The language of old Europe

[freknu]

Thank you for your analysis. I will talk about it more in my next post. Sorry have to rush.

It's not an analysis, it's the current scientific knowledge, which your hypothesis is going against.

[dublin]

freknu I am sorry, I am not ignoring you or your questions, I just want to complete my conversation with djr33. Just one question for you:

djr33


I said: "This points at much older, common stuff in Serbian and Irish. But then we come to the question: Why is the key to understanding this old stuff found only in Serbian?"

I have to here say that I believe that substantial part of this common language comes from the Celtic and later Germanic languages, which were conglomerate made of R1a and R1b languages. This is because Celts and later Germanics are product of mixing of the R1a and I2 agricultural populations of central Europe and R1b herders and I1 population. The Celts and Germanics, as well as western Slavs were not genetically nor linguistically homogeneous. Gaelic languages are not Celtic. They are pre Celtic, one of building blocks of Celtic languages. This is why we can't find descendants of Celtic languages in Central Europe, as by the time Celts were formed as cultural group, language was very much R1a and very little R1b.

This is wrong and will lead you to concluding that Celtic languages are dead:

The Celtic or Keltic languages (usually pronounced /ˈkɛltɪk/ but sometimes /ˈsɛltɪk/)[1] are descended from Proto-Celtic, or "Common Celtic"; a branch of the greater Indo-European language family. The term "Celtic" was first used to describe this language group byEdward Lhuyd in 1707.[2]
Celtic languages are most commonly spoken on the north-western edge of Europe, notably in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany,Cornwall, and the Isle of Man, and can be found spoken on Cape Breton Island. There are also a substantial number of Welsh speakers in the Patagonia area of Argentina. Some people speak Celtic languages in the other Celtic diaspora areas of the United States,[3]Canada, Australia,[4] and New Zealand.[5] In all these areas, the Celtic languages are now only spoken by minorities though there are continuing efforts at revitalization.
During the 1st millennium BC, they were spoken across Europe, in the Iberian Peninsula, from the Atlantic and North Sea coastlines, up the Rhine valley and down the Danube valley to the Black Sea, the Upper Balkan Peninsula, and in Galatia in Asia Minor. The spread to Cape Breton and Patagonia occurred in modern times. Celtic languages, particularly Irish, were spoken in Australia before federation in 1901 and are still used there to some extent.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_languages

Celtic language is the language once spoken in the whole of Europe, but today it is only spoken in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Brittany,Cornwall, and the Isle of Man.

So here we come to the fundamental problem: Was Proto Celtic language deduced from today's "Celtic" languages like Gaelic, Welsh, Manx, Breton? If we look at the official history of  Ireland, we see this isolated Celtic land which for 1000 years only had influence from Celtic Gaul and Celtic Iberia. The first non “Celtic” people to arrive to Ireland were the Vikings in the 9th century, but they were too late to influence the creation of the “Celtic” Gaelic language. So we have absolute right to say that Irish is a Celtic language.

But we can see how huge the influence of the central European and South Baltic Germanic Slavic culture was in the British Isles, the "Celtic" heartland much earlier than the 9th century and the Vikings.

(To see details go to: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477)

So this then presents a problem: is this Proto Celtic language which we have found in the indigenous languages in the British Isles, just a small part of the real old European Celtic language? Namely is this “Celtic” part found in “Celtic” languages just the part of the real Celtic language, which Gaels and the Welsh, and Bretons incorporated into their languages while mixing with R1a people of Central Europe to create Celts? And are Slavs, Balts and Germans, still in effect speaking the Celtic language today in the same area of Europe where it was always spoken? Is it time to rethink the whole “Celtic languages” thing? Are central European, mainly Slavic languages but also Germanic and Baltic languages, the real Celtic languages?

If this is the case, then all documented common words in Celtic and Slavic languages should not surprise you anymore.

Here is just an example of what I am talking about:

Pavel Serafimov

CELTO-SLAVIC SIMILARITIES

Abstract

Combined analysis of languages, historical sources, burial types, architecture and religion reveals that a part of the Gauls called also Celts were in fact a Western Slavic branch consisting of different tribes who inhabited the lands of ancient France, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, etc. These people were responsible for the spread of iron in Central and Western Europe and were also the ones to whom the ethnonym Celts was applied for the first time. Unless other ancient testimonies or new archaeological discoveries appear, it should be admitted that Slavic tribes inhabited not only Eastern, but also Central and Western Europe in the deep antiquity and were strong, highly developed people, who influenced many others. Novel evidence of Slavic presence in Western Europe and British Isles is presented in this paper. Scientific method demands that the opposing arguments and theories have to be considered. Counter evidence and counter arguments are welcome….

