Author Topic: The language of old Europe  (Read 309516 times)

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #90 on: February 03, 2014, 09:47:43 AM »
freknu:

Quote
Ser-Cr. u "in" < PIE. *h2eu-
Ser-Cr. na "on" < PIE. *h2no-

What? You are deriving "u" from "*h2eu-" . I rest my case...Open your eyes and your ears...

"UN" is a complex construct formed from U + N = In + boundary

In south of Serbia where they use this types of standing crosses to mark the village boundaries:



They have a peculiar grammatical construct: They use "na" to express belonging. This construct also exists (as far as I know) also only in neighboring Macedonian and some Bulgarian dialects, all centered around southern Carpathian mountains and in archaic Irish.

Irish:

Mac na Mara - the son of (na) the sea
Tir Na-nÓg - the land of (na) youth
Brú na Bóinne - ‘palace’ or the ‘mansion’ of the Boyne
Tús maith is leath na hoibre - A good start is half of the (na) work

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/na#Irish

South Serbian:

Q: "na koga je ovo kuče" (of or on whom is this hound) whose hound is this? This implies belonging or owning being equaled to having the thing in question on one person. This construct is used only for material goods and animals and not for members of the family. This construct is ancient and comes from the time when everything you owned was on you.

A: na petra. (of or on peter)

to je kuče na petra - this is the hound on or of petar

Bulgarian:

tova e kuche na Petar - this is the hound on or of petar

Macedonian:

toa e kuche na Petar - this is the hound on or of petar

This construct exists in Irish and in these south Carpathian dialects. And it defines possession through boundary and position: what belongs to me is on me, within my boundary, within what i protect, hold...

But interestingly this construct only exists in old and archaic Irish. In new Irish the meaning  of the construct is the same, but the words are different.:

Quote
There are some language forms that stem from the fact that there is no verb to have in Irish. Instead, possession is indicated in Irish by using the preposition at, (in Irish, ag.). To be more precise, Irish uses a prepositional pronoun that combines ag "at" and mé "me" to create agam. In English, the verb "to have" is used, along with a "with me" or "on me" that derives from Tá … agam. This gives rise to the frequent
"Do you have the book?" – "I have it with me."
"Have you change for the bus on you?"
"He will not shut up if he has drink taken."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-English#Prepositional_pronouns

So what language did this construct come to Irish and these south Slavic dialects from and when?


By the the word for hound (wolf) is the same in Irish and these south Carpathian dialects (Cu, Ku)

Ku - wolf hound
Ku-ja - she wolf hound
ku-ce - male or baby wolf hound

Today the word for wolf in Irish is Mac Tíre which means son of the land. The old Irish word for wolf is olc, which today means evil. I actually believe that the word was originally "volk" but Gaelic has no "v" so it became oulk or olk. But there is another old Irish word for wolf faolchú, which is pronounced as fwilku fwolku. Who could have brought this word for wolf to Ireland as it is obvious that it wasn't the Gaels? I can think of Germanic tribes with their wolf but we have even closer match with West Slavic volk, vilk, vlk...The problem is that there are no recorded Slavic migrations to Ireland.

The name for wolf is onomatopoeic:

vuk, volk, voulk, olk, oulk

the sound is wouuuuulk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9xhOQ26QYI


the sound is wof,wolf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvHHi3GI1XU
 
My theory is that the first names of animals with distinct sounds were onomatopoeic. To see if my theory works, I have collected Serbian names of all major European wild and domestic animals and characteristic sounds they make.

I think that it is amazing that (almost) every one of the animal names in Serbian is onomatopoeic and very few in English are.
Onomatopoeic names were used during the creation of the language, before there was sufficient grammar and word pool to explain the association between the name and the animal.

