Author Topic: The language of old Europe  (Read 183045 times)

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #60 on: January 30, 2014, 05:30:10 AM »
freknu

Quote
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?

You are making assumptions. You have no evidence.

Incidentally, there are also these roots:

*ker- "crow; to crow"
*ker- "to hang; hanging"
*ḱer- "head; top"
*ḱer- "to grow"
*ḱer- "string; plait, weave"
*ḱer- "to wound, injure"
*(s)ker- "to cut, shear"
*(s)ker- "to wrinkle, crust"
*(s)ker- "to jump, leap"
*(s)ker- "to turn"

Funnily enough, I could make any of them fit with the definition of "cherry". That doesn't mean any of them are correct.

Cherry picking is easy, because it always works — you make it work.

Offline jkpate

  • Forum Regulars
  • Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Country: us
    • American English
    • jkpate.net
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #61 on: January 30, 2014, 05:44:02 AM »
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 think this could be a constructive exercise. I suggest you follow djr33's advice a few pages back and restrict yourself to an 'abstract length' summary (i.e. 500 words or less) of what the claim is and the lines of evidence that you take as supporting the claim.

People are skeptical in part because you appear to be relying on these two lines of evidence: 1) population genetics with a direct correspondence between language history and genetic history, and 2) phonosemantics, the assumption that individual sounds carry meaning and words get their meanings through a composition of sounds. These are not compelling lines of evidence. If you have more solid evidence, then describing it (concisely) in a 500-word abstract will make that clear.

If these two lines of evidence are in fact your only evidence, on the other hand, you have a herculean task ahead of you in demonstrating that they are much more reliable than previously thought.
All models are wrong, but some are useful - George E P Box

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #62 on: January 30, 2014, 05:48:29 AM »
Quote
As i said this is work in progress.
Doesn't excuse it from scrutiny. You can't make a theory correct by fiddling with it to make it impervious to counterargument-- the basic ideas in the theory may still be wrong. The fact that you may be able to argue convincingly doesn't mean it's necessarily right. In the end, what matters is whether it is actually better supported by the evidence than other theories are-- only when you just consider your very limited selective evidence does your theory appear to make sense. Otherwise, the standard theory is much more widely supported.

Quote
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
Actually, science involves being wrong a lot. Many hypotheses are put forward for testing because we want to know whether they are correct, and in some cases they're put forward specifically for the purpose of proving them wrong.
Regardless, there is a huge distinction between whether you may be right scientifically and whether you believe you are right intuitively. The latter is irrelevant to science, and it often becomes a problem. This is a major dilemma for scientists, certainly. At some point you just want to have the theory. But that doesn't mean in any way that you have found it.

Quote
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.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that in this case you are right.

Quote
So you know where I stand on that.
Not so much. You have a lot of apparently scattered ideas based on selective evidence, and I'm not sure that overall it fits together or what the conclusions would be even if we assume that there are conclusions to be made from the argument.

Quote
This is work in progress and i have pile of data which is still not publish.
This is not going to get published. It won't stand up to peer review. It's an exercise in a personal agenda to show that something works that you think intuitively should work, but it's against much better established theories, and it is not convincing. Further, and I genuinely don't mean to be offensive in this, many of your claims indicate a complete lack of understanding of certain central ideas in the field. If you want to prove something wrong, you must: 1) directly address it (rather than just navigating around it in your new theory), and 2) have a deep understanding of the existing theory and the evidence that supports it. If you want to show that the world is round, then you must also show that such a theory explains why the world appears to be flat.

Quote
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.
I don't get it. Why shouldn't we use quotes? The idea is that we refer to existing literature. In fact, you're the one citing most of the literature here (often from Wikipedia). It goes both ways.
You're defensive and under the very wrong impression that we're just trying to blindly follow existing assumptions. That's how you justify continuing with a theory that just doesn't hold up-- you deny that the existing theories are anything more than lies. That's a huge problem, and it's frustrating. I'll be happy to let you just continue with that, but there's a point (pretty soon) where there's not much more to discuss with it.