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik06/serafimov_celtoslav06.pdf


Or this:

Pavel Serafimov, Giancarlo Tomezzoli

Slavic influences in the Ancient Gaul

Introduction

It is common opinion between the scholars and the people that the ancient gauls formed a compact set of Celtic tribes speaking the gaulish language or similar varieties of the same one [1]. The gaulish language also called Classical Celtic had practically nothing in common with Insular Celtic; it was very close to the Italic group of tongues and had grammatical forms similar to those of the Proto-Indo-European model [1]. however, the publication in a recent past of relevant works has animated the debate about the slavic cultural and religious influences and about the slavic presence in the ancient gaul. With this paper, after having reviewed said relevant works, we analyze in more details some origins of these influences and presence so as to introduce some more arguments and evidences into the debate.

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik10/seraf_slavic_gaul.pdf

Without knowing how strong and how long the influence of the Central European cultures which reached Ireland and Britain via South Baltic was, the above claims would have been absurd. Now they are to be expected.

(To see details go to: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477)

If you ignore central European population (Celts, Germanic, Western Slavs) then you need Indo European to link Greek, Latin and Germanic. If you don't ignore central European population (Celts, Germanic, Western Slavs), then no distant unknown "Indo Europeans" are necessary.

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polabian_language

I already talked about huge influence Polabian Slavs (Sorbs) had during creation of the Anglo Saxon alliance and later Danish viking alliance.

(To see details go to: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477)

The language distribution map is incorrect. Based on earlier data, they lived as west as Frisia ans Utrecht, which was one of their towns.
You can find all this in the book "Origine of the Anglo Saxon race" which i spoke about as well.

(To see details go to: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477)

Their language sits between Germanic and Slavic and is the missing link to explain all the common words in both sets of languages. It is incredible that we have managed to lose a language that was spoken in Germany until 18th century. Was that done on purpose, and language was deliberately destroyed as part of Slavic assimilation, and that is why we only have a handful of words and texts saved?

Here is only one of many examples of the polabian (Sorbian) word which is link between germanic and slavic. This is one line from the gospel The Lord's Prayer:

English: thy will be done
German: Dein Wille geschehe,
Polabian: tia Willia ſchinyôt,
Serbian: Tvoja volja da bude, (da bude volja tvoja) - in Serbian you can rearrange the words in a sentence without losing the meaning
Polish: bądź wola Twoja
Kashubian: niech mdze Twòja wòlô
Upper Sorabian: Stań so Twoja wola,

See what i mean? It is very difficult to know where Slavic stops and Germanic starts...

A lot of "Germanic" words could be most western version of this central European language (Celtic???) words, and a lot of eastern Slavic words are eastern versions of this central European language words. Only 400 years ago the language in central Europe from Balkans to Baltic was pretty much one and the same. It is this language (which was a mix of R1a, R1b and I2) that influenced all the surrounding languages, as well being influenced by them. This language was not compact, but split into many gradated dialects. Going from east to west this language was less "Slavic" (R1a) and more "Gaelic" (R1b) with big influence of I2 language going from Balkans in the south to Baltic in the north.  We have the same situation now in the Balkans where dialects gradually melt into each other going from north west to south east. But  most north western south Slavic people would have problems understanding south eastern south Slavic people. The gradation follows the genetic layers going from east to west: R1b + I1, R1a, I2, E1b....

I was convinced before that the carriers of the "Celtic" languages were I2 people of central Europe, but I am now more of the opinion that Celtic is essentially mix of mostly R1a and R1b people with R1a percentage falling from east to west, and with some influence of I2 and I1 people. I am now of an opinion that I2 was mostly linked with Illyrians.

Lastly, I came to the conclusion that old Serbs, the earliest people who carried that name were probably R1b people, members of the military caste of the central European Celts. They correspond to the Vlah, and Serbi, Sirbi, Sorbi, Sarbi people which still live in Central Europe from Balkan to Baltic along the Carpathian mountains, are herders and warriors.  In the old annals, Sorbs, Vendi, Western Slavs, were described as different in appearance from the rest of the Slavs. They were described as  dark haired and shorter than the rest of the Slavs which were blond and tall. The Irish have the  highest percentage of blue eyed people in the world, but they are usually dark haired.

