The language of old Europe

[dublin]

Let's go back to sound "N" and related words. I also believe that part of this post will show my friend freknu that some things sound funny because you don't know enough about them.

If you inhale through your nose with your mouth slightly opened you get sound "N".
If you inhale through your nose with your mouth closed and you get sound between "N" and "M" depending on the position of your tong.

Nos - Nos, a boundary point of our face. Also sound produced by sNiffing is "N". So NOS = N + O + S = sound N + hole + with = the hole that makes N sound.


The fact that both "N" and "M" sounds can be made through our noses, led to all "N" and "M" words related to nose and smell:

English, Serbian, Irish

Nos - nos - srón
Nostril - nozdrva - cuinneán, srón-pholl
sNout - njuška - smuit
sNaffle, snavel - kljun - ghob, gop, guilbend, gulba, gulban
sNiff - njušiti, šmrkati - snaois
sNivel - cmizdriti, from smizdriti
sNeeze - kijati - sraoth
sNite - blow your nose - izduvaj nos - srón séideadh
sNooze - dremati - shuan
sNore - hrkati - roncaim
sNuff - onjušiti - snaois
sNoop - cunjati, Njuškati - snaois
sNot - slina - ronn, smuga
sNigger - smeškati se
sNeer - podsmehnuti se
sNort - šmrkati, frktati

Smell - Miris - boladh
smell bad, stink - smrdi - brént, mosach
smacking - mljacanje - blastarnach (something smells nice, soliva starts rushing in our mouth, we smack to collect and swallow it. Sound of that action)

mmmmmmmmmm - sound when something smells, and as our experience tells us also tastes nice


Have a closer look at all these words above. The sound they all have apart from "N" is sound "S". As a matter of fact, most of the English words describing things related with nose start with letter "S" followed with letter "N". Why?

In Slavic (R1a) languages, "S" and word "SA" means with, close by to someone or something. 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...You are with something or someone when you are close to something or someone and you can touch something or someone producing sound "S".

In Sanskrit (partially R1a) language "SA" is the root word for words meaning together and actually means "with" but also "having" from having with me:


Examples:

sa RSirAjanya   adj.   together with the royal RSis
sa RNa      adj.   having debts
sa          adverb   possession

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sa&script=&direction=SE&link=yes


For other Examples where "sa" is a root for words meaning together have a look here:

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=together&trans=Translate&direction=AU

Now have a look at all the meanings of the word "SU" = S + U = with, together, close to + In. Remember what i said about the meaning of sound "U" being "IN"?

sU   adj.   producing (with + product + in)
sU   adj.   begetting (with + offshoot + in)
sU   adj.   bringing forth (with + something + in)
sU   adj.   procreating (with + sffspring + in)
sU   m.   mother (with + baby + in)
sU   m.   one who begets (with + baby + in)
sU   m.   child-bearing (with + baby + in)
sU   adverb   good (what procreates, begets, gives birth, produces is good)
sU   adverb   well (what procreated, begetted, gave birth, produced has done well)

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sU&script=&direction=SE&link=yes
http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=su&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

"SE" means serving. You need to be close to someone to serve him.

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=se&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

"SI" is the root of words for forcing together, like tie, bind, fetter

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=si&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

"SO" is the root of words which mean settle, rest, kill, destroy

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=so&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

SA words also carry the meaning of SA = S + A = with, close to + Up, heaven, god

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=Sa&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

In English "S" is used to make possessive singular by describing possession through closeness, in the same way "NA" does it in South Carpathian dialects of R1a languages, and in old Irish and in exactly the same way modern Irish and Hibernian English express possession even today. You possess what is close, on, of you.

Sound "S" is used in English to also build plural. Plural is used to describe groups of objects or people. They are a group, because they are grouped together, they are with each other in some way, they are close in meaning or position. So In English "S" has the same meaning as in other R1a languages, but that original meaning was forgotten today.

In Middle English, both the possessive singular and the common plural forms were regularly spelled es, and when the e was dropped in pronunciation and from the written word, the habit grew up of writing an apostrophe in place of the lost e in the possessive singular to distinguish it from the plural. Later the apostrophe, which had come to be looked upon as the sign of the possessive, was carried over into the plural, but was written after the s to differentiate that form from the possessive singular. By a process of popular interpretation, the 's was supposed to be a contraction for his, and in some cases the his was actually "restored." [Samuel C. Earle, et al, "Sentences and their Elements," New York: Macmillan, 1911]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=s&p=0&allowed_in_frame=0

The English "S" meaning of, plural, together, comes from R1a languages. You can see this from the following list, which shows languages divided based on the word for "with":


R1a languages (sound "S" expresses closeness, sound of rubbing two surfaces together)

Slavic languages - s, z, sa, za, sajedno, zajedno
Hindi - Sātha
Bengali - Saṅgē
Gujarati - Sāthē
Nepali - Sanga, saga, sita, krpaya
Marathi - saha
Urdu - ST, SAT

These are languages affected by R1a languages

Lithuanian - su, pas, nuo
Finnish - kanssa, jossa

R1b or E1b languages, North Africa, Atlantic, Middle East (sound "M" expresses closeness, sound of two lips tight together)

Albanian - me, nga
Arabic - ma
Danish - med, samen
Dutch - met
English - with
German - mit
Greek - me
Hebrew - me
Icelandic - med, vid, hja
Maltese - ma, bil, bl
Norwegian - med, til
Swedish - med
Persian - ba (mpa)

R1b or E1b languages, Asia minor, steppe people (sound "L" expresses closeness, sound of tong stack to the roof of the mouth)