Quote
As every scientist i believe that my theory is right.
Incorrect assumption! See above. You appear to have faith, not science.

Quote
I spent lots of time and effort researching it and putting it together.
Ultimately irrelevant. I could come up with some fairly complicated reasons why PIE is the lost language of Atlantis, but it doesn't matter how much effort I put into that-- it won't ever be correct.

Quote
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.
Scientists believe their work will contribute something to the greater knowledge of the field. We might be somewhat upset if our personal theories are wrong, but it is only counterproductive to rely on them being right. Often scientific research involves considering a theory and an alternative theory, discussion about the two, and then conclusions about which one seems best.
Sure, plenty of scientists are guilty of having an agenda to push forward a particular theory, but usually that is based on their belief that the theory really does hold up scientifically-- if it becomes apparent that they were wrong, they'll move on.

Quote
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.
Ok, so how should we convince you? No one here would tell you not to consider these ideas, but we would try to convince you why they won't end up being the right ones. They are simply inconsistent with everything else that is understood, even things that you probably are using yourself as part of your argument.

Quote
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.
The best way to approach that would be for you to start reading the existing literature about the Comparative Method in reconstruction and trying to understand what the sum of all of the data suggests, rather than selective evidence that is (misleadingly) compatible with your theory. A theory must be supported by positive evidence and not unsupported by negative evidence.


Posts like this are why it's harder and harder to take you seriously:
Quote
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?
The "your books" here are based on very careful reconstructions that in the majority of cases can be seen with confidence to rule out other correspondences. You seem to prefer eyeballing the data for what looks like evidence for your theory rather than actually taking on the data based on more general patterns, such as sound change. This is a major methodological problem!



I do hope you read the two replies above this one carefully.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #63 on: January 30, 2014, 10:43:33 AM »
Hi djr33

I am not going to reply to your post because there is really nothing for me to say to something like this. Your attitude is completely negative from start, and you are excluding even possibility that i would be able to produce valid argument for my case.

I will just comment on this:

Quote
I do hope you read the two replies above this one carefully.

I hope you do too. Particularly what jkpate said:

Quote
I think this could be a constructive exercise.

I don't believe that it has been so far, mostly because yours and freknu's outright refusal to even consider that there could be something out there which you don't know about, and which might be valid and useful.

I am willing to do what jkpate suggested, but i would ask for a bit less preaching and bit more talking.

And just a reminder. The PIE books you are quoting, are also assumptions and reconstructions, done based on data available to people who wrote them. I am absolutely sure that no one has so far done any Serbian Irish comparative linguistic study. Do you suppose there could be some data that if known could have changed something in these books?

Freknu

The point of making a word is to unambiguously name object or action. What is the distinguishing characteristic of Cherries as opposed to other fruit?

You said

Quote
Funnily enough, I could make any of them fit with the definition of "cherry". That doesn't mean any of them are correct.

No it wouldn't because only word meaning blood red describes cherry in one word.

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

You don't understand the point of words. The root is always from simple to complex. But people obviously don't get this because they come up with things like this:

Quote
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

line comes from flax. Makes no sense. Didn't people know about lines before they made first ropes from flax? You are telling me people had no need for a word describing a line before that? When line is one of the most basic abstract objects and is present everywhere. Surely people had some way of naming "that smooth thing which continues and defines the boundary of things"? L+I+N+E.

People made cordage and cloths from nettles in Europe. Why is the word for line derived from flax and not nettle? Maybe word for flax is derived from word for line? Because you can make line like things from line like threads you can get from this plant? Maybe the Lin means Line plant?

Which makes more sense? And if you think you are right please explain why you are right in this case.
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #64 on: January 30, 2014, 11:47:40 AM »
Quote
I am not going to reply to your post because there is really nothing for me to say to something like this. Your attitude is completely negative from start, and you are excluding even possibility that i would be able to produce valid argument for my case.
Feel free to produce a valid argument!
I hope that you eventually arrive at a theory that makes sense and is accepted by others. I don't think it will be this one, but it's up to you what you want to pursue.

