Author Topic: Earthlings Speak Moon Language  (Read 11803 times)

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2014, 10:19:37 AM »
You see, how complicated is your explanation of such easy things. Remember it comes from PIE-time, when no TIME, as we understand it, could exist.
In our country we say: everything genial is EASY.
From time being and till now most common tool for measuring is scales. The shape of scales cup is full geometrical copy of the shape of moon crescent. That is why ancient people named both objects with same name as we can see from etymology.

Your hypothesis also breaks anthropological theory, by giving to primitive people common abstract type of intellection.
Moreover, in English word “scales” means also fish cover. As I told you, we will meet the fish very quick )

Regarding etymologies given absolutely correct by you. Don’t you see that in all cases you just mantion characteristics of the moon:
"Measure" as I said comes from moon shaped scale cup.
"Mono" is characteristic of the moon as this object is only one in the visible space and it goes small (young) during new moon. "Mini" is from same source.
"Mind" is great prove of my theory, which says that the moon taught people to think. Antient Indians know it very well and say: Knowledge is milk flowing down from celestial cow.
“Celestial cow” is the moon, if I need to explain it. Cow has crescent shape horns, that is why it is so divine in ancient religions.

So they call themselves “man”, understanding this simple concept, hardly forgotten by “smart” modern people, who see an atom in a microscope, but don’t pay attention to great object hanging over their heads )

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2014, 10:38:07 AM »
You see, how complicated is your explanation of such easy things.

You have it backwards.

From time being and till now most common tool for measuring is scales. The shape of scales cup is full geometrical copy of the shape of moon crescent.
...
Moreover, in English word “scales” means also fish cover.

scale (for weighing) ← ON. skál "bowl" ← PG. *skēlō "bowl" ← PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate"
scale (of fish) ← OFr. escale "shell" ← OHD. scāla "shell; bowl" ← PG. *skēlō "bowl", *skaljō "shell" ← PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate"

Both related to *skiljaną "to separate; to divide; to allot", and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.

Regarding etymologies given absolutely correct by you. Don’t you see that in all cases you just mantion characteristics of the moon...

No, I don't, I don't like to make assumptions and treat them as facts.

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2014, 10:58:52 AM »
>>>and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.
Did I say it? I just said that moon and scales (tool for measurement) are connected semantically, that is why we meet measure in etymology of moon.
Another question. As you see fish “scale” comes from *skiljaną (to separate). From your point of view what is common between fish scales and separation process?

More «assumptions» if you don’t mind:
Money or moneta in Russian refers to round silver objects (coins). There is even a tradition to show money to the moon. Same M-N combination, but etymology will be not connected for sure )
Manege – ROUND object
Minute – back to measuring as well as month.
Finally Sanskrit Mandala - "disc, circle."

And by the way, do you know what SCALA means in Russian? MOUNTIAN, which is a stone as was predicted.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 11:01:05 AM by Lingvogeometry »

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2014, 11:51:00 AM »
>>>and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.
Did I say it? I just said that moon and scales (tool for measurement) are connected semantically ...

It's quite obvious they are not.

... that is why we meet measure in etymology of moon.

How fascinating /sarcasm

Another question. As you see fish “scale” comes from *skiljaną (to separate). From your point of view what is common between fish scales and separation process?

Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.

Money or moneta in Russian refers to round silver objects (coins).

From the surname of Juno, "Monēta" (lit. adviser) who coined money in ancient Rome. From *moneō "I warn, advise; I remind", from *meminī "I remember", from *memón- "to remember", from *men- "to think".

Manege – ROUND object

From French manège "ring", from Italian maneggio, from maneggiare "to handle", from Latin manidieō "I handle", from manus "hand", from PIE. *mH- "hand".

Minute – back to measuring as well as month.

From Latin minūta "minute", from minūtus "diminished", from minuō "I diminish", from PIE. *mey- "small, little"

Finally Sanskrit Mandala - "disc, circle."

Unknown; perhaps *mand- "pen, enclosure".

And by the way, do you know what SCALA means in Russian? MOUNTIAN, which is a stone as was predicted.

From Proto-Slavic *skala, from PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate".

And none of those prove anything, and provide absolutely nothing to your hypothesis. That you are so willing to without a second thought accept such superficial similarities as proof of a relation, quite frankly, boggles my mind.