Why do i think that people originally used characteristic sounds of animals as their names? Because we are talking the beginning of the language. There were no words, yet people wanted to communicate and pass a message. In case of wolf, the message was simple: Look there is a wolf! Except that they did not have a word for wolf and even if someone decided to call a wolf a wolf, he had no way of explaining to the others what wolf is, because there was no language yet. But everyone have seen a wolf, and have heard a wolf. So if you imitate the sound of a wolf, everyone knows what you are talking about. So "woulk, oulk, olk,wolf" conveys the message: "look there is a wolf" perfectly and simply. Later on people invented other words for wolf, but that was much later when they had a language as means to associate these "wolf" words with "wolf" meaning.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 09:51:35 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #91 on: February 03, 2014, 11:03:16 AM »
Here is the link to the list of animal names and sounds:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84822855&postcount=44

While you are listening to the sounds, remember that the important thing is that the names "sound like" the animal sounds. They are not identical, because the animal sounds are built in such a way that human sound apparatus can't replicate them completely, but humans can produce something that "sounds like" the animal they are trying to describe. As long as human imitation of a particular animal sound is clearly different from other human made sounds imitating other animal sounds, it will clearly identify the animal in question to other humans.
 
djr33

Quote
Plus, regardless, even if bias isn't a problem, none of this means you're right.

No but you can use this as an argument against what i am saying. I am not in this because I am trying to advertise any particular nation or language. It just so happened that I had the knowledge of South Slavic (and other Slavic) languages, English... when i was immersed in Irish. Coincidence, luck, (curse?) call it what ever you want, but it enabled me to see things that others didn't because they lacked the knowledge of both Serbian and Irish languages.

As I said before:

Quote
I am absolutely sure that no one has so far done any Serbian Irish comparative linguistic study.

And you replied:

Quote
Absurd!!
The Russian linguistic tradition has done an amazingly extensive job of working out in intricate detail all of the developments from PIE to Proto-Slavic to the modern languages including Serbian. There's just no question about that. So any discussion of PIE very reliably takes into account evidence from Serbian.

I will show you that they did really bad job. A lot of stuff which exists in South Slavic languages does not exist in East Slavic ones, and clearly does not come from the same root language. Also a lot of Slavic words have proper roots only in South Slavic languages and Irish. Why?

Quote
As for Celtic, a lot of work has been done there as well.

As I said already, Gaelic is not Celtic language. This is a cardinal error and one which gave us "disappeared" Celtic languages. Real Celtic languages are mix of R1a, I and R1b languages of central Europe (Slavic, Germanic....).

Quote
In the end, every discussion of PIE considers Irish and Serbian, it's just that they aren't compared directly because that's unmotivated.

Well you will see that because no one compared Serbian and Irish directly, they missed a lot of stuff which is very important for understanding the development of the early language.

Quote
Haha. Entertaining. Not convincing.

The main thing in science is to know when to stop laughing...

freknu do you know what you sound like when you say things like these:

Quote
Ser-Cr. u "in" < PIE. *h2eu-
Ser-Cr. na "on" < PIE. *h2no-

Like someone who is defending the idea that god created the world in ten days, 4000 years ago, by quoting the lines from bible while staring at the dinosaur bones....
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:09:38 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #92 on: February 03, 2014, 11:04:27 AM »
PIE. *h2eu- > PIE. *h2ū- > PBS. *Hū- > PS. *ū > Late PS. *u > Ser-Cr. u
PIE. *h2no- > PBS. *Hna- > PS. *na > Ser-Cr. na

PIE. *wl̥kwos > PBS. *wilkas > PS. *vilku > Ser-Cr. vuk
PIE. *wl̥kwos > PC. *ulkwos > Ø
PIE. *wl̥kʷos > PG. *wulfaz > ON. *ulfʀ

PIE. *wai-lo- > PC. *waylos > OIr. fáel "wolf", faolcú "wolf" (< fáel + cú)

PIE. *ḱwō- > PC. *kū > OIr. cú "dog, hound"
PIE. *ḱwō- > PBS. *śwō, *śō > PS. *suka > Rus. suka

PIE. *h1elḱ- > PC. *elko- > OIr. olc "evil, bad"
PIE. *h1elḱ- > PG. *elhilaz > ON. *illʀ "ill, bad"

PIE. *sēm, *so > PC. *sindo- > OIr. in > Ir. an "the"

Not only do you not understand comparative linguistics, you do not understand Irish.

mac na mara
[son the sea-GEN]
son of the sea

tír na nóg
[land the young-GEN]
the land of youth

brú na bóinne
[hostel the Boyne-GEN]
the Boyne hostel

tús maith, leath na hoibre
[beginning good half the job]
starting well is half the job

is maith liom na daoine
[is good at-me the people]
I like the people

"Dative" constructs are very common.