Azerbaijani - ile, olan
Turkish - ile, olan, sahip
Curdish - l, lt
Hungarian - Val, vel, nal, nel

Irish and Welsh sit between "L" group and "K" group

Irish - chomh, com, la, chéile
Welsh - gyda, gilydd


R1b, R1a and I2 languages, North Eastern mediteranean (sound "K" expresses closeness, sound of two hands clapping, also throat tightly squeesed)

Latin - cum, qum
Italian - con
Portugese - com
Romanian - cu
Spanish - con
Estonian - koos, mile
French - avec from cum
Galician - con


These languages also use KGH group to express closeness, togetherness, related to the previous group:


Tajik - cat, catti
Amharic - gar, gara, zänd
Armenian - het, htun
Berber - akəđ
Basque - batera, rekin
Chinese - tong, yi, gen
Filipino - sa, may, ng, kay
Hmong - nrog
Indonesian - dengan, besrama, sama, serta
Javanese - karo, kanti
Khmer - cheamuoy
Korean - wa, gwa, eulo, hamkke, gajin
Lao - mi, kab, thimi
Malay - dengan, bersama, mempunyai
Somali - qaba, ula, kula
Swahili - na, qwa
Tamil - utan, kontu, konta, mulam
Thai - dwi, mi, cab
Vietnamese - voi, co
Youruba - pelu, can pelu
zulu - nge, kanye na, na
Mongolian - Nj, hamt, taj

Catalan - amb
Georgian - ert’ad
Latvian - ar, pie, no

[dublin]

so (adv.) Look up so at Dictionary.com
Old English swa, swæ (adv., conj., pron.) "in this way," also "to that extent; so as, consequently, therefore," and purely intensive; from Proto-Germanic *swa (cf. Old Saxon, Middle Dutch, Old High German so, Old Norse sva, Danish saa, Swedish så, Old Frisian sa, Dutch zo, German so "so," Gothic swa "as"), from PIE reflexive pronomial stem *swo- "so" (cf. Greek hos "as," Old Latin suad "so," Latin se "himself"), derivative of *s(w)e-, pronoun of the third person and reflexive (see idiom).

Old English swa frequently was strengthened by eall, and so also is contained in compounds as, also, such. The -w- was eliminated by contraction from 12c.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=so&allowed_in_frame=0

These are Serbian (Croatian, Bosnian) words:

svi (all men)
sve (all women)
sva (all children)
svo (all alive, dead...)
sav (all people, nation, world)

In other Slavic (R1a) languages it is svi, sva, sve, svo = vse.


do it like so = do it like (svi, sva, sve, svo, sav) = do it like everyone else

swa - everyone
eall swa - everyone everyone

Sanskrit:

sva   adj.   of self
sva   adj.   her own
sva   adj.   our own
sva   adj.   their own
sva   adj.   thy own
sva   m.   one's self
sva   m.   friend
sva   m.   relation
sva   m.   human soul
sva   m.   kinsman
sva   m.   man of one's own people or tribe
sva   m.   relative
sva   n.   property
sva   n.   riches
sva   n.   Ego
sva   n.   second astrological mansion
sva   n.   one's own goods
sva   n.   wealth
sva   n.   plus or the affirmative quantity
sva   poss. adj.   own
sva   poss. adj.   one's own
sva   poss. adj.   my own
sva   poss. adj.   his own
svA   f.   woman of one's own caste

http://www.spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=sva&script=&direction=SE&link=yes

How did this get to Latin and all Germanic languages when words for all people are not "sv" words in these languages? Were they influenced by some R1a language, older than Latin and Germanic languages?

[dublin]

It is interesting how no one made any comments about the data I gave you for the distribution of "with" words across the world.
Do you remember what i wrote about R1b languages being Afro Asiatic and R1a languages being Indo European? And how all "Indoeuropean" languages are a product of the mix of these two languages in different proportions? And what i wrote about both of these languages being pre Indoeuropean as well as Indoeuropean?

If you look at the data, you see that all Slavic languages and all Indo Arian languages, R1a languages, are grouped together. And then you see that all non Slavic languages of Europe are grouped together, but they are in the same group with Arabic and Hebrew? Did you see how Irish and Welsh fall in the same group as Turkic languages?

Did anyone notice that Latin cum also contains "M" sound to represent togetherness? This is what we find for the etymology of this word:

From Proto-Italic *kom, from Proto-Indo-European *ḱóm (“next to, at, with, along”). Cognate with Gothic- (ga-), Old English ge-, Old High German gi-, Russian ко (ko, “to”), Persian prefix هم (ham, “co-, same”), Old High German hansa (“company, host, troop”). More at hanse.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cum#Latin

I already said that go, ga, gu, gi are pointing words from the southern Carpathian dialects of Serbian. In Serbian "ko" means who. But in Serbian we also have word "K, KA" wich means towards. When you go "K" (towards) someone, you end up "S" (touching, together) with that person. Or when you move something "K" (towards) something else, these two things end up "S" (touching, together).

"GA" - look at him, that
"KA" - go towards him, that
"KO" - what, who, that, this, which

In Serbian one of the meanings of the word "O" is "about, talk about, regarding, concerning". So "KO" = K(A) + O = that, towards + about = something or someone we talk about = who, which
 
"TO JE" - that is
"TOj JE" - this is
"KO JE" - what is
"KOj JE", "KOJ" - who is
"KOJ" - who, as in: koj je to - who is that
"KOJ" - which, as in: pas koj laje - dog which barks


So where did Latin "cum" meaning "with" come from? From this strange languge called "Proto Italic" and it's word "KOM". KOM = KO + ME = who, which + with = together. So Latin belongs to the same group of R1b languages in which "M(E)" means with, but because Latin i a late product of the R1a, R1b, I2... mixing it retained the "ME" word meaning "with" in a complex word "KOME" meaning "together".