In the proportion of pure light eyes, Ireland competes successfully with the blondest regions of Scandinavia. Over 46 per cent of the total group has pure light eyes, and of these all but 4 per cent are blue. Very light-mixed eyes account for another 30 per cent, while less than one-half of one per cent have pure brown. There is probably no population of equal size in the world which is lighter eyed, and blue eyed, than the Irish. The almost total absence of gray eyes corresponds to the equal paucity of ash-blond hair. Compared to eastern Norway, Sweden, and Finnic and Baltic groups, the eye color is disproportionately light in comparison to hair color. Regional differences, while not great, are of some importance. The ratio of pure blue eyes falls to 33 per cent in Kerry and Clare, and rises to 50 per cent in other regions - Carlow and Wicklow in the southeast, and Armagh, Monaghan, and eastern Cavan in the North. On the whole, the east is lighter eyed than the west, as it is lighter haired. At the same time the Presbyterians are blonder than the Catholics, who are in turn fairer than the members of the Church of Ireland.- Carelton Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapter X, Section 2.

I wrote more about possible R1b origin of Old Serbs here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057129408

[dublin]

You said:

Just because it worries me I'm going to deal with Germanic as well.

Why is this worrying you? This is a strange attitude to have towards linguistic claim? The list I posted was from a text that dealt with the link between Berber and Germanic languages from the Berber point of view. So it said "Berber (Afro Asiatic) words in Germanic include:". As I said many times in that post, who came from where and when? The words you are "worried about" are found in both Berber and Germanic languages? Why is this worrying? And what does that prove? That there is link between Afroasiatic languages and Western European languages.

It's not an analysis, it's the current scientific knowledge, which your hypothesis is going against.

Ok. Let me then do some of my analysis of your scientific knowledge and see what your scientific knowledge has to say about it.

PG. *bausuz "inflated, swollen; evil" < PIE. *bhes- "to blow; to inflate, swell"
cf. Grk. psyche

Cognate in Serbian "Baksuz" meaning bad luck, jinx and Bauk - evil creature, but also Puhati - to blow, Pushiti, to smoke, Puvati - to fart but Puvati se to enflate, to show off

Link is probably R1b language.

PG. *ēlaz "eel" < PIE. *ēl- "line, strip". This is not the root. If line was the root then why is snake called snake? It is also a line like?

Root is most likely from ancient root sound "L", the sound of produced by sLiding the tip op your tong aLong the roof of your mouth, which is smooth and sLippery. You gLide, and sLide, and you have "Led" - Serbian for ice and sLed - thing you use to move on the Surface of Led.

Look at this:

From Middle English sledde, from Middle Dutch or Middle Low German sledde (cf. Dutch slee, slede, Low German Sleden), from Proto-Germanic *slidô (cf. East Frisian sliede, German Schlitten, Norwegian slede). Related to slide.

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

No root etymology.

From Middle English sliden, from Old English slīdan (“to slide”), from Proto-Germanic *slīdaną (“to slide, glide”), from Proto-Indo-European *sleidh- (“to slip”). Cognate with Old High German slītan (German schlittern, “to slide”), Middle Low German slīden (“to slide”), Middle Dutch slīden (Dutch sledderen, “to slide”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slide#English

No root etymology.

Now look at this etymology based on root natural language that I think I have discovered:

S - surface, smooth, also with, touching, sound produced by gliding your hand on a surface of skin
L - smooth, slippery, from sound produced by gliding your tong along the top of your mouth.
Lj - extremely slippery associated with water and oil.
I - continuation, direction
E - what is,
D - hard, solid, from sound made by hitting something hard, solid very hard. As opposed to T which is sound made by hitting something solid not so hard. Also represents Down, Dole (down in Serbian) as opposed to There, Tu (close there in Serbian), Tamo (far there in Serbian) horizontal.

SLED - what is used to move on surface of slippery hard stuff where you can fall down
SLIDE - with slippery continue fall down where

I believe that these sounds are part of the oldest core language of Europe. And these words are also part of the oldest European pre Indoeuropean vocabulary. Let me know what you think.

Look at this as well:

èaladh, euladh
a creeping along (as to catch game), Irish euloighim steal away, Early Irish élaim, I. flee, Old Irish élud, evasio; German eilen, hasten, speed; root ei, i, go, Latin i-re, etc. Hence èalaidhneach, creeping cold. Strachan derives it from *ex-lâjô, root lâ, ela, go, Greek @Gelaúno (as in eilid, etc.). Stokes now *ass-lúim.

http://www.ceantar.org/Dicts/MB2/mb15.html#MB.E

cf. OInd. ālī, Grk. olinge (where did you find this word?) Is there any other word that is Cognate apart from Greek.



I will comment on the other words from the list soon. Just ran out of time today.

Djr33 I just can't type fast enough to respond to two people at the same time. Can you please wait until I respond to your last comments as i did not see them while i was typing my last reply to you. Otherwise we sill have crossed communication, and things will get lost. Thanks.