Fi. koiralla on luu
[dog-ADS is bone-ACC]
(at-dog is bone)
the dog has a bone

ON. hundum er bein
[dog-DAT is bone-ACC]
(at-dog is bone)
the dog has a bone

Lat. est canī os
[is dog-DAT bone-ACC]
(is at-dog bone)
the dog has a bone
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:11:37 AM by freknu »

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #93 on: February 03, 2014, 11:09:34 AM »
Like someone who is defending the idea that god created the world in ten days, 4000 years ago, by quoting the lines from bible while staring at the dinosaur bones....

You are only proving that you do not understand in the least how comparative linguistics works. Ignorance on your part does not disprove current theories.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #94 on: February 03, 2014, 11:23:44 AM »
Quote
You are only proving that you do not understand in the least how comparative linguistics works. Ignorance on your part does not disprove current theories.

What exactly am I ignorant of? And what Exactly did you prove with your PIE "bible" quotes? I didn't get it, sorry?

What exactly don't i understand about Irish that you have demonstrated? Also these are not dative constructs. They are Lokativ (where) not Dativ (to who, to where). These are connected but not identical. Did you read the Hyberno English explanation of the construct and how it is translated to English from Irish?

The idea is that possession is equated with having something with, on, in you. When you say "Da" (yes in Serbian) to give something to someone "Ti" (you in Serbian) you perform "Dati" (give in Serbian) from which you have Dativ. But the the thing is "of" the person when it is "on" the person. English "of" is the equivalent of Serbian "O", Irish "O", Slavic "Od" meaning "of". In Serbian "O" means hanging of something, or being around something, among other things. It defines belonging through being around, hanging of someone's horse, body (like a baby for instance)...So again we have the same idea of ownership through direct possession...
« Last Edit: February 03, 2014, 11:27:28 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #95 on: February 03, 2014, 11:36:24 AM »
What exactly don't i understand about Irish that you have demonstrated? Also these are not dative constructs. They are Lokativ (where) not Dativ (to who, to where). These are connected but not identical. Did you read the Hyberno English explanation of the construct and how it is translated to English from Irish?

Irish "an" = definite particle

mac na mara
[son-NOM DEF sea-GEN]
son of the sea

is maith liom na daoine
[is good at-me DEF people-PL]
I like the people

These possessive constructs are either genitive or dative constructs in Irish.

The idea is that possession is equated with having something with, on, in you. When you say "Da" (yes in Serbian) to give something to someone "Ti" (you in Serbian) you perform "Dati" (give in Serbian) from which you have Dativ. But the the thing is "of" the person when it is "on" the person. English "of" is the equivalent of Serbian "O", Irish "O", Slavic "Od" meaning "of". In Serbian "O" means hanging of something, or being around something, among other things. It defines belonging through being around, hanging of someone's horse, body (like a baby for instance)...So again we have the same idea of ownership through direct possession...

PIE dative, locative, and instrumental merged into one case in many languages, so where one language uses locative it corresponds to dative in those languages where it merged (or where the distinction is blurred).

Dative, locative, and instrumental are also very close semantically in PIE languages. Thus possession can be expressed with both dative and locative, and some cases even instrumental.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #96 on: February 03, 2014, 12:03:51 PM »
Read the how the Irish express ownership in the Hyberno English text i gave you the link for.

Definite article expresses distinction. An apple (any apple), The apple (this apple), implying the one "Na" on me, in my hand, next to me....Later it expanded to mean the one in question.

Quote
PIE dative, locative, and instrumental merged into one case in many languages, so where one language uses locative it corresponds to dative in those languages where it merged (or where the distinction is blurred).
Dative, locative, and instrumental are also very close semantically in PIE languages. Thus possession can be expressed with both dative and locative, and some cases even instrumental.

This is because they all describe the same thing: ownership. Where is it, how to get it, have it...

No one except Irish and South Carpathian people uses na (on) to express possession. Most other people use de, of, od, o....
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #97 on: February 03, 2014, 12:08:01 PM »
Irish does not use "na" to express possesion, "na" (plural of "an") is the definite particle.