Also did you see how all the languages listed from all around the world, use limited number of sounds to express idea of "with"? Why? Because there is only limited number of natural sounds, which can be obviously associated with the meaning of "with". Different languages inventors from different genetic families, used a different sound from this "with" sound group, and this is how we ended up with different words for "with".

Two words which logically go with word "with" are "all" and "together". Here is the above list of "with" words, now with "all" and "together" words added to it. It is interesting to see how South Slavic languages are the only ones to preserve direct link s, sa (with) - sva, svi, svo, sve (all) - sajedno, skupa (togeter)...

Language - with - all - together

South Slavic languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Bulgarian)- s, z, sa, za - svi, sve, sva - sajedno, zajedno, skupa, skupaj
West Slavic languages (Slovak, czech) - s - vše - spolu
East Slavic languages - s - vse - vmeste, razom, razam, vojedino
Hindi - Sātha - Saba - satha, eka satha, ke satha
Bengali - Saṅgē - Saba - eka sange
Gujarati - Sāthē - Sarva, Dareka, Badha - eka sathe
Nepali - Sanga, saga, sita, krpaya - Sabai - samgai
Marathi - saha - Sarva - ekatra, miluna
Urdu - ST, SAT - SB, TMM, TMAM - DWSR ST

These are languages affected by R1a languages

Lithuanian - su, pas, nuo - visi - kartu, drauge
Finnish - kanssa, jossa - kaikki, täysi, koko - yhdessä, koossa

R1b or E1b languages, North Africa, Atlantic, Middle East (sound "M" expresses closeness, sound of two lips tight together)

Albanian - me, nga - gjithë, të gjithë - bashkë
Arabic - ma - kol, KF, KAF - mahan
Danish - med, samen - alle - sammen, samtidig
Dutch - met - alle - samen, bij elkaar
English - with - all - together
German - mit - alle - zusammen, miteinander
Greek - me - ola - mazi, omou
Hebrew - me - kl - IXD, BIXD
Icelandic - med, vid, hja - allt - saman
Maltese - ma, bil, bl- kollha, kollu - flimkien
Norwegian - med, til - alle - sammen
Swedish - med - alla - samman
Persian - ba (mpa) - hmh - B HM, BA HM

It is interesting that the above languages which use "me" meaning with use  "saman, samen" to express "together".  words "saman, samen"  come from sa man = with man = together. The problem is that none of these languages has "S(a)" meaning with. So is it possible that saman came from Slavic sa men = with me?

Is Man actually men, me, m, human.

Old English man, mann "human being, person (male or female); brave man, hero; servant, vassal," from Proto-Germanic *manwaz (cf. Old Saxon, Swedish, Dutch, Old High German man, German Mann, Old Norse maðr, Danish mand, Gothic manna "man"), from PIE root *man- (1) "man" (cf. Sanskrit manuh, Avestan manu-, Old Church Slavonic mozi, Russian muzh "man, male").
Sense of "adult male" is late (c.1000); Old English used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man. Universal sense of the word remains in mankind and manslaughter. Similarly, Latin had homo "human being" and vir "adult male human being," but they merged in Vulgar Latin, with homo extended to both senses. A like evolution took place in Slavic languages, and in some of them the word has narrowed to mean "husband."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man&allowed_in_frame=0

Slavic word "muž" (man, husband) comes from "žena" (woman, wife). There are two possible etymologies:
Muž = M + U + ž = man + in + life = the one who can get life into a woman...
Mož = M + O + ž = man + of, from + life = man who gives life
Word "žena" = ž + e + n + a = life + give + cut + grows, comes out, up.
Slavic verb "može" (can) comes from Mož, the one who can create. Muža (milking) comes from the fact that milking and masturbation are two almost identical actions, producing white liquid...


R1b or E1b languages, Asia minor, steppe people (sound "L" expresses closeness, sound of tong stack to the roof of the mouth)

Azerbaijani - ile, olan - küll, butun, hami - birlikdə, birle,
Turkish - ile, olan, sahip - tum, butun, her, hep - birlikte, beraber
Curdish - l, lt - hemû, tev, sercem, yekpare - ligel, digel, bi hev ve
Hungarian - Val, vel, nal, nel - minden, egész, valamennyi - együtt, közösen


Irish and Welsh sit between "L" group and "K" group

Irish - chomh, com, la, chéile - cách, cech, gach, go leir, uile - le chéile, immaróen
Welsh - gyda, gilydd - pob, holl, mnob, phob, gyd - ynghyd, gilydd


R1b, R1a and I2 languages, North Eastern Mediterranean (sound "K" expresses closeness, sound of two hands clapping, also throat tightly squeezed)

Latin - cum, qum - omnes, totus, cuncta - simul, cum, una
Italian - con - tutti, ogni, ciascuno - insieme
Portugese - com - todos, tudo - juntos, em grupo
Romanian - cu - toate, tot - împreună, alaturi, laolalta
Spanish - con - todo, todos - juntos, a la vez
Estonian - koos, mile - koik, dogu - koos, kokku, ühiselt
French - avec from cum - tout, toutes - ensemble, en même temps
Galician - con - todo - xuntos


These languages also use KGH group to express closeness, togetherness, related to the previous group:

Tajik - cat, catti - hama
Amharic - gar, gara, zänd - hulu, hayal, mulu qan - tägara, bägara, qanaja, tangaga...
Armenian - het, htun - amboghj, bolory, ameny - het, miasin, hamategh
Berber - akəđ - marra - akəđ
Basque - batera, rekin - guzti, guztiak - batera, bildu, elkarrekin
Chinese - tong, yi, gen - Quán, Suǒyǒu - Yīqǐ
Filipino - sa, may, ng, kay - lahat, dilang, taganas - magkasama
Hmong - nrog - tag nrho - ke, ua ke
Indonesian - dengan, besrama, sama, serta - semua, seluruh, semuanya - bersama, sama
Javanese - karo, kanti - kabeh - bersama, samiya, bebarengan
Khmer - cheamuoy - teangoasa - ruomoknea
Korean - wa, gwa, eulo, hamkke, gajin - modeun, modu, jeonche - hamkke, gati, modu
Lao - mi, kab, thimi - thangmod, thuk, thukkhon - kan, huam, huamkan
Malay - dengan, bersama, mempunyai - semua, segala - bersama, sama
Somali - qaba, ula, kula - kulli, dhan, dhammaan - wada
Swahili - na, qwa - kila, wote, yote - kwa pamoja
Tamil - utan, kontu, konta, mulam - Ellā, Aṉaittu, Aṉaivarum - Cērntu, Oṉṟāka
Thai - dwi, mi, cab - Thuk, Thang, Thậngh̄md - rhea dwi kan, rwm kan
Vietnamese - voi, co - tom lai, tat ca - cung, cùng nhau, voi nau
Youruba - pelu, can pelu - gbogbo - papo, lapapo
zulu - nge, kanye na, na - konke, nke, nkana - ndawonye, kanyekanye
Mongolian - Nj, hamt, taj - bukh, buten, bugd - khamt, khamtdaa

Catalan - amb - tot, tota - junts
Georgian - ert’ad - gvela, righsi, mt'eli - ert’ad
Latvian - ar, pie, no - jebkāds, visi, viss - ka, ka ari, kopa

[dublin]

And just to add few more arguments for my claim that sound "N" means separation, boundary, and also to give few etymologies for some English words which seem not to have them:

Look at these English words:

nag

"annoy by scolding," 1828, originally a dialectal word meaning "to gnaw" (1825), probably ultimately from a Scandinavian source (cf. Old Norse gnaga "to complain," literally "to bite, gnaw," dialectal Swedish and Norwegian nagga "to gnaw"), from Proto-Germanic *gnagan, related to Old English gnagan "to gnaw" (see gnaw). Related: Nagged; nagger; nagging.

http://www.etymonline.com/

nag  - bite at something, attack the boundary

naked

Old English nacod "nude, bare; empty," also "not fully clothed," from Proto-Germanic *nakwathaz (cf. Old Frisian nakad, Middle Dutch naket, Dutch naakt, Old High German nackot, German nackt, Old Norse nökkviðr, Old Swedish nakuþer, Gothic naqaþs "naked"), from PIE root *nogw- "naked" (cf. Sanskrit nagna, Hittite nekumant-, Old Persian *nagna-, Greek gymnos, Latin nudus, Lithuanian nuogas, Old Church Slavonic nagu-, Russian nagoi, Old Irish nocht, Welsh noeth "bare, naked"). Related: Nakedly; nakedness.

http://www.etymonline.com/

naked - no boundary, visible. Word has full etymology in Serbian from naga = na + ga = there, take it + he is, it is = naked, vulnerable, visible, available...The same with nagana = na + ga + na = there + he is + there


nap

Old English hnappian "to doze, sleep lightly," of unknown origin, apparently related to Old High German hnaffezan, German dialectal nafzen, Norwegian napp. Related: Napped; napping.

http://www.etymonline.com/

nap - boundary between reality and dream

narrow

Old English nearu "narrow, constricted, limited; petty; causing difficulty, oppressive; strict, severe," from West Germanic *narwaz "narrowness" (cf. Frisian nar, Old Saxon naru, Middle Dutch nare, Dutch naar); not found in other Germanic languages and of unknown origin. The narrow seas (c.1400) were the waters between Great Britain and the continent and Ireland. Related: Narrowness.

http://www.etymonline.com/

narrow - boundaries preventing movement from N + A + R + O = boundary + up + cut off + both, around, all sides.

Serbian word bunar - well, draw-well. from B(V)o + U + nar = water + in + narrow space

Wiktionary says:

bunar - From Ottoman Turkish پیکار (punar, pınar, “fountain, spring; wellhead”).

However

English - Serbian -  Turkish
drink - piti, piće - içki, içmek
on - na - üzerinde, üstünde
drink on - pi na - içmek

Well is the place where you drink on. Whose word is then "pinar" place where you pi and = drink on? There are 10 million Turks of South Slavic (Serbian) descent....Celts lived in both Serbia and Turkey. In early medieval time hundreds of thousands of Balkan Slavs with their families were relocated by Byzantium to Anatolia to protect the eastern borders of the Empire. Their descendants still live in Turkey. Serbian was for almost two centuries one of the official court languages of Turkey. Yanisari, for centuries the elite military of the Turkish army, consisted of Serbian children forcibly taken from their parents as blood tax, and then trained to be soldiers.  All these Slavs living in Turkey for millenniums, and particularly the military and political elite of Slavic descent surely had some influence on Turkish language.