[freknu]

Why is this worrying you? This is a strange attitude to have towards linguistic claim?

It's pseudo-science being passed off as valid science.

It's not an analysis, it's the current scientific knowledge, which your hypothesis is going against.

Ok. Let me then do some of my analysis of your scientific knowledge and see what your scientific knowledge has to say about it.

It's not my knowledge, it's scientific knowledge.

Cognate in Serbian "Baksuz" meaning bad luck, jinx and Bauk - evil creature, but also Puhati - to blow, Pushiti, to smoke, Puvati - to fart but Puvati se to enflate, to show off

(etymology 1) PIE. *bhag-

SC. baksuz "jinx, bad luck" < Turk. bahtsiz "unlucky" < Pers. bakht "fortune, luck" < PIE. *bhag- "to distribute"
cf. Skr. bhakti "distribution, division, share", Kurd. baxt "luck, happiness", Cze. neboh "poor, unfortunate", OCS. bogatъ "rich", Grk. oisophagos "oesophagus", phagein "to eat", Pers. bakhshīdan "to give"

(etymology 2) PIE. *pū-

PSl. *puxati < PIE. *pū- "to blow"
cf. OInd. phupphukāraka "panting", phuphusa- "lung", Arm. (h)ogi "breath, breeze", Rus. púlja "ball", Grk. πυγή "back, posterior", Let. pũga "gust of wind", PG. *feukanaN "to blow, be blown by the wind", Arm. puk "breath, breeze; fart", Alb. pupë "curd, grape; hill", Lat. pūpus "small kid, child, knave, boy", Grk. φῦσα "blast, bellows; bubble", Lat. pussula "bubble; vesicle; blister", OCS. puchati "to blow", opuchnǫti "to bloat, bulge, swell", Rus. pýščitь "snout, muzzle"

Both unrelated to PIE. *bhes-

PG. *ēlaz "eel" < PIE. *ēl- "line, strip". This is not the root. If line was the root then why is snake called snake? It is also a line like?

Irrelevant.

Root is most likely from ancient root sound "L", the sound of produced by sLiding the tip op your tong aLong the roof of your mouth, which is smooth and sLippery. You gLide, and sLide, and you have "Led" - Serbian for ice and sLed - thing you use to move on the Surface of Led.

Rubbish.

No root etymology.

PG. *slīdanaN < PIE. *(s)leidh- "to slip; slippery"
cf. OIn.d srédhati "to slide", Grk. ὀλισθάνω "to slide", λεῖος "smooth, even, level", MIr. slōet "raft, float", Lit. slýstu "to glide, slide", slidùs "smooth, slippery", Let. slist "to glide, slide", OCS. slědъ "trail, track"

Now look at this etymology based on root natural language that I think I have discovered ...

Rubbish.

cf. OInd. ālī, Grk. olinge (where did you find this word?) Is there any other word that is Cognate apart from Greek.

Indic, Greek, and Germanic have recognised cognates.

[ibarrere]

If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it.

Really? I'm interested in that detail. How literally do you mean this? Certainly the script isn't familiar.

This is more-or-less the case. OCS is similar enough to most South Slavic languages that it's readily-intelligible. OCS was written with two scripts, Glagolitic and Cyrillic. Glagolitic essentially died out (with the exception of occasion use in monasteries) and Cyrillic turned into the number of Cyrillic-based scripts we have today. OCS Cyrillic is close enough to modern Cyrillic that readers can wade through it.

However, with that said, I certainly wouldn't claim that anybody speaks OCS these days. They may be able to understand it when written, but there have been a number of phonological changes over the years that would render it pretty difficult to speak or understand for the untrained.

[Daniel]

Thanks ibarrere.


Dublin, now you're using the incredibly controversial (in my opinion just plain wrong) idea of phonosemantics. I'm happy to respect your choice but we really have nothing more to discuss. As I recommend for anyone (including myself) just keep in mind how you might be wrong-- otherwise you won't be able to know when you are on the right track.

[dublin]

freknu, djr33:

me: logical arguments
you: "rubbish".

Is this how your science wins arguments? By shouting? We are not gonna have very productive conversation if you continue like this, and your side of the argument will not look very strong.

Please tell me why is this wrong and what is my mistake in the examples i presented. Not just that you think it is rubbish and that you have nothing to talk to me about. That is not science, that is religion.