Irish expresses possession with genitive and dative constructs.

mac na mara
[son-NOM DEF sea-GEN]
son of the sea

is maith liom na daoine
[is good at-me DEF person-PL]
I like the people

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #98 on: February 03, 2014, 12:17:30 PM »
A lot of the latest claims are just made up things. Skipping past those, I'll address the more specific ones:

Quote
No but you can use this as an argument against what i am saying. I am not in this because I am trying to advertise any particular nation or language. It just so happened that I had the knowledge of South Slavic (and other Slavic) languages, English... when i was immersed in Irish. Coincidence, luck, (curse?) call it what ever you want, but it enabled me to see things that others didn't because they lacked the knowledge of both Serbian and Irish languages.
Ok, well, as I said, fair enough. Perhaps your unique perspective allowed you to see something others didn't. Either way, that's irrelevant. I am, however, skeptical when you are presenting something so controversial based on your perceived similarity between the two groups-- I'd imagine others with similar but different backgrounds would observe other similarities elsewhere. That's really what I meant about bias.

Quote
I will show you that they did really bad job. A lot of stuff which exists in South Slavic languages does not exist in East Slavic ones, and clearly does not come from the same root language. Also a lot of Slavic words have proper roots only in South Slavic languages and Irish. Why?
*Shrug*
That's some of the most thorough work in historical linguistics. I don't know it personally that well, but it must have at least some merit, and you're just throwing all of it out.
Some of your claims are silly, such as that you expect a word to survive in all daughters. It might be a borrowing, and it might be a word only preserved in some daughters. That happens all the time. Nothing to be surprised by. "Why?" Just because... it happens. "Why is it raining today?" It happens.

Quote
As I said already, Gaelic is not Celtic language. This is a cardinal error and one which gave us "disappeared" Celtic languages. Real Celtic languages are mix of R1a, I and R1b languages of central Europe (Slavic, Germanic....).
Ouch!
So please define these groups: Irish Gaelic isn't related to anything else? Is it related to Scottish Gaelic?
Manx? Welsh? Cornish? Breton?
Iberian Celtic is more distant (and I know little about it). Is that all you're excluding?
I don't know much about the Celtic languages, but from what I've read/seen, all of the insular Celtic languages are unquestionably related. They're just so similar. Are you really claiming that's not the case?

Do you see how your claims are much harder to defend than the current theories?? Even if you're right, then explain how the striking similarities would exist among the so-called Celtic languages!

Quote
Well you will see that because no one compared Serbian and Irish directly, they missed a lot of stuff which is very important for understanding the development of the early language.
Why not compare Japanese and Swahili?
And, again, there's a reason no one compared them directly: they're CLEARLY not related closely.

Quote
The main thing in science is to know when to stop laughing...
Only if the crazy theories stop. Until then it's simultaneously amusing and disturbing.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #99 on: February 04, 2014, 04:01:06 AM »
freknu

Quote
Irish does not use "na" to express possesion, "na" (plural of "an") is the definite particle.

Thank god you noticed. Modern Irish indeed does not use "NA" to express possession. But we have all these names and phrases which do use "na" to express possession or relationship. And the modern Irish uses exact equivalent in meaning to express possession, as i pointed to you three times already. They equate possession with having the thing "on you". If we have the equivalent, unambiguously defined construct in the southern Carpathian region, with all the associated words related to possession, and if we find lots of other cultural and linguistic correlations between that part of Europe and Ireland, then we can assume that "na" in Irish originally meant "on" as in belonging, separateness, distinction.

Look at most common uses of the definite article: specific, unique, one, best, distinguishable. When something is specific it is separated, distinguishable in some way from the rest. When something is better than other things it is on top (na). It is also unique, one, distinguishable...When people are proud of something they carry it around. Old chiefs were carried on shoulders. Flags are carried on spears. Children (or their pictures) are carried by parents. Clothes are carried (worn) on people's bodies. In Serbian word to carry is "Nosi" from N + O + S + I = boundary + object + with + continues = carry.
Clothes is nošnja meaning what is carried.
Pride is ponos - what is carried around, on shoulders, in hands, on body.
enthusiasm, fervor is zanos - what carries you with it, which moves you

and so on...

Look at the etymology of the word "one":

Quote
From Middle English one, oon, on, oan, an, from Old English ān ("one"; same word as an), from Proto-Germanic *ainaz (“one”), from Proto-Indo-European *óynos (“single, one”). Cognate with Scots ae, ane, wan, yin (“one”); North Frisian ån (“one”); Saterland Frisian aan (“one”); West Frisian ien (“one”); Dutch een, één (“one”); German Low German een; German ein, eins (“one”); Swedish en (“one”); Icelandic einn (“one”); Latin unus (“one”) (Old Latin oinos); Russian один (odin).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one

Why do we have "N" sound in one?