It is funny how üstünde sounds like ustane = u + stane = in + standing, meaning stand up in Serbian. However Turkish word for stand is durmak and word for stand up is ayağa kalkmak...


nation

c.1300, from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci; see genus). Political sense has gradually predominated, but earliest English examples inclined toward the racial meaning "large group of people with common ancestry." Older sense preserved in application to North American Indian peoples (1640s). Nation-building first attested 1907 (implied in nation-builder).

http://www.etymonline.com/

nātio f (genitive nātiōnis); third declension

birth
nation, people
race, class

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/natio#Latin

nation =  na + ti + on  = take + you + on = take the baby
nation  = na + ti + on  = on, is after, looks like + you + he = he looks like you, us, native
nasion  = naš + je + on  = our + is + he = native.

separates us from them, natives from aliens.

nature

late 13c., "restorative powers of the body, bodily processes; powers of growth;" from Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe," literally "birth," from natus "born," past participle of nasci "to be born," from PIE *gene- "to give birth, beget" (see genus).

http://www.etymonline.com/

nātūra f (genitive nātūrae); first declension
nature, quality of a thing
character, temperament, inclination
the natural world
(literally rare) birth

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/natura#Latin

from natura = na + tu + ra = na (on) + tu (there) + ra(ste) (grows, life). Ra is an old word meaning life, food, energy, growth...

nut

"hard seed," Old English hnutu, from Proto-Germanic *khnut- (cf. Old Norse hnot, Dutch noot, Old High German hnuz, German nuß "nut"), from PIE *kneu- "nut" (cf. Latin nux; see nucleus). Sense of "testicle" is attested from 1915. Nut-brown is from c.1300 of animals; c.1500 of complexions of women.

http://www.etymonline.com/

nut = n + u + t = boundary + in + that (what you want to eat)

Look at these Serbian words:

nu - there, take it
nut - there, take it, look
nutri - inside
unutra = inside
nutrina - essence, what is inside
iznutrica - offal


natter

"grumble, chatter aimlessly, nag," 1829, northern England dialect variant of gnatter "to chatter, grumble," earlier (18c.) "to nibble away," probably of echoic origin. Related: Nattered; nattering. As a noun, 1866, from the verb.

http://www.etymonline.com/

To bite at the boundary, to break the boundary

Enough for today.

[Daniel]

Completely unfalsifiable (and therefore irrelevant).

Exactly the same argument could be made about any other sound.

For example, D:
die: the ending of life
danger: the meeting point between fear and knowledge
head: the part of the body that is a boundary for the senses to the outside world (also hand)
donut: a boundary between man and heart disease
denial: the boundary between truth and belief


The significance of an argument depends on both whether it can be supported and whether it can be supported better than other alternative arguments.

[jkpate]

It is interesting how no one made any comments about the data I gave you for the distribution of "with" words across the world.

I've been waiting for that abstract in the hope of seeing that you have something more solid than population genetics and phonosemantics. It appears that I will be disappointed. On the topic of phonosemantics:

Completely unfalsifiable (and therefore irrelevant).

This is the crucial point. Does your theory of phonosemantics make predictions? Freknu has mentioned a few times that you should read up on the comparative method. This method relies on a theory of language change in terms of the overall sound system (e.g., devoicing of final obstruents). This theory of language change makes predictions about the kinds of variation we will find historically and synchronically that are largely borne out (with some wrinkles). This is why the comparative method is reliable: it doesn't just retrofit to whatever data we come across.

Does your theory rule out djr33's example for "D"? Or any example that I might come up with for another "sound"?

[dublin]

jkpate

I did say i was going to post my summary by the end of the week.

But for the sake of answering the next question i will just say this:

My theory says that original language was developed based on natural sounds which are logically linked to actions and situations through collective experience of a group which is in process of making a language. We are talking about the situation in which people are trying to communicate but have no words, no grammar. How do you start communicating? By using signs and sounds. But sounds have to bi instantly understandable because there is no way to explain what they mean. So you rub something and sound is "ssssssssss". Snake slithers near you and sound is "ssssssss". So if you rub something and say "ssssss" people will associate sound "sssssssss" with rubbing and eventually surface. If you then put two hands together and rub them you will hear "sssssssssss" sound. Two hands put together, to people holding hands "ssssssssss". You can only caressssssssss someone if you are with someone. People sleeping together, crowding for heat, shuffling "ssssssssssss". Together "ssssssssss" surface "ssssssssssss"...Teeth closed together to produce sound "ssssssz".  All these actions link "ssssss" sound logically with together, with "sss".

I already spoke about this when i explained why 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. Why do we have wolf ans voulk, and oulk? Because different people hear same thing differently and are able to reproduce it differently. If members of one family hear "wolf" while watching wolves, and one of them points at the wolves and says "wolf", everyone from that family will know from then on that "wolf" means wolf.  Members of another family hear "oulku" while watching wolves, and one of them points at the wolves and says "oulku", everyone from that family will know from then on that "oulk" means wolf. 

As i said already, 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.

So when you ask:

Does your theory rule out djr33's example for "D"? Or any example that I might come up with for another "sound"?

I can tell you that djr33's examples do not follow the most important principle of my theory, which says that original sound meaning has to be self explanatory. Sound "D" can not be linked to any action or situation which is obviously linked to a boundary. Sound "N" can be linked to boundary and all the boundary words with "N" in it, starting from "No" support that.

Does your theory of phonosemantics make predictions?

It does. For instance it says that most simple words with sound "N", from the language where "N" means "no", will be linked to boundary, separation, definition. And that complex words from those languages which have "No" in them will have some logical link to boundary and will be built using parts of simple boundary words.

djr33

The significance of an argument depends on both whether it can be supported and whether it can be supported better than other alternative arguments.

You have no alternative arguments. There is no other theory that goes this deep into the language structure and language development. No one tried to break down the "root" words to tell us how did people arrive to these "root" words.