I actually made a mistake with the word SLIDE. I have not analyzed these words before so I rushed to conclusion. Let me give fixed and expanded etymology:


Now look at this etymology based on root natural language that I think I have discovered:
N - separating, defining space. From involuntary sound nnnnnnnn made by something trying to protect themselves while putting hands in front of them over their head.
G - up, far away, pointing
S - surface, smooth, also with, touching, sound produced by gliding your hand on a surface of skin
L - smooth, slippery, from sound produced by gliding your tong along the top of your mouth.
Lj - extremely slippery associated with water and oil.
I - continuation, direction
E - what is,
K - towards, close to, touch, surface. close to meaning with G for pointing. Still working on this...
D - hard, solid, from sound made by hitting something hard, solid very hard. As opposed to T which is sound made by hitting something solid not so hard. Also represents Down, Dole (down in Serbian) as opposed to There, Tu (close there in Serbian), Tamo (far there in Serbian) horizontal.
DE, GDE - Serbian word meaning where, where to. From DE = D + E = down, ground + it is, is it. GDE = G + D + E = pointing + down, ground + it is, is it
P - fall down, sound of something soft falling down, or hitting something soft. Pa - to fall. Pade - Pa + de = fall + where - Serbian for something fell down
SLED - what is used to move on surface of slippery hard stuff where you can fall down
IDE - Serbian word meaning goes, it goes. From I + D + E = continues, direction + down, ground +  it is, is it
SLIDE - S + L + IDE = with + slippery, smooth + goes
SLIP - S + L + I + P = with + slippery, smooth + continues + falls
GLIDE - G + L + IDE = up + slippery, smooth + goes
LINIJA Serbian word meaning Line

From Middle English line, lyne, from Old English līne (“line, cable, rope, hawser, series, row, rule, direction”), from Proto-Germanic *līnǭ (“line, rope, flaxen cord, thread”), from Proto-Germanic *līną (“flax, linen”), from Proto-Indo-European *līn- (“flax”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/line#Etymology_1

No root etymology. What i mean is that it is not broken down to neither syllables nor basic sounds. And every word is built from them. And these building blocks must have meaning which together give the meaning of the word.

LINE = L + I + N + E = smooth + direction + separating, defining + it is
LINIJA, LINEA = L + I + N + E + A = smooth + direction + separating, defining + it is + ending for feminine gender

Now look at these words:

LIZ = LIS Serbian word meaning LICK (LIK) = L + I + S = slippery, smooth, tong + continues, direction + surface + touch
LIK - L + I + K = slippery, smooth, tong + continues, direction + what + towards, close to, touch, surface. 
LJ - really slippery and wet. Sound which activates saliva glands. Tong and Saliva
LJUBI - Serbian word meaning to kiss = LJ - spit, saliva
PLJUJE - Serbian word meaning to spit = P + LJ = sound of spitting
BLJUJE - Serbian word meaning vomits = B + LJ = sound of vomiting
LJIGA - Serbian word meaning slimy
LJAGA - Serbian word meaning mire, spitting on someone
ULJE - Serbian word meaning oil = U + LJ + E = In + slippery + it is = Describes location of oil in oily fruit like olive
JEGULJA - Serbian word meaning eel = JE + GUJ + LJ + A = is + snake + slippery + extension for feminine words
LAPATI - Serbian word meaning slurp from sound of the lifting water with your tong.
LOKATI - Serbian word meaning drink with big gulps

[freknu]

me: unsubstantiated, biased, assumptive claims
you: "rubbish"

There. That's your problem.

Please tell me why is this wrong and what is my mistake in the examples i presented. Not just that you think it is rubbish and that you have nothing to talk to me about. That is not science, that is religion.

You have no evidence. You are making claims and wild speculations based on data mining, cherry picking, and very bad "science".

Now look at this etymology based on root natural language that I think I have discovered ...

Even more unsubstantiated and assumptive claims.

From Middle English line, lyne, from Old English līne (“line, cable, rope, hawser, series, row, rule, direction”), from Proto-Germanic *līnǭ (“line, rope, flaxen cord, thread”), from Proto-Germanic *līną (“flax, linen”), from Proto-Indo-European *līn- (“flax”).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/line#Etymology_1

No root etymology

Did you miss the part about PIE. *līn-?

Now look at these words ...

Ser-Cr. lizati "to lick" < PS. *lizati < PIE. *(s)leiǵh- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. ljubiti "to love; to kiss" < PS. *ljubiti < PIE. *leubh- "to love"
Ser-Cr. pljuvati "to spit" < PS. *pljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. bljuvati "to vomit" < PS. *bljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. ljigav < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ljaga "stain, blemish" < Rus. ljaga "adhestive, sticky" < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ulje "oil" < Lat. oleum "oil" < Grk. elaion "oil" < elaia "olive"
Ser-Cr. jegulja "eel" < Lat. anguilla "eel" < PIE. *angh- "worm, eel, snake"
Ser-Cr. lapati "to lap" < PIE. *lab- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. lokati "to drink, guzzle" < PS. *lokati < PIE. *lak- "to lick"

[dublin]

freknu

There. That's your problem.