Phonosemantics is a totally out there theory that, if at all valid, is very subtle and not reliable in any sense for modern languages in whole. Perhaps one of every 100 sounds is phonosemantically motivated (and even that's unlikely), but you seem to think you can actually analyze each phoneme as a combinatorial meaning. It won't work; there's absolutely no question about it in my mind.

"Linguistics is an arbitrary pairing of form and meaning."
The sounds are not motivated.
There are limited exceptions (onomatopoeia and maybe some rare instances in normal words), but it's not a major effect in modern languages.

The best theory I have heard of phonosemantics was about how, essentially, different sounds give a certain "flavor" to words and are not deterministic of anything but do contribute to our interpretation. That's a weak claim, but it's possibly correct (still controversial). Stronger claims don't work out.

A simple reason is sound change: take Grimm's law-- ptk>fθh. If phonosemantics is anything more than just a (maybe) minor underlying tendency, then how can sound changes like that possibly occur?

To take your example above, L-I-N-E is actually L-A-I-N in modern English (as pronounced). How can you hold up your argument still if that's the case? Certainly you wouldn't want to claim that the meaning of the word changes if you spell it differently or even if you start pronouncing it differently (either "AYther" vs "EEther").
An alternative is to suppose that the modern languages no longer have active phonosemantic tendencies. It's only in the ancient languages. Ok, perhaps. But if so, then how can you possibly look back far enough in the data? You'll just be looking at some intermediate stage (maybe 10,000 years ago at most, via reconstruction), not the original forms. There was sound change before that certainly. So... no data. Even if you're right, you can't actually defend it. It's just an interesting guess (though one that happens to be incompatible with the most widely accepted perspectives on language evolution).


Quote
I hope you do too. Particularly what jkpate said:
Quote
I think this could be a constructive exercise.
He was referring to what I suggested: write a <500 words abstract of your research. You haven't done that. Instead, you're just going to more and more inconclusive arguments that don't seem to tie together.


Quote
I don't believe that it has been so far, mostly because yours and freknu's outright refusal to even consider that there could be something out there which you don't know about, and which might be valid and useful.
Not at all. Please, write something clear, concise, coherent and convincing. As has been suggested repeatedly, state your claims clearly in a short abstract. Write one or two paragraphs. We can go from there. You have failed to convince us, so we have rejected your hypothesis. That's logical.

Quote
I am willing to do what jkpate suggested, but i would ask for a bit less preaching...
Oh, c'mon. You're just telling us to believe your theory without making an even slightly convincing argument. We're not preaching to you. We're telling you that there is no observable reason to believe you. That's science. I'm not biased by the existing theories-- I'm sure they could be improved. I'm just completely unconvinced by yours. It's your job to make it convincing. Organize your thoughts. Write an abstract. We can possibly provide references to why it will be problematic to support your conclusion.
Quote
...and bit more talking.
We've put a lot of time into this going back and forth and you still haven't really said anything specific to deal with. We've just been pointing out that your methodology and evidence isn't convincing for the point you're trying to make.



Quote
I am absolutely sure that no one has so far done any Serbian Irish comparative linguistic study.
Absurd!!
The Russian linguistic tradition has done an amazingly extensive job of working out in intricate detail all of the developments from PIE to Proto-Slavic to the modern languages including Serbian. There's just no question about that. So any discussion of PIE very reliably takes into account evidence from Serbian.
As for Celtic, a lot of work has been done there as well.
In the end, every discussion of PIE considers Irish and Serbian, it's just that they aren't compared directly because that's unmotivated.

Quote
Do you suppose there could be some data that if known could have changed something in these books?
Even assuming you're correct, that's the problem you face as well: there is not enough data to support your argument, while on the other hand, there does seem like plenty of data to support theirs. Nothing in historical linguistics is ever certain. But some of it is pretty well established.