The question is "why do we say NO when we say NO and why do we say ROOT for instance"? What i am talking about is break these words down and tell me how they were made. If you have a theory that deals with this, please present it. Otherwise saying things like this is just laughable.

[Daniel]

My theory says that original language was developed based on natural sounds which are logically linked to actions and situations through collective experience of a group which is in process of making a language. ...

I already spoke about this when i explained why i think that people originally used characteristic sounds of animals as their names. ...

Maybe.
But why would there be traces of that in languages today? Let's assume that you're right about the original form of language-- with so much variation, why hasn't all evidence been lost due to sound change? Sounds change a lot. Yes, even N.

I can tell you that djr33's examples do not follow the most important principle of my theory, which says that original sound meaning has to be self explanatory. Sound "D" can not be linked to any action or situation which is obviously linked to a boundary. Sound "N" can be linked to boundary and all the boundary words with "N" in it, starting from "No" support that.

Complete nonsense.
D is a perfect sound for the expression of a boundary because it is similar to the sound when an object/person crashes into a surface. It represents the fact that you can't pass through that surface.
Also, as further evidence, consider Homer Simpson's favorite expression "D'oh", which clearly represents a boundary (through onomatopoeia) to the thought process.

You have no alternative arguments. There is no other theory that goes this deep into the language structure and language development. No one tried to break down the "root" words to tell us how did people arrive to these "root" words.

Completely incorrect. Lots of people have tried to do this. They have failed because it's either wrong in principle or very hard to do.
And there are many alternative theories.

An alternative theory to gravity is that there is no vertical force acting on objects on earth. Ok, that one fails. Another alternative is that there is a vertical force pulling upward on objects. Ok, again, that one fails. Alternative theories don't need to be plausible, but they do need to be theoretically possible. If your theory/evidence excludes many of them, then it's a good theory.

In this case, there are many alternative theories possible. For example, "D" or "M" might be the sound for a boundary. Or there might be no sound for a boundary at all. Perhaps "D" means something like "boundary" but not exactly. Or perhaps there is just no phonosemantic correspondence.
The problem is that you don't address any alternative theories. You just make stipulations as if that is meaningful. "N means boundary, ok?" Well, no, not ok. That's unscientific, unfalsifiable and truly unintelligible. If you claim that then you are suggesting you can answer:
1. Why no other sound means "boundary"; and
2. Why N doesn't mean something else.

The question is "why do we say NO when we say NO and why do we say ROOT for instance"? What i am talking about is break these words down and tell me how they were made. If you have a theory that deals with this, please present it. Otherwise saying things like this is just laughable.

This is entirely laughable and ignorant!! I agree. (But probably not in the way you intended.)
Sound change explains "why" the particular sounds are mapped to particular meanings. Your theory completely fails in that regard. Even if we want to assume you are correct, you only can do that for the origin of language. So "no" and "root" are entirely irrelevant. Those aren't phonosemantic words. Why would they be?

Moreover, there's a huge problem with your argument: there is no reason whatsoever to assume that:
1. Early languages operated on phonosemantic principles; or
2. Arbitrariness is not common in all communication systems

Animal languages are a good place to start. Certainly once in a while animals imitate the sounds of other animals. But the vast majority of the time, the relationship between sound and meaning is arbitrary. It's not as complex as human language, but a particular type of howl or grunt or bark or tweet conveys meaning unrelated to the sound itself. There are even dialects within animal languages. Therefore, your idea that humans originally made all sounds iconic is absurd. Even if that's the case, it's pre-pre-language, before the level that monkeys (and all other animals) are at today.

Your unfounded assumptions and narrow scope of explanation render the theory irrelevant (and incorrect).

[dublin]

jkpate

Apologies for not submitting my summary yet. While i was writing I realized that I need to explain the core terms and concepts on which the theory is based. So it might take me a few days more to finish it.

djr33


I said:

I can tell you that djr33's examples do not follow the most important principle of my theory, which says that original sound meaning has to be self explanatory. Sound "D" can not be linked to any action or situation which is obviously linked to a boundary. Sound "N" can be linked to boundary and all the boundary words with "N" in it, starting from "No" support that.

To which you replied:

Complete nonsense. D is a perfect sound for the expression of a boundary because it is similar to the sound when an object/person crashes into a surface. It represents the fact that you can't pass through that surface.

As a linguist you are showing rather poor understanding of the English language.

Boundary is not the same thing as a barrier, although in some cases a boundary can be defined by a barrier.

Boundary defines, separates. Without boundaries we would not have objects. I tried to explain this to you when i talked about natural lines which define contours, boundaries of surfaces and objects. But obviously you failed to understand it. Boundary is the place where one thing stops and another starts. The water edge is a boundary of land if you are standing on land and boundary of water, if you are in the water. Look at this picture. Clearly there is no barrier here. Just a boundary defining the end of land and the end of water.



Or have a look at this picture of clouds. You can clearly see the boundary of clouds, but no barrier.



Or have a look at this picture. You can clearly see the boundary of the leaf but no barrier.



Boundary is where "je"  ("Yes, It is" in Serbian) of something stops, and "ne" ("No, It is not" in Serbian) begins. This is why we have "N" in NO. Not Object.

But boundary can be marked by a barrier. For instance here we have cliffs, a barrier, marking a boundary of the sea.



Or in this picture boundary of the field is defined by a wall, which is also a barrier.



Boundary is related to observation. This is why it defines. Barrier is related to motion. This is why barrier prevents, stops.