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2014, 01:34:55 PM »
Dear frenku, first of all thank you for your kind attention to this topic. As I can see you are well educated person and have deep knowledge in linguistics. I appreciate your criticism and professional comments.
Hope you have found something new here, that will help to understand your point of interest more deeply.
I will be glad to continue dialog and share more my findings with you and respected community.
I do not understand why you copy-paste those etymologies. They are well known and I don’t deny any of it.
I said that moon, moneta, manege, mandala are all ROUND. Do you have something against that?   

>>> Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.
This is your explanation why fish scales and separating are related?

Ok, let me try following. Don’t send me etymologies, just answer what is common between the cup and the cap? Semantically.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2014, 01:44:57 PM »
I do not understand why you copy-paste those etymologies.

Because you do not seem to understand their etymology.

I said that moon, moneta, manege, mandala are all ROUND. Do you have something against that?

Those things being round does not make them related, nor does it imply any hidden meaning.

>>> Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.
This is your explanation why fish scales and separating are related?

They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.

Ok, let me try following. Don’t send me etymologies, just answer what is common between the cup and the cap? Semantically.

A cup (*kewp- "hollow") is a hollow vessel, and a cap (*kap- "head") is a garment worn on the head. Etymologically there is no relation.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 02:08:25 PM by freknu »

Offline cranberryletters

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 7
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2014, 11:06:24 PM »
How in the world do you have the patience for this?

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #22 on: December 24, 2014, 11:47:22 AM »
A cup (*kewp- "hollow") is a hollow vessel, and a cap (*kap- "head") is a garment worn on the head. Etymologically there is no relation.

I did not ask you for etymology. Only semantic relation. Correct answer is: both objects have similar shape.
You cannot explain why one word with meaning “separate” gave meaning of “mountain” in another language just by “They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.
Yes, they share the same root, but why meaning “separate” became meaning “mountain”?
I can give you an example:
In PIE it was the root *ker- with meaning “to grow”, which received meaning “crescent” in English. It happened naturally because the moon is growing and crescent is the logic start of such grow process.
Now can you explain why word “horn” appeared from same PIE root? Please. Semantically.
 
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 12:36:35 PM by Lingvogeometry »

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #23 on: December 24, 2014, 01:44:02 PM »
I did not ask you for etymology. Only semantic relation.

You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.

Correct answer is: both objects have similar shape.

Irrelevant.

You cannot explain why one word with meaning “separate” gave meaning of “mountain” in another language just by “They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.

Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

In PIE it was the root *ker- with meaning “to grow”, which received meaning “crescent” in English. It happened naturally because the moon is growing and crescent is the logic start of such grow process.
Now can you explain why word “horn” appeared from same PIE root? Please. Semantically.

They didn't.

PIE. *k̑er- "to grow" and *k̑er- "head; horn" are two different, unrelated roots. You cannot assume something as fact based merely on superficial similarities.

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2014, 07:15:57 AM »
You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.
I did not start any historical linguistics theories yet! Only pure linguistic basis. I understand that meanings are changed, but they change according to LOGIC.
One word transfers to another, but there is a relation between named objects. Otherwise how to name new object? Take some characteristics of old one (shape, color, size, action etc) and give same or changed name to new one. In such way crescent takes characteristic of “growing” from initial root *ker-. Isn’t it?


Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

Yes! And it is logical. Separation is breaking/cracking of something. Fissure is a result of such action. Cliff is a break of shore (BeReG in Russian). Rock and stone are cliff and shore material usually. It is correct and logic.
So as I said between any words of same root such logic MUST present. What was said about the moon is little bit different. It is PAN linguistic correlation. It answers how did human wondered to name first objects.
For example “a stone”. If you never had a word for it, by living in desert, how you will name the stone once you meet it? You will find something already known to you and named. Look at the fullmoon. It looks like a stone and it was available for observation even for desert people. So it is logic to take existed name for the moon and name the stone accordingly. Later I will show real examples fixed by etymologists.

PIE. *k̑er- "to grow" and *k̑er- "head; horn" are two different, unrelated roots.

Sorry, but it even sounds tricky. *k̑er- and *k̑er- are completely phonetically same. Objects and derivatives are very close, but roots are unrelated…? It is same as trying to argue that A letter is unrelated to A letter. I know that linguists accept such “logic”, but this makes the linguistics a quasi-science )
My effort is to make linguistics same precise as mathematics. When rules are surpass exclusions. But not vice versa.
From my point of view, if one root *ker- gives word and meaning “crescent” and another root *ker- gives word and meaning “horn”. And then crescent is full graphic analogue of horns, it means that linguists make a mistake by declaring those roots unrelated.
Lets fix such mistakes together. If we will not question legitimacy of existing theories, we could never receive new ones. More accurate and precise.
Thank you for your attention! I enjoy the discussion with expert as you are.

