivocal and new information (e.g. "tooth in IE languages derives from the Albanian root for 'pain'" or "Latin and Greek were never spoken, they are just made up languages created by the Church"), but I fail to present anything about how, why and when that happened, nor do I present historic evidences (documents, inscriptions, etc.) or systematic reasoning (e.g. chronological organization of the data, regular sound changes that affected not just one word casuistically, but several others, too)...
Well, then what I say is not just "uncommon", it's totally unfounded and even in the worst cases just a work of one's imagination. You don't get to make huge and supposedly "revolutionary" assertions and get away with refusing to provide precise evidences of how that happened exactly and why this hypothesis is more reliable than the others.

This is not how science works. Hypothesis are welcome, but for it to become minimally accepted as a non-mainstream, but acceptable hypothesis it has to be founded on a systematic and methodic line of reasoning, and not just "this is what I say because, well, because from what I have learned this is my conclusion". It baffles me that so many people are still totally unable to differentiate a possibly wrong, but still scientifically respectful hypothesis from amateur, imaginary, unsubstantiated, even completely anachronical reasonings.

There are some things that are so absurdly out of touch with the real world that they don't even need any further analysis to be declared purely delirious, such as trying to find the most ancient etymological origins of Proto-Indo-European roots taking as a chronological premise some forms of words spoken in Modern Albanian, or trying to assert that Greek and Latin, two extremely diverged languages, are just the older and the later version of an artificially constructed "church language" that somehow had inscriptions written in them many centuries before any such Church even existed. This is, sorry to say, too basic that it's not even just a question of science, but more than that also a question of logics that probably a high school student would be able to identify as completely nuts.

 

[Zeus10]

Trying to be cute? Everything Ygorcs posted is good information, and anyone who has read in linguistics knows that he isn't straying from published linguistic analysis. Sorry to say, but the same can't be said for your content.

No worries Angela, cuteness is your domain and I am not heartbroken when you give credit, to the Ygorcs profanity in Linguistics, which he tries desperately to camouflage with going in circles useless long comments. But you are human too, like everyone else you believe what you want to believe and interest. What bothers me a bit(not so much though), is when you call for my attention to avoid insults, while I was keeping a normal conversation, although I faced a blast of insults and vulgarity, let alone profanity and tendentious behavior. And as usually they have the nerve to complain, and of course you will support them. If you have the good will, read the thread again and it's clear who is spamming, insulting and tendentiously personalizing the debate.