--

Quote
Didn't people know about lines before they made first ropes from flax? You are telling me people had no need for a word describing a line before that?
Lexical items sometimes just change or shift. There isn't always a gap in a language when a new word or new usage is coined. That's a misleading assumption, just one example of why you aren't convincing at all in this discussion. "Line" in that case probably specifically meant a line of rope, then later generalized as a geometric figure.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #65 on: January 30, 2014, 12:10:11 PM »
Quote
Funnily enough, I could make any of them fit with the definition of "cherry". That doesn't mean any of them are correct.

No it wouldn't because only word meaning blood red describes cherry in one word.

Assumption.

You don't understand the point of words. The root is always from simple to complex. But people obviously don't get this because they come up with things like this:

Assumption.

Quote
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

line comes from flax. Makes no sense.


PIE. *līn- "flax, linen"
    Lat. līnum "flax, linen", līnea "thread, string"
    Grk. λίνον "flax, linen; thread"
    PC. *līno- "flax, linen"
        OIr. lín "flax, linen"
    PBS. *?
        PB. *?
            Lit. linas "flax, linen", linai "thread, string"
            Lat. lins "flax, linen"
        PS. *lьnъ "flax, linen"
            OCS. льнъ "flax, linen"
            Rus. лён "flax, linen"
            Ser-Cr. lan "flax, linen"
    PG. *līnōN "line, flaxen cord, rope, thread"
        ON. lína "line, rope, cord"
    PG. *līnaN "flax, linen"
        ON. lín "flax, linen"


Didn't people know about lines before they made first ropes from flax? You are telling me people had no need for a word describing a line before that? When line is one of the most basic abstract objects and is present everywhere.

Assumption.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2014, 07:23:40 AM »
In my last post i said this:

Quote
Didn't people know about lines before they made first ropes from flax? You are telling me people had no need for a word describing a line before that?

And i got these two replies from djr33 and freknu:

djr33:

Quote
Lexical items sometimes just change or shift. There isn't always a gap in a language when a new word or new usage is coined. That's a misleading assumption, just one example of why you aren't convincing at all in this discussion. "Line" in that case probably specifically meant a line of rope, then later generalized as a geometric figure.

freknu:

Quote
Assumption.

I decided to give it a couple of days to see if anyone will notice how incredible what djr33 and freknu said was. But as i was taught many years ago on human behavior analysis course, "common sense is not that common at all".

Both of you guys have shown total luck of understanding of how human sense of sight actually works, and total inability to actually see the world around you as it is.
The picture of the world we get through our eyes is a two dimensional picture consisting of colored surfaces separated from each other with boundary lines. Our brain then processes this two dimensional picture and constructs the third dimension, the depth. What this means is that line and color are the two core elements of what we see. And you are telling me that people would not need to invent the word for line before they made a first rope?

Here are two pictures. One is a landscape the other picture of primitive bushmen. How many lines can you see in these pictures?





People surely had a need to describe any of these lines much earlier than they discovered how to make rope form flax.

LIN = L + I + N = smooth + continuous + boundary

How can you call yourselves scientists, if you can't even see the world the way it is?
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2014, 07:56:10 AM »
That is utterly irrelevant. But congratulations on using MS Paint to defend a linguistics argument. I haven't seen that before :)

There's no necessary correlation between concepts and words or especially particular derivations. You're assuming some kind of very clean one-to-one etymologies, and that's not realistic or supported by even basic evidence.

But, yes, lines existed with physics back then. I agree.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2014, 08:31:41 AM »
Quote
That is utterly irrelevant.

How and why?


Quote
But congratulations on using MS Paint to defend a linguistics argument. I haven't seen that before
well if i am talking to "linguists" who don't understand language, maybe pictures will work.

Quote
There's no necessary correlation between concepts and words or especially particular derivations. You're assuming some kind of very clean one-to-one etymologies, and that's not realistic or supported by even basic evidence.

And if you wanted to tell someone: "there is a line" you would do what?

Quote
But, yes, lines existed with physics back then. I agree.

But we didn't need a word for the most common thing we see around us?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2014, 08:36:57 AM by dublin »
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2014, 08:35:54 AM »
Use a different word. Or a different way of phrasing it. A metaphor. A different perspective. Consider "path" among many other things!
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2014, 08:38:35 AM »
Quote
Use a different word. Or a different way of phrasing it. A metaphor. A different perspective. Consider "path" among many other things!