Just take a look, how ancient people purely understood the graphic relation between the moon and objects the call divine. All human religions are inherit same logic. They symbolize visible “god” in form of horns, nimbus, G-letter, boat, cup and crescent itself. I don’t understand how modern human miss this similarity… It is truly said: if you want to hide something good, just put it in most visible place.


Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2014, 07:55:02 AM »
You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.
I did not start any historical linguistics theories yet!

Yes, you have: you are already arguing for deep historical relations, for mythoetymology, and possibly some form (or hint) of phonosemantics.

I understand that meanings are changed, but they change according to LOGIC.

Many a linguist would probably cringe at it being described as "logical". Meanings shift based on usage, which may or may not be reasoned. The word you are looking for is more likely "describable".

Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

Yes! And it is logical.

It is describable.

Objects and derivatives are very close...

Historically/etymologicall, they are not.

but roots are unrelated…?

Yes, there is so far no demonstrable connection between any of the many similar roots. That's just what they are, similar, not connected. Some connections may still be found as comparative linguistics continues to study language, but that does not by any means imply that any root that looks related is related.

It is same as trying to argue that A letter is unrelated to A letter.

No, it would be the same as arguing that "a" (indefinite particle) is unrelated to "a" (negative prefix), even though superficially they would appear connected — and that would be a falsifiable and coherent reasoning.

From my point of view, if one root *ker- gives word and meaning “crescent” and another root *ker- gives word and meaning “horn”. And then crescent is full graphic analogue of horns, it means that linguists make a mistake by declaring those roots unrelated.

No, it means that you are cherry picking data and crowbaring it into your interpretations.

Lets fix such mistakes together.

They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2014, 01:27:36 PM »
They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!
4 “different” *k̑er- roots came from Pokorny dictionary (1930) based on Walde dictionary (1906).
Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.
You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory? Come on! In any other science field leading theory was changed many times till now. But not in linguistics.
With religious inspiration linguists repeat that old mantras and when somebody says they are incorrect he is claimed as lingvofreak or cherrypicker )
But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it? Please, if you can.
Otherwise, it is not a science as you said, just naked assumptions made by some grandpas, who never know about cybernetics, internet and big data, but still believed in telegony and Expanding Earth theory )
 

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 397
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2014, 01:50:47 PM »
They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!

They were "invented" more than a 100 years ago, but they have been under continuous scrutiny up to now, and they continue to stand up to scientific falsification. Other things, on the other hand, have been disproven or been revised to reflect modern advances.

Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.

Irrelevant. The theory is judged on its own, and has been for the past 200 years.

You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory?

No, but if you want to revise PIE theory then you need to provide falsifiable comparative linguistic data and analysis, not pointing to the moon and howling.

But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it?

I don't need to. If you want to claim that all these roots are related then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this. These roots are treated as distinct precisely because they cannot be demonstrated to be related.

A lack of evidence for them being related does not prove that they cannot be related, only that there is a lack of evidence for them being related. Hence they are treated as separate roots until proven otherwise.

Offline cranberryletters

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 7
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2014, 01:51:49 PM »
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!

And they have stood the test of time.

Quote
4 “different” *k̑er- roots came from Pokorny dictionary (1930) based on Walde dictionary (1906).
Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.

That says nothing about the validity of an entirely different theory.

Quote
You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory?

No, perhaps a superior methodology will arise and surpasse what we have now. That would be great, but it looks ever doubtful that a revolution will occur now that glottochronology has been invalidated as reliable tool.
 
Quote
But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it?

They could be reflexes of the same etymon but without justification to merge the four, the most parsimonious decision is to keep them separate.

Offline Lingvogeometry

  • Jr. Linguist
  • **
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: 00
Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2014, 07:28:59 AM »
Did I understand you correct? You use theory, which you cannot even prove? Nice.
At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange. Can you point to same situation in modern English? Much more developed language. As you claim that in primitive language as was PIE, the situation of having phonetically same but unrelated roots, takes place very often.
Moreover, please confirm that 4 “different” *ker- exist only because nobody can demonstrate that they are related. Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution, so base the theory on such lack of knowledge.
I have never seen such “theory” in any other science field. It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round )))

Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?