No my friend this is your problem. You don't want to think and use your logic. Instead you parrot what you have learned like you are in a church.

You have no evidence.

What do you mean by evidence? I am giving you detailed analysis of the words, as you requested. What more do you want? A film showing Cro Magnons making the language?

You are making claims and wild speculations based on data mining

Of course these are speculations. Maybe even wild speculations. But isn't this what scientist do? They investigate, analyse, synthesize, make speculations, predict, verify using additional data to see if if predictions fit the data. This is the essence of science?
What do religious fanatics do? They learn their gospel by heart, they repeat it as often as possible, as loud as possible, they shout down anyone who disagrees and if that doesn't help they burn them at the stake.

So are you a scientist of a priest?

Even more unsubstantiated and assumptive claims.

Assumptive yes, unsubstantiated no. I have given you examples, which logically prove that i am right. You have cluster of words, in two language families, Germanic and Slavic, all built around the same root sounds, with complete etymologies based on the meaning of the root sounds.

Did you miss the part about PIE. *līn-?

No I didn't. Did you miss the fact that "lin" is complex word? And that it can be broken down to   basic root sounds which form the meaning of the word? L + I + N = smooth + direction + boundary? What do you think is older sound or the word? What are words made of? Why? Have you ever asked yourself this question? Use logic? Why is chair called a chair and not table?

er-Cr. lizati "to lick" < PS. *lizati < PIE. *(s)leiǵh- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. ljubiti "to love; to kiss" < PS. *ljubiti < PIE. *leubh- "to love"
Ser-Cr. pljuvati "to spit" < PS. *pljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. bljuvati "to vomit" < PS. *bljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. ljigav < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ljaga "stain, blemish" < Rus. ljaga "adhestive, sticky" < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ulje "oil" < Lat. oleum "oil" < Grk. elaion "oil" < elaia "olive"
Ser-Cr. jegulja "eel" < Lat. anguilla "eel" < PIE. *angh- "worm, eel, snake"
Ser-Cr. lapati "to lap" < PIE. *lab- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. lokati "to drink, guzzle" < PS. *lokati < PIE. *lak- "to lick"

What exactly are you trying to say? Where are these PIE roots coming from? Which language? And how were they built?

You can't tell me, because you have never though about it? I did. And this is what I think about it. This is work in progress. You can help, if you want. But please stop preaching.

[dublin]

I have few things to add about the vowels and their meaning. I said this earlier:

The following are passive sounds, used to describe the aftermath of a situation, and used to release accumulated emotions:

hoooo - mild frustration with small problem, forward looking
huuuu - lots of problems, hard work, but still not giving up, forward looking
haaaa - too many problems, giving up, present
eh - remembering something that failed recently and you wish it didn't, feeling sorry for yourself. recent past
ih - remembering something that failed long time ago. feeling bitter. distant past

There are actually two sets of complete sighing sounds.

First describes the reaction to problems while they are happening. They convey frustration, disbelief that something bad is happening...

hoooo - mild frustration with small problem
huuuu - lots of problems, hard work, but still not giving up
haaaa - too many problems, giving up
heeee - overwhelming problems, dangerous problems, people getting hurt, things get broken
hiiiiiiii - disasterous problems, catastrophe, people dying, homes getting destroyed

Second describes the reaction to problems after they happened. They convey regret, loss, missed chance, what could have happened, disbelief that something bad has happened:

oh - mild frustration with small loss or missed chance, not affecting us much, nice to have. oh well...
uh - big enough frustration with big enough loss or missed chance, affecting us significantly, good to have. Uh, I can't believe...
ah - big frustration with big loss or missed chance, affecting us greatly, must have. Ah! Why didn't it work...
eh - remembering something that failed recently and you wish it worked, feeling sorry for yourself. recent past, your are still affected, you are thinking about it all the time, but you are accepting it. Eh, if only it had worked...
ih - remembering something that failed long time ago. feeling bitter, sad. distant past. Ih, when I remember...

