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

A word of advice, Ygorcs, if you'll allow me...
In some situations, it is just sane, sound, and simple to remember that "silence is the unbearable repartee".
To fruitfully debate with someone, you need to share at least some academic background with them. It doesn't seem to be the case in the present situation. You won't get anywhere. Just leave them be...
 
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...

What should I do to accommodate you, and do you really think I should be heartbroken, and stop commenting because my opinion doesn't go along with some people likeness here? Let's do that and open a new thread, and have a bilateral conversation, since you pose yourself professionally capable to estimate how unbased my theories are.
 
A word of advice, Ygorcs, if you'll allow me...
In some situations, it is just sane, sound, and simple to remember that "silence is the unbearable repartee".
To fruitfully debate with someone, you need to share at least some academic background with them. It doesn't seem to be the case in the present situation. You won't get anywhere. Just leave them be...

Well said hrvclvfnnvgf. Some people need to silence to accompany others like you who are already silent, because have nothing valuable to offer to the conversation.
 
Well said hrvclvfnnvgf. Some people need to silence to accompany others like you who are already silent, because have nothing valuable to offer to the conversation.

You now have an infraction for insulting another member.
 
A word of advice, Ygorcs, if you'll allow me...
In some situations, it is just sane, sound, and simple to remember that "silence is the unbearable repartee".
To fruitfully debate with someone, you need to share at least some academic background with them. It doesn't seem to be the case in the present situation. You won't get anywhere. Just leave them be...

You're right. I'm sometimes too fond of discussing and exchanging facts and counter-facts, but, yes, I notice that in this is case is like a stumbling block because one of the basic premises of this discussion is that "mainstream" science (read "real", not some gloriously adventurous but fake one) is not valid and has no worth, and that one's personal beliefs are better than decades of continuous scholarly work. Thanks for your sensible advice! ;)
 
You're right. I'm sometimes too fond of discussing and exchanging facts and counter-facts, but, yes, I notice that in this is case is like a stumbling block because one of the basic premises of this discussion is that "mainstream" science (read "real", not some gloriously adventurous but fake one) is not valid and has no worth, and that one's personal beliefs are better than decades of continuous scholarly work. Thanks for your sensible advice! ;)

I have to disagree, people need to stand up for the facts, which is important for the forum, as well as life.

Please don't be discouraged from that, and carry on. :)
 
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.

You have another infraction for insulting a moderator.
 
@ ZEUS

I wrote about Grimm's law at post No1

Greek ....................English ........................transform
Πους Ποδ-ος ............Foot ....................../p/ -> /f/ /δ/->/t/
Πορδ-η ................ FART ..................../p/ -> /f/ /δ/->/t/
ΟΔΟΝΤ-ΑΣ ......... Tooth ................ /δ/->/t/

and you wrote
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:


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.


So lets see

you write
''
I fully agree with your explanation, about the differences in sound transformation p----ph----f & d--t, ''

WOWOW
what I see our genious agrees with the famous well established and published and Academically Accepted Grimm's law.

  • bʰ > b > p > ɸ
  • dʰ > d > t > θ
  • gʰ > g > k > x
  • gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm's_law




Now since you agree with Grimm's law?
WHY THEN YOU WRITE THIS?
''
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. ''

especially the one in yellow?
First you agree with Grimm's law /p/-->/f/
and then you deny it by saying πους = paw and is for animals not humans !!!!!
and were the hell you find out that root of Πους is ΠΟ and not ΠΟΔ as in all other IE languages???
nom Πο(δ)υς
pose
Ποδ-ος
dati
Ποδ
etc etc

what is this in Yellow?
English t->s Greek?
What kind of Linguistic is this?
and where the hell you find it?
I wonder which philologist or philoshoper, which has created a method and can change history can take this you wrote serious?
THE least I can say YOU ARE IGNORANT OF GREEK LANGUAGE,
first you agree with Grimm's law and then you deny it !!!!!!



and lets see this
''
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.''


WHAT IS THIS In ORANGE?
WORD TOOTH IS SYNONYM TO WORD PAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE CHURCH DECIDED TO CREATE THE LANGUAGE IN REVERSE?

DO I READ CORRECT?
YES OFFCOURSE and SINCE BALTIC IS THE OLDEST PLACE THAT FELL TO CHRISTIANITY,
PROBABLY BALTIC IS THE NEWEST CHURCH LANGUAGE CORRECT?

WELL MAYBE IN INDIA WERE CHURCH FOLLOWERS BEFORE INDOUISM, AND THEY LEFT THE SANSHQRIT LANGUAGE??? !!!!!

Tooth synonym to pain
Church language the Baltic or the sanshqrit
I agree with Grimm's law, but I don't agree with Grimm's law,
I have the correct method and History,
BUT I NEVER PUBLISHED IT, NEITHER I PRESENTED AT A SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM.
?????????

 

This thread has been viewed 18468 times.

Back
Top