Serbian word "jedan" meaning one comes from je + da + an = is + give + unique
But we also have Serbian word Jen, En meaning one, which comes from (J)E + N = is + boundary, separate, one.

Na in modern Irish "na" has other meanings but they are all related to boundary, exclusiveness, separateness:

Quote
n - (nuin ,the ash tree), the eleventh letter of the Modern Irish alphabet.
n -  a remnant of case ending projected to the word following, producing what is called eclipsis
of the succeeding inital consonant. It remains n- before vowels, d and g; becomes m before
b, and affects the consonants t, c, p, f, making them sound like d, g, b, f, which latter are
respectively written before them thus dt, gc, bp, bhf. It is found after the numerals seacht,
ocht, naoi, deich; after the pronouns, ar, our; bhar, your; a, their; after prep. i (a); after
relative combined with prep.; after the article when a noun is governed by a prep., though
often aspiration of the initial consonant supplies its place (preps. do and de do not project n);
after preps, ending in a vowel before poss. pr., le n-a láimh, ó n-a cheann; feacht n-aon,
gach nduine, etc., are found in modern MSS.
ná -  neg. part., used before imperatives, not, do not; ná buail, do not strike; before vowels h is
inserted, as ná hiarr, do not ask; used imperatively even in 1st sing.: ná cluinim, let me not
hear; used also before some optatives; e.g. ná rabhad, may I not be; dealbh go deo ná
rabhair, may you never be wretchedly poor; ná raibh an fhaid sin de tuigheachán bliadhna
ort; na rabhaid gan teacht, etc., etc. (with other verbs nár is used).
ná -  conj., nor, neither; níl ór ná airgead agam, I have neither gold nor silver.
ná (nach), conj., that not, is fíor ná fuil, used indiscriminately with is fíor nach bhfuil, it is true
that there is not, etc. (ná is used generally in M., nach in Leath Chuinn); before pf. tense it
combines with ro, becoming nár (ná + ro), nachar (nach + ro). See nár and nachar.
ná -  used as an enumerative and descriptive particle, namely, is iad na fir a bhí ann ná Tomás,
Seaghán, 7c. the men who were there were Thomas, John, etc.
ná -  conj., for (Don. and Mayo); prob. the same as nó. See nó (3).
'na - abbrev. for i n-a, in his, in her, in its, in their, in whom, in which, in what.
na, gf. and also pl. of an, def. article, the.
-na - (and -ne), an emphatic particle used after 1st person pl., as ar bhfear-na, our man.
'ná -  for ioná, than, used after comparatives; is feárr suidhe i n-'aice 'ná suidhe i n-'ionad, it is
better to sit beside it than sit in its place.


http://www.ucc.ie/celt/Dinneen1.pdf

Look at this:

Quote
namá, ad., only, alone, except (obs.); old form of amháin.

na + ma = n + m = boundary + me = alone

The meaning of amháin is one, single, separate, what is behind boundary, defined by boundary...So as you can see the new Irish is different from old Irish.

The closest thing to old Irish today is Scots Gaelic or as they call it "Gaeilge na hAlban" meaning the language of (na) the Scots. Here is what McBain has to say about "Na":

Quote
n - from, in a nuas, a nìos, Irish, Old Irish an-; See a.
na - not, ne, Irish, Old Irish na: used with the imperative mood solely. It is an ablaut and independent form of the neg. prefix in (see ion-, an-), an ablaut of Indo-European nê, Latin nê, Greek @Gnc-; shorter from Latin ne@u-, Gothic ni, English not (ne-á-wiht), etc.; further Indo-European n@.-, Greek @Ga@'n-, Latin in-, English un-, Gaelic an-. See nach, which is connected herewith as Greek @Gou@'k, @Gou@'; the Welsh is nac, nag, with imperative, Breton na.
na - or, vel, Irish ná, Early Irish, Old Irish nó, Welsh neu: *nev (Stokes, who allies it to Latin nuo, nod, Greek @Gneúw, Sanskrit návate, go remove; but, in 1890, Bez. Beit.@+16 51, he refers it to the root nu, English now). It can hardly be separated from neo, otherwise, q.v. Strachan agrees.
na - than, Irish ná, Middle Irish iná, Early Irish inda, indás, Old Irish ind as, indás, pl. indate (read indáte); from the prep. in and tá, to be (Zeuss@+2, 716-7, who refers to the other prepositional comparative conjunction oldaas, from ol, de). The use of in in Old Irish as the relative locative may also be compared.
na - what, that which, id quod, Middle Irish ina, ana, inna n-, Early Irish ana n-; for an a, Old Irish rel. an (really neuter of art.) and Gaelic rel a, which see. Descent from ni or ni, without any relative, is favoured by Book of Deer, as do ni thíssad, of what would come. Possibly from both sources.
'na , 'na-  in his, in her, in (my); the prep. an with the possessive pronouns: 'nam, 'nar, 'nad (also ad, Early Irish at, it), 'nur, 'na, 'nan.