Vowels O,U,A,Eшm,I and their symbols from Vinca script, describe life in it's entirety:

O - seed, egg (round, enclosed)
U - hole, womb, planting, fertilization (in, into)
A - birth, sprouting, growth (upward)
Eшm - existence in this world. E - human, ш - plants, m - animals (exists, it is)
I - group, tribe, descendants, continuation, death, god, sky (stake, direction, one)

Vowel formant frequencies correspond with the meaning of the vowels. It seems that E frequency is higher than I. Killing is more emotionally affecting then death???

Vowel    Formant f1           Formant f2            Sum         direction
i      240 Hz      2400 Hz      2640   ---- extreme emotion up
e      390 Hz      2300 Hz      2690   ---- extreme emotion down
a      850 Hz      1610 Hz      2460   ---- up, over
o      360 Hz      640 Hz      1000    ---- ground, neutral
u      250 Hz      595 Hz      845   ---- down, under

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formant

Vowels O,U,A,Eшm,I and their symbols from Vinca script correspond to the basic hand positions and gestures and hand movements and actions:

Hand positions, gestures:

O - hand pointing forward, palm horizontal, facing down, placed on something we own and control, like object, animal, child, possession of something, someone
U - hand pointing forward, palm horizontal, facing up, holding something in it, supporting something or someone
A - hand pointing forward, palm horizontal, facing forward, like stopping someone, pushing something or someone away
E - hand pointing sideways, palm vertical, facing our body, like bringing, pulling something towards us, acquiring something
I - hand pointing down, palm vertical facing the center of the body next to the body. Means calm, self. Hand pointing up, palm vertical facing the center of the body next to the body. Means god, lord.

Hand movements, actions:

O - both hands pointing towards each other, palm horizontal, facing down, placed on something we push down
U - both hands pointing towards each other, palm horizontal, facing up, holding something in it
A - both hands pointing towards each other, palm vertical, facing outward, stopping someone, pushing something or someone away
E - both hands pointing sideways towards , palm vertical, facing our body, bringing, pulling something towards us, acquiring something
I - both hands pointing down, palm vertical facing the center of the body next to the body, calm, self. Both hands pointing up, palm vertical facing the center line of the body, god, lord

Vowels O,U,A,Eшm,I and their symbols from Vinca script correspond to the basic primary colors:

black, red, yellow, blue, white

I am not sure what color corresponds to what sound, but it could be something like this:

green - E - violence, anger - extreme negative
red - U - desire - mildly negative
orange - O - calm, neutral
yellow - A - high, positive
blue - I - tranquility, acceptance

or this:

red - U - deep, down, underworld
green - E - life, plants
orange - O - surface, horizontal, land, earth
yellow - A - high, up, sun
blue - I - god, sky

These colors can be found on color scale of good and evil in Christian church for instance.

It is in any case interesting how these things correspond to each other.

[Daniel]

Dublin, is it possible that you are wrong? A good scientist is open to that possibility. You seem to be opposed to your theory being wrong and instead assuming that the entire goal of this conversation is to support it and prove it right.

[freknu]

If you cannot understand the purpose, methods, and limitations of comparative linguistics, or even the phonology of PIE, then there is probably no point in continuing.

Sadly you are looking for exposure and validation, not review.

[dublin]

djr33

Dublin, is it possible that you are wrong?

Of course. As i said this is work in progress. But i don't think i am wrong. What would be the point in me presenting a theory here for validation if i thought it was wrong? Use logic please if you want to talk science.

A good scientist is open to that possibility.

I am open to that possibility. This is what the point of review and validation is all about. You present your theory, describe the system or logic used to arrive to it as well as data on which base your theory. I have presented part of my theory which deals with PIE and IE bit. So you know where I stand on that. I have plenty of data to support it which i have and still am presenting on the discussion topics i listed earlier. This is work in progress and i have pile of data which is still not publish. I am editing it at the moment. Data is multidisciplinary. Please read it, and feel free to ask questions and make comments.

As for the natural language theory, I have presented part of it and in bad way, i admit it. I will write the  summary today or tomorrow, describing what i the theory states and why i believe that the theory is valid. I have presented some data which supports my theory. I have a lot more data available, and i will be presenting it here as i find time. You can use my theory, and the data i supply to support it, in any way you want. You can try to disprove my theory, and please do so, but use logic, and analysis and not quotes, and slogans. Show me where and why am i wrong. Show me what the alternative "right" thing should be.

You seem to be opposed to your theory being wrong and instead assuming that the entire goal of this conversation is to support it and prove it right.