We see in colors. Line is defined by the sharp change in color. Combined lines and colors give surfaces. The third dimension is created by our brains. So when you see a tree, what you seeing is the boundary line of the tree and the color within the boundary line and outside of the boundary line. You don't see a barrier. A tree only becomes a barrier in relation to movement. Then the surface defined by the boundary line can become an obstacle or a barrier preventing our movement. In that case, if we hit the barrier the collision will produce a sound. The sounds of collision between two natural objects are P, B, D, T. And they are used to define barriers, materials....So you are right, the sound D does represent something hard like what is "Dole" ("Down" in Serbian)

[Daniel]

And what about E as in "end" and "exit" and "enter"?

You're just making up things like boundary vs. border vs. barrier. (But, hey, those all start with B!) Explain how your theory makes predictions. Science is the study of knowledge to make predictions, not an art form where potential metaphorical correspondences are noted.

How is this falsifiable?

[dublin]

djr33

You really don't understand language. But to understand it you need to start looking at it, listening to it and thinking. Which apparently is not what linguists are supposed to do. They are supposed to just quote what others said.

And what about E as in "end" and "exit" and "enter"?

e, je, es - what is
n - boundary
d - da, ta, that

End is related to observation and definition and boundary. This is why it has N in it.

end - what is + boundary + that = the boundary of that

Enter and exit are complex terms which describe actions in relations to place. But enter is related to boundary and exit isn't.

enter (v.)

late 13c., from Old French entrer, from Latin intrare "to go into, enter" (source of Spanish entrar, Italian entrare), from intra "within," related to inter (prep., adj.) "among, between" (see inter-). Related: Entered; entering.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=enter&allowed_in_frame=0

to get in between boundaries. intra = in, un + t + ra = in + that + cut, open way in. R is a sound of scraping which is also associated with cutting with something with teeth, like oldest stone tools.

exit (n.)

1530s, from Latin exit "he or she goes out," third person singular present indicative of exire "go out," from ex- "out" (see ex-) + ire "to go" (see ion). Also from Latin exitus "a leaving, a going out," noun of action from exire. Originally in English a Latin stage direction (late 15c.); sense of "door for leaving" is 1786. Meaning "departure" (originally from the stage) is from 1580s. The verb is c.1600, from the noun; it ought to be left to stage directions and the clunky jargon of police reports. Related: Exited; exiting.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=exit&allowed_in_frame=0

exist (v.)

c.1600, from French exister (17c.), from Latin existere/exsistere "to step out, stand forth, emerge, appear; exist, be" (see existence). "The late appearance of the word is remarkable" [OED]. Related: Existed; existing.

exitus - ex si tus - e + go + si + si + tus = what is + go + is + is + there. what is gone. In Serbian - ne + si + tu - not you are there

Not all pre "Indoeuropan" language which formed "Indoeuropean" language have the same sound roots. The ones I am discussing are from R1a and even earlier R1 languages.

boundary = bound + da + ri = something together + that + cut

bound (n.)

"limit," c.1200, from Anglo-Latin bunda, from Old French bonde "limit, boundary, boundary stone" (12c., Modern French borne), variant of bodne, from Medieval Latin bodina, perhaps from Gaulish. Now chiefly in out of bounds, which originally referred to limits imposed on students at schools.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bound&allowed_in_frame=0

bound = bo, ba + un + d = solid, matter, what is, "be" + in it + that

border (n.)

mid-14c., from Old French bordure "seam, edge of a shield, border," from Frankish *bord or a similar Germanic source (cf. Old English bord "side;" see board (n.2)). The geopolitical sense first attested 1530s, in Scottish (replacing earlier march), from The Borders, name of the district adjoining the boundary between England and Scotland.

border = bo + r + de = solid, matter, what is, "be" + cut + where

barrier (n.)

early 14c., barere, from Anglo-French barrere, Old French barriere "obstacle, gatekeeper," from barre "bar" (see bar (n.1)). First record of barrier reef is from 1805.

bar = ba, bo,be,bi + r = solid, matter, what is, "be" + cut

What do you think? Coincidences, Statistical noise, or are we approaching statistical impossibility of this all being coincidence?

Science is the study of knowledge to make predictions

I predict that most English words containing sound N will be linked in meaning to boundary. I have already analysed quite a few of them and all of them are related to boundary. And I am planning to analyse all of them.

At what percentage of words with N sound, for which i can prove that they are linked to boundary, will you accept that there is an established correlation between sound N and meaning of boundary?

Maybe you will never accept it. Because it will ruin everything you believe in and you teach. Talking about accepting mistakes...

Science is not an art form where potential metaphorical correspondences are noted.

Do you have any idea what language is for? It is used to transmit meaning. But finding meaning in language is obviously meaningless to you.

metaphor (n.)

late 15c., from Middle French metaphore (Old French metafore, 13c.), and directly from Latin metaphora, from Greek metaphora "a transfer," especially of the sense of one word to a different word, literally "a carrying over," from metapherein "transfer, carry over; change, alter; to use a word in a strange sense," from meta- "over, across" (see meta-) + pherein "to carry, bear" (see infer).

You are so bent on dismissing everything I say, that you are leaving your self exposed. You might end up being found wanting (metaphorically speaking)...There's a bit of poetry for you.

How is this falsifiable?

You are using some big words there. I am but a humble linguist. You need to translate this for me into plain English.

[MalFet]

There's actually some very good work being done in phonosemantics, and of course there's tons in population genetics. There's also no shortage of self-indulgent dreck. The difference between the two, in my experience, is almost always the presence of a testable null hypothesis.

[Daniel]

You really don't understand language. But to understand it you need to start looking at it, listening to it and thinking. Which apparently is not what linguists are supposed to do. They are supposed to just quote what others said.