Again all words defining separation, boundaries. And we have the meaning IN which defines possession, something surrounded by boundary, on us, next to us, protected by us....

Look at this:

The Government of Ireland - Rialtas na hÉireann
The state of Irelenad - Stát na hEireann
Poblacht na hEireann - Republic of Ireland
Eireann - Ireland
na hEireann - Of Ireland, Irish

Fianna (singular fian) were small, semi-independent warrior bands in Irish mythology and Scottish mythology.

Fian - soldier
Amh n Na BhFiann - Song of (na) soldier, solder's song

"Tuaisceart na hÉireann" literally translates to "The North of Ireland" ("na" is the definite article "the" and the "h" is required in front of a vowel following the definite article here. In Irish, "the" goes in the middle in genitive structures, not in the front where we might put it in English).

This is etymology of the definite article:

Quote
From Middle English, from Old English þē (“the, that”, demonstrative pronoun), a late variant of sē (“that, the”). Originally masculine nominative, in Middle English it superseded all previous Old English forms (sē, sēo, þæt, þā), from Proto-Germanic *sa (“that”), from Proto-Indo-European *só, *to-, *tód (“demonstrative pronoun”). Cognate with West Frisian de, dy (“the, that”), Dutch de, die (“the, that”), Low German de, dat (“the, that”), German der, die, das (“the, that”), Danish den (“the, that”), Swedish den (“the, that”), Icelandic það (“that”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the

So definite article, developed from this, that, the one which is separate from the others, the one i am showing you, the one which i own or which i singled out, separated from the others by creating logical or physical boundary.

Na as a definite article is equivalent to An as a definite article. You can see from the previously mentioned word "nama" that there was an inversion from "na" to "an".  Let's look at the "an" words to see if that is indeed true. If it is true, you would expect to see the same set  or subset of meaning:

Quote
an- (aspirates), neg. prefix un-, in-, not-; prefixed to nouns often it signifies bad or evil; cf. use of an in words like anfhlaitheas and anduine, which see.
an - intens. prefix very, when prefixed to adjectives, as tá an lá an-bhog, the day is very soft;
great, when prefixed to substantives, as bhí an-lá againn, we had a great day (pron. ana
very generally).
an - def. art., gsf. na, pl. na (aspirates nom. sing. f. and m. sing. gen., eclipses g. pl.); the,
sometimes also not translated into English, as an bás, death in general; is uaigneach an rud
an bás, death is a lonesome thing; but fuair sé bás, he died; talamh na hÉireann, the land of
Ireland. an is often used in close combination with preps., especially those ending with a
vowel, as do'n or don, i san, 's an or san, i sna or 's na, ó'n or ón, gus an, leis an, do na or
do sna.
an - interr. part., whether? sign of interrogation (eclipses): before past tense becomes ar in reg.
verbs, and aspirates.
án - a., noble; pure, pleasant; elegant.

So again we find negative, definite article, distinguished (separate in some way)

Have a look at this:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/an#Irish

We have singular "an" and plural "na". Definite article is used when we want to point at something that we separated from the rest. "N" is clearly used as a separation sound, boundary.

Look at these Serbian words:

on (he, that man), ona (she, that woman), ono (it, that child), oni (them, these men),  one (them, these women), ona (them, these children)

We have sound "n" which separates them, makes them individual. Why then do we have Ja (IA) or As as the word meaning "me" and ti as a word meaning "you"? Because I am the observer, the talker, I am separating the word. And you are with me, we are not separate, we are together.

Why is sound "N" in word man? M + A + N = Me + stand upright + boundary,separate.