As every scientist i believe that my theory is right. I spent lots of time and effort researching it and putting it together. You will not find one scientist who will work on a theory, and present it to public, if he thinks the theory is wrong. What would be the point of that. But not everyone is right about everything. Not all theories are valid, but a lot of times you need external input to see your mistake. I am completely prepared to accept that i am wrong completely or partially. But i will not accept that i am wrong just because you or someone else says so. You will need to show me and everyone else that i am wrong and elaborate why. And you will have to do it using logical arguments. If i am found wrong, so be it. Let's get to work of me trying to prove that i am right and you trying to prove that i am wrong. We can both learn a lot from it, i believe.

Freknu

If you cannot understand the purpose, methods, and limitations of comparative linguistics

I believe i do understand the purpose and methods of comparative linguistics. You are placing limitations on it which don't exist. That is what is stopping you to see what is lying before you in full light. Your "this is not possible" attitude is your big problem and what shows that you are not a scientist, but teacher, or preacher. Where do you think we would be if Wright brothers  gave up working on their flying machine design, because someone told them it won't work, there is a limitation in physics that says things heavier than air can't fly? Open your eyes, and more to the point your scientific mind if you have any, and have a look at all this without preconceptions. Maybe your limitations are not real, but imaginary.

You say that i don't understand the "phonology of PIE". What is PIE? I talked about it a lot, and i told you that it is very important to set that straight if we want to continue talking about the original natural language. But you probably just ignored everything i said. PIE = R1a language(s) with the same common ancient natural root. It existed before the merge with other non R1a languages and still exists as Slavic languages. The same is with R1b languages.
If you look at base roots of Serbian and Irish, you will find the original natural language used to build all the other European IE languages, (their R1a+b part). What is not clear here or contrary to logic?
If i can use root sounds and syllables derived from Serbian and Irish to build English and German words
If I can build them from scratch, in such a way that sum of the meaning of all the sounds give the actual meaning of the word
If I can do it again and again, with words from different IE languages, in consistent fashion
If i can produce clusters of words with related meanings in multiple languages using same core sounds and their meanings
If i can build your PIE roots using root sounds to produce the actual meanings of the roots that are true to the actual cluster they are supposed to be the root of

What can you conclude from this? Luck, coincidence, cherry picking? Your better like cherries, because I have so many linguistic cherries that i am planning to throw down your way. By the way do you know where word cherry comes from?

From Middle English cheri (loanword from Anglo-Norman, from Old Northern French cherise (“cherry”)- compare Old French cerise, which gave modern French cerise and later English cerise from this). Compare Old English ciris (“cherry”), (from Late Latin ceresia), which died out after the Norman invasion and was replaced by the French-derived word.[1]
The Middle English singular is a back-formation from Old Northern French cherise (“cherry”) (interpreted as a plural), from Vulgar Latin ceresia, a reinterpretation of the neuter plural of Late Latin ceresium, from Latin cerasium (cerasum, cerasus (“cherry tree”)), from Ancient Greek κεράσιον (kerasion, “cherry fruit”).

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

No root etymology anywhere in site. And the thing is I don't even need to go to the root sounds to give you proper etymology.

These are Serbian words:

krv - blood (red in color)
crv (tcrv)- root for word crven (tsrven) meaning red in color
črv, červ - root for word črven, červen meaning red in color in another dialect
crn (tsrn)- black
črn, čern - black

trešnja - cherry
črešnja, čerešnja - cherry

Root is either Slavic word "čer" meaning red or krv meaning blood. krv, srv, crv (tsrv), črv are all the equivalents meaning blood red. This is why we have Greek "kerasion" from "kr" meaning blood red but Greeks turned it into "ker" the same way in some dialects of Serbian you find "čern" instead of "črn" for black or "červeni" instead of "črveni" for red.

čerešnja = čer(ven) + es + na = blood red + is + on
kerasion = ker(vena) + si + on = blood red + is + on

Now please let me know why don't we find this in the above etymology?

[freknu]

Ser-Cr. krv "blood" < PBS. *krouio < PIE. *kreu- *krū- "blood; flesh"
Ser-Cr. crn "black" < PS. *crn < PIE. *ḱer(s)- "black; dirty"
Ser-Cr. trešnja "cherry" < Lat. cerasia < Grk. kranos, keranos < PIE. *ker- "cherry"

Three unrelated roots.

[dublin]

freknu

Ser-Cr. krv "blood" < PBS. *krouio < PIE. *kreu- *krū- "blood; flesh"
Ser-Cr. crn "black" < PS. *crn < PIE. *ḱer(s)- "black; dirty"
Ser-Cr. trešnja "cherry" < Lat. cerasia < Grk. kerasos < PIE. *ker- "cherry tree"

Three unrelated roots.

Are you blind or just out of your mind? Have you ever seen cherry? And what exactly is this root of kerasos *ker if not blood? Do you trust your books more than your logic and your eyes?