This is absurd and unrelated to your argument.

...Enter and exit are complex terms which describe actions in relations to place. But enter is related to boundary and exit isn't.

Ok, great! Now we're getting somewhere. What possible reason would two terms that are opposites NOT both be related to boundaries?
Enter = go in via a boundary
Exit = go out via a boundary

Seriously... how can your theory possible make predictions?

Is it acceptable if I just note that every word spelled with an P is related to pineapples? How would you actually argue against that?

You're just making things up, then defending it by claiming it makes sense. It does not.

What do you think? Coincidences, Statistical noise, or are we approaching statistical impossibility of this all being coincidence?

What statistics!?
Show me some data, a graph, and a statistical test.

As far as I know, no, certainly not. You're just making arbitrary observations that are neither falsifiable (or validated) or consistent by any obvious methodology.

I predict that most English words containing sound N will be linked in meaning to boundary. I have already analysed quite a few of them and all of them are related to boundary. And I am planning to analyse all of them.

Explain to me why a word is "related to boundary". For example, here are some words with N:
quintuplets
fascinate
sing

Compare these words that do not contain N:
lift
childhood
edge

Explain why the first set of words is related to "boundary" and not the second set! Are you relying only on your assumption that N relates to boundaries? Or can you tell from these words?

At what percentage of words with N sound, for which i can prove that they are linked to boundary, will you accept that there is an established correlation between sound N and meaning of boundary?

You need to learn something about statistics. You need to consider a percentage of words with N, not a number. But more importantly, you need to compare it to the likelihood that the observed correlation is due to chance. That's how statistics works. So you need to determine how unlikely it would be. One method is to compare it to a sample of words that do not contain N and show that for some reason the words with N are much more likely to relate to boundaries.

Maybe you will never accept it. Because it will ruin everything you believe in and you teach. Talking about accepting mistakes...

There are infinitely many useless and wrong ideas that would ruin everything I believe in and teach. Luckily, they're useless and wrong, and I can ignore them. I'm willing to consider your idea as potentially useful and correct, but you won't get anywhere by trying to convince me that I'm not listening. I am. You're not saying anything convincing. Stop circling around the fact that you have no coherent argument. Where's your abstract? Hasn't it been a week? Why are you still rambling?

Do you have any idea what language is for? It is used to transmit meaning. But finding meaning in language is obviously meaningless to you.

Another vacuous ad hominem argument.

I find your ideas much worse than the existing ones. Your job is to somehow try to make them convincing. You're not doing that. Try a different approach, or look for some new ideas.

Additionally, you may want to look into some assumptions you're making. Language may not be "for" anything-- it's an ability in the human mind. We do use it in communication, but you make the assumption that it is necessarily defined by that. This is a HUGE debate in the field. It may or may not be right. But arrogantly and ignorantly pursuing something without understanding your own assumptions is not going to result in good science. Sorry, but there's learning required if you want to make claims that others will listen to.


I mentioned far above that language is "an arbitrary pairing of form and meaning". That is precisely related to your question (and what you claimed I don't understand and am now interested in). It just turns out it isn't the answer you believe.

You are so bent on dismissing everything I say, that you are leaving your self exposed. You might end up being found wanting (metaphorically speaking)...There's a bit of poetry for you.

I'm not opposed to you suggesting new ideas. I'm just telling you when in every way I consider them, they appear wrong and unjustified to me.
Would you prefer that everyone who has an opinion be treated as correct? Or are you a special exception?

How is this falsifiable?

You are using some big words there. I am but a humble linguist. You need to translate this for me into plain English.

This is CRITICAL. Read up on it (easy to do online). Any scientist must understand the idea of falsifiability.

Falsifiability: the potential for being proven wrong.

Hypothesis 1: Everyone loves soup.
Hypothesis 2: Soup is delicious.

The first hypothesis is reasonable scientifically: we can easily test it. If we find one individual who does not like soup, then we have falsified the hypothesis. If not, we can continue to believe that it is reasonable, given no counter-evidence (and therefore not being falsified).

The second hypothesis is useless scientifically: we can't test that, because we have no way to operationalize "delicious" in a meaningful way. We might be able to fix this hypothesis by specifying something ("My dog barks when he drinks the soup" / "I personally like the taste") but without that, it isn't possible to falsify it.

For a hypothesis to be useful, we must be able to IN THEORY prove it wrong, if that data presented itself.

Take the theory of gravity: it's falsifiable because we might prove it wrong if we find observe that all objects float.

The goal isn't to prove the theory wrong, but rather to know that you're not playing a rigged game: if you can't potentially prove it wrong, then there's no point in assuming it means anything.


In the end, you are just making things up (also known as hypothesizing) without creating any way of testing whether those things are reliable (also known as testing or attempted falsification).


1. Come up with a theory.
2. That theory must have a potential weakness, for a certain kind of hypothetical data.
3. See if that data actually exists.
YES: The theory is falsified.
NO: The theory is (so far) reliable and makes predictions.


Note that in science we can never prove anything. We can only falsify bad hypothesis and work toward more compatible ones.

[Daniel]

The difference between the two, in my experience, is almost always the presence of a testable null hypothesis.

Indeed.

There's actually some very good work being done in phonosemantics

Anything in particular you can post?
The problem as far as I can tell is that the degree to which phonosemantics might be valid is very small, so it would have a minor (perhaps unobservable?) effect on the language. Some reasonable theories I've seen make very weak claims.

[MalFet]

Anything in particular you can post?

Language is chock-full of iconicity. There's a book edited by Ohala called "Sound Symbolism", I believe, that's probably the best modern introduction.