These are all complex constructs. You need language to describe them. What about before language and grammar were invented? Wouldn't you invent something that describes every line first? and then say this line is a path...
The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2014, 08:47:03 AM »
No. That's a completely unfounded assumption. Line is more abstract than path. I'd imagine the opposite.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2014, 09:21:12 AM »
"I'd imagine the opposite."

I didn't know you ever imagined. I like the new you:)

people drew lines on cave walls much earlier then they learned how to make cordage. People tattooed themselves much earlier then they learned how to make cordage.

First cordage was made from tree bark and tree roots and from animal hide and sinew tens of thousands of years (at least) before people mastered technology to extract fibers from flax and combine them to make flax cordage.

Two questions:

1. what did people call that thing (line) they just drew? I can imagine this paleolithic conversation:

first caveman draws a line on the ground by dragging a finger through dirt or on the wall by getting some char from an extinguished fire hearth.
second caveman: ooooo (pointing at line meaning that is cool). eee (still pointing at the line meaning what is that)?
first caveman could invent the word like "lin" based on the fact that what he drew is smooth long and creates a boundary or he could just say "L" smooth, or what ever , but because he knows that linguistics says that he has to wait for flax cord to be invented to name his "thingy" he just shrugs his shoulders and goes away.
 
Do you think first caveman would have invented a word for his line without flax rope?

2.  If first ropes and twines were made from bark, roots, hide and sinew. If word for line comes from word for flax which was used to make rope which gave people the idea of a line, why was word for line not derived from word for bark, or root, or hide or sinew?

The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2014, 09:29:01 AM »
More random speculation. Good luck.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline dublin

  • Linguist
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
  • Country: 00
Re: The language of old Europe
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2014, 10:16:41 AM »
thanks. I don't need it, i have logic and knowledge. And i am not blind and deaf.

You and freknu should really go and check when first ropes have been invented and what they were made from before you suggest that the derivation of word line comes from flax because ropes are made from flax.

I have it all nicely explained on my vinca thread if you want to learn something about earliest cord making.

Also maybe you should learn a few things about human development, particularly the theory of communication, thinking processes, sensory information processing.

Language is invented so that information (factual or emotional) can be passed from one individual to the other in the most efficient way possible. If you don't have grammar, the only thing you can use to communicate are sounds and associated motions and gestures which everyone knows, is able to make and understand. Like "LLLLL" smooth which everyone can make and feel and understand. Especially if you at the same time glide your hand on something smooth. Or "NNNNNNN" accompanied with hands raised in front of you, head looking away, as in when you are protecting your boundary. If you then trace a line which is marking the boundary of some surface and repeat "NNNNN" people will understand what you mean. Line and boundary are tightly connected in meaning. If you then draw a line and say "LN" you get smooth boundary, line. If you pronounce "LN" fast you will start hearing "I" in the middle. And soon you have "LIN".

If you have any other more logical explanation for how the original language developed, please let me and everyone else here know.

And just to show you that "N" still means boundary. Word meaning refusal of something, protecting the boundary, starts with "N" in most "Indoeuropean" languages:

http://www.wikihow.com/Say-No-in-Various-Languages

Why?

eeee -- what is that thing? I want that thing
neee -- protecting that thing razing hands and creating boundary and saying sound for boundary combined with the sound for object which exists and lies or sits there before us.

oooo (later became to, ta, do, da, that) -- look at that thing, give me that thing
nooo -- protecting that thing by razing hands and creating boundary and saying sound for boundary combined with the sound for object we posses.

to, ta, do, da in Irish and Serbian means both give and yes affirmative.

So when someone say Ta, Da - that means give me as a question, or give you as an answer. Basically question is "that?" and the answer can be Ta, Da meaning yes, take it, basically "that", or No, Ni meaning no you can't have it, basically no that...

The most important thing in science is to know when to stop laughing