Quote
From Middle English man, from Old English mann (“human being, person, man”), from Proto-Germanic *mann- (“human being, man”), probably from Proto-Indo-European *man- (“man”) (compare also *men- (“mind”)). Cognate with West Frisian man, Dutch man, German Mann (“man”), Norwegian mann (“man”), Old Swedish maþer (“man”), Swedish man, Russian муж (muž, “male person”), Avestan (manuš), Sanskrit मनु (manu, “human being”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man

Why is there sound "N" in woman? For the same reason it is in Man, to specify separateness, boundary of a human being, but this time human being with a womb:

Quote
From Middle English wombe, wambe, from Old English womb, wamb (“belly, stomach; bowels; heart; womb; hollow”), from Proto-Germanic *wambō (“belly, stomach, abdomen”), from Proto-Indo-European *wamp- (“membrane (of bowels), intestines, womb”). Cognate with Scots wam, wame (“womb”), Dutch wam (“dewlap of beef; belly of a fish”), German Wamme, Wampe (“paunch, belly”), Danish vom (“belly, paunch, rumen”), Swedish våmb (“belly, stomach, rumen”), Norwegian vomb (“belly”), Icelandic vömb (“belly, abdomen, stomach”), Old Welsh gumbelauc (“womb”), Breton gwamm (“woman, wife”), Sanskrit वपा (vapā́, “the skin or membrane lining the intestines or parts of the viscera, the caul or omentum”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/womb

Quote
From Middle English woman, wimman, wifman, from Old English wīfmann (“woman, female servant”, literally “female person, female human being”), equivalent to wife +‎ man. Compare Dutch vrouwmens (“wife”, literally “woman-person”). Compare also Dutch vrouwspersoon (“woman”), German Weibsperson (“female person”), and dialectal German Fraumensch ("woman", literally "woman human-being").

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woman

Woman = womb + man
womb = v + o + u + m + b + man = come, move (in or out) + seed + in + man + baby
Woman = man which has this thing from in out of which man babies come...

But in Serbian we also have these words:

Na - take this, take it in your hand, put it on yourself
Nati - Na + Ti = take + you
Naći, Najti - to find. from NaJeti = Na + Je + Ti = take + is + you = It is yours now

Nas - us
Nam - to us
Naš - ours
Njih - them (look at them)
Njima - them (give them)
Njihov - theirs. The old archaic version is Njin = Ne je Naš = Is not ours

You can clearly see the how "N" carries the meaning of boundary, separation, distinction.

There are lots more examples that support this claim and i will present them in next couple of days.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 04:56:30 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #100 on: February 04, 2014, 04:31:06 AM »
It seem your site can't handle some unicode characters.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 04:42:09 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #101 on: February 04, 2014, 04:37:48 AM »
... then we can assume that "na" in Irish originally meant "on" as in belonging, separateness, distinction.

No. Irish "an" comes from PIE. *sēm "one" or *so "this".

... "Gaeilge na hAlban" meaning the language of (na) the Scots

Gàidhlig na hAlba
[Gaelic-NOM the Scotland-GEN]
Scotland's Gaelic

Rialtas na hÉireann
[goverment-NOM the Ireland-GEN]
Ireland's Goverment

Stát na hÉireann
[state-NOM the Ireland-GEN]
Ireland's State

Poblacht na hÉireann
[republic-NOM the Ireland-GEN]
Ireland's Republic

Éire = Ireland
Éireann (genitive) = Ireland's
na hÉireann (definite + genitive) = (the) Ireland's

I can't even be bothered to deal with the rest of your garbage :(

Put bluntly, you are throwing shit at a wall, hoping some of it will stick.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #102 on: February 04, 2014, 04:37:59 AM »
freknu

Quote
No. Irish "an" comes from PIE. *sēm "one" or *so "this".

Here comes PIE again. An comes from sem. Sem means alone. S + E + M = with + is + me. An means separated, distinguishable...

Gàidhlig na hAlba
Scotland's Gaelic
Gaelic of Scotland

What is the difference between the three? Scotland's Gaelic is the same as Gaelic of Scotland, isn't it? Where does "s" come from to form genitive? Do you know? S is the sound meaning with, closely together, touching, belonging. Comes from the sound of gliding your hand on something. So the same as "na" meaning on, touching, belonging...

If you don't see this then you are blind. Or i can use your language and say, you have **** for brains. But i wont because i don't need to use swear words when i have arguments.

djr33

Quote
A lot of the latest claims are just made up things.

Which things. Explain, give evidence.

Quote
Ok, well, as I said, fair enough. Perhaps your unique perspective allowed you to see something others didn't. Either way, that's irrelevant. I am, however, skeptical when you are presenting something so controversial based on your perceived similarity between the two groups

I started with South Slavic and Irish. Then expanded to all other European languages and Sanskrit. Is this wide enough sample group to exclude bias?

Quote
I'd imagine others with similar but different backgrounds would observe other similarities elsewhere.

By all means, i would welcome it. Lots of unexplored areas.

Quote
That's really what I meant about bias.

So what you mean is narrowness not negative attitude. Ok. I am not narrow or negative in my research.


Quote
That's some of the most thorough work in historical linguistics. I don't know it personally that well, but it must have at least some merit, and you're just throwing all of it out.

Look did i ever say that i reject all the work done by historical linguists so far? Of course not. Most of it is spot on. Some of it isn't. A lot of what is't ok can be made ok if we accept:

1. languages were created by family (genetic) groups and are carried by them.
2. new languages are created by mixing old languages or by the forced change of the existing language initiated by powerful external or internal group

Then a lot of things fall into place and we have better understanding of what has been happening with the human language.

Quote
Some of your claims are silly, such as that you expect a word to survive in all daughters. It might be a borrowing, and it might be a word only preserved in some daughters. That happens all the time. Nothing to be surprised by.

I don't. But I believe that words are carried by people, and same words in separate people mean some kind of contact occurred between those people. If you then compare genetics, history, customs, traditions, religion, you get much better picture of who brought what where and when. You can't label everything as PIE and say: but 95% of all IE people forgot the word. Makes no sense to me. Much more likely it was a local, family development. I don't understand why do you think it is all or nothing.

Quote
So please define these groups: Irish Gaelic isn't related to anything else? Is it related to Scottish Gaelic?
Manx? Welsh? Cornish? Breton?
Iberian Celtic is more distant (and I know little about it). Is that all you're excluding?
I don't know much about the Celtic languages, but from what I've read/seen, all of the insular Celtic languages are unquestionably related. They're just so similar. Are you really claiming that's not the case? Do you see how your claims are much harder to defend than the current theories?? Even if you're right, then explain how the striking similarities would exist among the so-called Celtic languages!


All these languages are related. They are all R1b languages. But not Celtic. Celtic languages just means Languages of Central Europe, Continental Europe. They are a mix of R1b languages and R1a, I, N... languages. What we call PIE is a mix of all the roots of all these old languages which mixed together in continental Europe. Very simple. And accounts for the "Missing" Celtic languages of continental Europe.


Quote
And, again, there's a reason no one compared them directly: they're CLEARLY not related closely.

I know. This is precisely why i decided to compare them. Everyone was saying: there should be no link, or there should be very old link. Yet i am finding lots and lots of links, not just linguistics but cultural and genetic. As i said in my first post, once you overlay these distant languages, you get distant similarities. You go far back in time. The more distant the languages are, the older the similarities are. Except for common recent borrowings. But this is why you look at roots of words, customs...Compare them with other cultures, languages...Not a simple task. But slowly you can start picking out which things go back to either common R1a or R1b or I2 cultures...

Quote
Only if the crazy theories stop. Until then it's simultaneously amusing and disturbing.

People quoting bible think of any new idea and discovery as crazy. I would much rather explore new things and fail, then keep quoting bible for the rest of my life believing i am right. Not everything fails, not everything is wrong, not everything is right either...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 04:50:48 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #103 on: February 04, 2014, 05:20:11 AM »
If you don't see this then you are blind.

/S/ clearly means "being", /E/ "from", and /M/ "space".

Now, I'm not saying aliens did it ... but aliens obviously did it. If you cannot see this then you are blind. The R1-k and R0-l Duplogroups clearly proves this beyond any Baud. Also note that if you put the red two-dot Lego I-shape on the black three-dot Lego L-shape, then it spells "an" in the Standard Galatic Alphabet, which once again, proves that aliens did it.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:21:49 AM by freknu »

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #104 on: February 04, 2014, 06:00:46 AM »
freknu you are funny....
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing