Linguist Forum

General Linguistics => Linguist's Lounge => Outside of the box => Topic started by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 01:43:52 AM

Title: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 01:43:52 AM
Old European (Vinca) language and culture in early layers of Serbian and Irish language and culture

Many years ago I noticed strange similarities between Irish and Serbian mythology, language, toponymes and hydronymes. This was a mystery because according to history, these two peoples never lived in the same area of Europe at the same time, and therefore should not have been able to influence each other. And yet the number of similar or identical cultural, religious and linguistic characteristics kept growing. Also, people between the Balkans and Ireland did not share these cultural traits. This meant that there was no cultural diffusion. The conclusion was that these two people (Serbian and Irish) must have lived together somewhere at some point in history in order to mix their languages and cultures so much.
While trying to uncover potential meeting point, I first looked at Viking invasions from the south Baltic. While there were many things pointing to a substantial West Slavic presence among the Danish Vikings who settled in England and Ireland, this all happened too late in order to explain hundreds of old Irish words and names which were identical to the Serbian ones. Not only were these words the same, they came in clusters and could often have a root in only one of languages with complex words being present in both. It also could not explain the early medieval Irish personal names which had meaning in Serbian. It also could not explain all the grammatical constructs which were identical in Irish and in Serbian. Vikings just didn't have that big a cultural influence to force the Irish to accept Slavic grammar.
I then looked at the Anglo – Saxon period and discovered that there was a significant West Slavic (Wendish) presence in the Angles alliance. They settled in large areas of England, and there was a possibility that some unrecorded Angles settlements did appear in Ireland in the early medieval time with significant West Slavic population. But again this could not explain all the grammatical constructs which were identical in Irish and in Serbian. If there were Angles settlements in Ireland in the early medieval time, they again just didn't have that big a cultural influence to force the Irish to accept Slavic grammar. Also there was a problem of even earlier archaeological finds, linked to the iron age, which had Serbian and Slavic characteristics. There were too many old customs, legends, sacred sites which had their counterparts in Slavic countries and particularly Balkan South Slavic countries.
So I looked at Rome, and Roman invasions of Britain and wandered was this maybe the source of common cultural characteristics between the Irish and the Serbs. But Romans never entered Ireland and there is no known record of Irish mercenaries in the Roman army, so that removed a possible connection once again.
So I looked at Iron Age period and found many things which pointed to a significant cultural influx from the south Baltic. There was a great similarity between Lusatian culture in the south Baltic and the Iron Age cultures in Ireland and England, and it seems that the Iron Age was brought to Ireland on the spears and swords of the people from south Baltic. This was a good starting point. The warrior elite from the Baltic could have brought with them their beliefs, their language and their customs, and forced them on the people they encountered in Ireland. But that would not explain the huge number of toponymes and hydronimes in the Balkans which have no meaning in Slavic languages but do have meaning in Irish. And these toponymes and hydronimes come in clusters and are tightly connected with the location of the Balkan tumulus culture sites. Also this would not explain the presence of all the words, and grammatical constructs which only exist in Irish and in certain dialects of south Slavic languages and particularly in some old dialects of Serbian. This also would not explain all the base words in South Slavic languages which can be broken down and explained using Irish. For this to be possible, Irish speaking people had to be present in the Balkans in great numbers for a very long time during the Iron Age and even during the Bronze Age.
So I looked at Celts as a possible cultural link between the two people. They were the rulers of central Europe, precisely the area between the Baltic and the Balkans. That would have given them the ability to influence both the Irish and the people who would later become the Western Slavs. But Celts never had any significant long term presence in the Balkans. They came through the Balkans on the way to Asia Minor in the 3rd century bc. But their main strongholds were in the area above Danube. The area below Danube was the land of the Illyrians. Illyrians and Celts were by some people linked and called Celto – Illyrians. This certainly was a good lead. If Illyrians actually spoke the same or similar language to the Celts, then that would explain all the similarities between the Irish and Serbian languages but only if we accept that both the Irish and Serbian languages are direct descendants of the Celto Illyrian language and that Celtic and Illyrian were the same language.
This was already getting very controversial, as this would mean that there is a cultural continuity in the area between the Baltic and the Balkan lasting for more than 2500 years. This would mean that there is an underlying Celtic cultural layer in the Slavic culture and that the Slavic culture was created as a fusion of the Celtic and Skito Sarmatian cultures? The similarities between the Irish and Serbian cultures would then be the Celtic layer, and that would allow us to decipher the Celtic language from Irish and Slavic languages. This was very exciting. But there were things that could not be explained with the Celtic connection.
First it could not explain the amount of the words, customs, legends from old Rome and old Greece which could not be explained through Old Greek and Latin but could using Irish and Serbian language and culture. The only way this was possible was that somehow these cultural influences came to Italy and Greece from the Balkans at the time before the formation of both Kingdome of Rome and the Classical Greece. And there were plenty of ancient historical texts, as well as archaeological data that pointed to exactly that was the case.
The latest archaeological data from Serbia confirms that iron was invented in the Balkans. The earliest iron metallurgical centre in the world, dated to 14th–13th century b BC, was found in south eastern Serbia in the hill fort settlement on the hill called Hisar. This site belongs to the earliest proto Illyrian period.
So there was a culture in the Balkans powerful enough to influence Rome, Greece and Celtic central Europe. This had moved the meeting point where the future Irish and Serbs lived together to the Balkans in the end of the second and the beginning of the first millennium BC and identified the Illyrian culture as the root culture for both the Irish and the Serbs. But this culture also greatly influenced Old Rome and Greece which was evident from the amount of cultural characteristics and linguistic traces in both cultures which were in all the ancient texts attributed to the mysterious Pelasgians who even more mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth together with their Illyrian and Celtic neighbors. These Pelasgians, Illyrians and Celts now turned out to be alive and well in the Irish, South and Western Slavs….This was getting really interesting.
But then I came across the story about Vinca metallurgical revolution which happened in the 4th millennium BC. At the same time when they were making lots of Copper and Bronze weapons, Vinca people were creating a first organized religion. When you have well-armed religious fanatics you can be sure that a religious war is not far behind. And that is exactly what seemed to have happened in the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Vinca culture suddenly disappeared from the Balkans, but Vinca artifacts started appearing all over Europe, Asia and North Africa. And all of a sudden all these great civilizations started appearing everywhere, all based on the same symbols, the wolf, the eagle and other birds, the snake, the bee, the bull, the double axe, the mother goddess earth, the father sky, the son sun and daughter moon, the bird people and wolf people. The Vincans went out of the Balkans and took over the world, wielding their metal spears, swords and axes and carrying their wolf totems before them. They also took with them their language whose traces can be now found in all the Indo European languages.
But they did not all leave. Some stayed at home and they later morphed into Illyrians. Those who went north eventually became Celts and Germans. Those who reached Britain and Ireland eventually became Gaels.
Later the descendants of the Vincans returned, in waves from all sides, bringing with them new cultural and linguistic characteristics which they acquired over the centuries while mixing with the indo European peoples they had conquered. These new cultural and linguistic layers were deposited on top of the old European strand of Vinca culture which was created from the mix of Vincans and the other old European cultures. Steppe people came from the east, Asia minor and Mesopotamians from the south east, North African people from the south, Atlantic people from the west. And the Vinca culture slowly disappeared.
The isolation of the Irish at the end of Europe, and the sheer number and military strength of the mountain people of the Balkans and the Central European mountains helped them to preserve this Vinca cultural and linguistic layer to this day, albeit covered with thick layers of Gaelic and Slavic and many other cultures and Languages.
Comparing these two languages I believe that I have now uncovered this culture and language of old Europe.
I also believe that in this old language I have discovered gives us a possibility to reconstruct the oldest language spoken in Europe, the language before the language. I believe that I have discovered how the first language was formed in Europe from natural sounds, and how this earliest human language was preserved and conserved in the Irish and Serbian languages and their base words syllables and sounds.
To support my theory, I have accumulated a lot of material which I am translating into English. I am planning to make it available as soon as possible. The work is however in progress and I am writing this to invite everyone who might be interested to help me to continue this investigation as this is becoming too big and too important for just one man.
I hope this does not sound too mad or pretentious. You have to believe me that I am pinching myself every day, as it is hard to believe that anyone can be so lucky to stumble across something like this…

You can find results of my research here:

Main vinca (old Europe culture discussion thread):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056938477

These are some side archaeology threads which contain information on specific topics and also contain linguistic discussions related to the subjects in question:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057129408
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057088700
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082812

These are all side threads. The content from these threads will eventually end up on Vinca thread, when i get to the particular theme these side threads are covering.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 01:44:29 AM
The origin of the language:

After spending years researching the origin of the language, through the comparative analysis of the old European cultures and Languages, particularly South Slavic (Serbian) and Irish, I am finally confident enough to present some of my results in the area of the origin of human language.

I have concluded that the original language was based on natural sound which people either heard around them or were able to make themselves. The main carriers of information are individual sounds, vowels and consonants. Syllables are already carriers of complex combined information. Among the sounds the vowels are carriers of emotional information, and consonants are carriers of factual information. Knowing the meaning of sounds and syllables you can split words into their original building blocks and get true etymologies.

Analyzing Serbian and Irish language, i was able to conclude that this original language is still preserved and can be reconstructed fairly easily.

Analyzing Vinca script I was able to confirm that the the meaning of these sounds is reflected in the letter of the oldest human Alphabet.

I am sending you here the vowel classification based on my research. Please let me know what you think.

o - Neutral emotion. Used in pointing at objects that are not threatening or at people or animals under our control. Also used for ordering direction of movement. Gave rise to letter o from shape of the our mouth when we say o. Sound "ooooo" when we see something. In Serbian root sound for o (about, around), ko (who, like), oko (eye)...Root sound of word "go" meaning neutral object and also an order to someone or something to move in horizontal direction...

u - Raised emotional state, desire, want if positive, pain, discomfort if negative. Used to describe penetrating movement and actions as well position of something inside of something else. Used to describe emotion of want, desire, greed, lust. sound "uuuuuuuuu" when we admire something that we want for ourselves. Gave rise to letter u,y. The shape of valeys (uvala in Serbian) and other holes including our mouth. Shape of female pubic area (Y) and vagina (U) as well as male organ used to penetrate into vagina (U). Serbian word for in (u), uvo (ear), usta (mouth), both things where things go into our body...Root sound for word "gu" meaning her, female and for pointing downword.

a - The sound of high levels of agitation, aggression, rising tension, warning. Used to describe emotion of aggression inspired by fear, defensive aggression. If positive it describes assertion, bravery, fearlessness. If negative it describes dismay, panic, fear. Used for pointing upwards, and at distance, at things, people animals we fear, like god or enemies or wild beasts. Because it describes raising emotions and things which are more powerful then us, above us, it represents up, growth, sky. Gave rise to letter A from a point of a spear, aroused penis head, pointing upwards, mountain peaks. Sound "aaaa" when we figure something out. Shout "aaaaaaaa!" when we are trying to scare something the we can not control and we can't just kill. Sound "aaaaaaaaa!" when we are running scared from that same thing, after our fake attack didn't scare it. Serbian word "na" (meaning on up) as opposed "un" (in down). Root sound for word "ga" meaning him, male.

e - The meaning is "is, it is, here it is". A natural sound of presenting something to someone. short sound "e" when you give something to someone. Serbian word "evo, eve, eto ete" meaning there you go. Pronounced deeper, e means highest possible aggression with intent to gain, kill, and pronounced higher means highest possible sorrow, pain caused by severe illness which looks as if it is going to kill us, or by loss of someone very precious, like a member of a family or something very precious like a home. So gaining, loosing and presenting = is, it is, here it is. Shout ej = e + j = e + ja = it is + me. Sound of growling, showing your teeth before immanent attack. Gave rise to letter E ш, from the shape of bared teeth. Root sound for Serbian words "ge, ke, gde, de" meaning where is it (what we want)?

i - Highest possible level of emotion. Hysteria, utter devastation, loosing your mind, ecstasy. Used to express extreme emotional states usually group emotional states, where emotions of each individual feed the group emotional flame. Like during funerals, processions, religious celebrations, births. Connected with death and birth, continuation. Used to release the worst emotions and to allow us to continue with our life. Word "i" means "and, continue" in Serbian. Gave rise to letter I from a post, mark, stake, totem pole, around which ceremonies are held. Sound of sqeeeeling, waiiiiiiling at funerals, but also the sound of the scream of a mother giving birth, which is a mixture of a and i...root sound for word "gi" meaning them, group, family.


This is the base of Serbian language, sounds expressing emotions. These sounds are then mixed with consonants to create words carrying meaning. But hidden under a meaning we still have emotions, carried through these five vowels. We can see how emotionally tainted the language is from just these words used for pointing (looking at) in the southern dialect of Serbian:

go - neutral, child, domestic animal, something we control
gu - female, woman, desire, things we want
ga - male, man, aggression cause by fear, things we don't control
ge, ke, gde, de - where is the thing we want. give it to us.
gi - group, group emotions, family, cooperation, sacrifice,

The gradation of emotion carried by consonants is:

increase of emotional charge: ouaei
decrese of emotional charge: ieauo

We can see this clearly from the exclamation sounds used by people every day:

The following are active sounds, used while the situation is happening, to describe our emotions triggered by the world around us:

ooo - o there it is, o I see (acknowledgment)
uuu - u this is great (i want it)
aaa - a! you scared me, aaa there it is, aaa so that's the secret (surprise, scary or nice)
eee - e come on, e i don't have it (possession, threat)
iii - hysteria, uncontrollable fear or happiness

These are different laughs carrying different emotional message:

hohoho - Santa Clause, good natured, laughing together
huhuhu - notty, mischievous
hahaha - laughing without caring what people think, laughing at people
hehehe - sinister, dangerous, conspiratorial, mean
hihihi - just before you pee in your pants, when something is fall on the ground funny or when someone is tickling you, sniggering in a group behind someone's back

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

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

This ability of vowels to carry and remove emotion is used in healing sounds techniques in China and India.

aoum - the sacred sound of Buddhism. A - outside, O surface of the body, U inside of the body, M core. M is the only sound that can be made with your mouth closed. This is why it is a core sound of words that mean me, my, myself. So the above mantra brings our focus from outside into our core, (m)ind by using emotional discharge through descending vowels.

It is also used in everyday speech:

halo = ao = reduce tension, friendly
zdravo = ao = reduce tension, friendly
ciao = ao = reduce tension, friendly

Sound of pain "iao" reduses stress.

iiiha - calming the horse down

English "Hi" actually means Hi, hysterical, the opposite of calming.

Engilsh "How do you do" expresses our formality and business like relationship. I am here on business, because i want something from you and we are equal...

Serbian greeting "gde si ti!" expresses happiness to find someone, to form a group. E find, I group, emotions rising. The old south Serbian version is even more descriptive: "gu de si ti" = in where you are = uei = in, lost, buried, invisible + looking, wanting + seeing, found, exist + together, group, release of fear



Slavic battle cry Ura - ua - arousing emotions to the point of aggression
Japanese battle cry Bansai - ai - arousing emotions to the point passed aggression, to the point of sacrifice
kiiiil hiiim - group hysteria, mob hysteria

It is interesting to see how different culture view themselves differently:

Slavic Ja = Ia = god, group, me, submission to group, god
English I = aI = me, god, group, domination over group, god
German Ich = I = domination of the group, no me
Japanese Watashi, I = ai = me, group, god, domination over group, god, but also the opposite, complete submission to group, god
Irish me = e = internalized, hidden aggression
French je = ie = group aggression
Latin, Greek ego = eo = aggression, both personal and group, objects, materialism


Just by saying "I" in your own language you show what your epigenetic emotional charge is...

Have fun, and feel free to post your comments on any of these threads, including this one.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 25, 2014, 05:19:14 AM
You do realise that Irish and Serbian are both Indo-European languages, right? As such they already share IE language and mythology, as do all IE descendents.

Old European refers to the Pre-IE/Pre-Uralic paleolithic languages in Europe that no longer exist (even though Basque is often regarded as a possible descendent). Thus you cannot use Old European hydronyms in analysing IE languages, or vice versa.

Hypotheses of explicit phonosemantics will also be met with a great degree of scepticism.

As such there is very little of your hypotheses that I can in all honesty take seriously.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 07:29:33 AM
Freknu

Quote
You do realise that Irish and Serbian are both Indo-European languages, right? As such they already share IE language and mythology, as do all IE descendents.

Yes I do realize this. However certain things found in Irish and Serbian do not exist in any other Indo European languages, and are clearly pre Indo European. Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.

Quote
Old European refers to the Pre-IE/Pre-Uralic paleolithic languages in Europe that no longer exist (even though Basque is often regarded as a possible descendent).

Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language, and have preserved the oldest language roots. You can build "PIE" roots using roots found in Serbian and Irish. This is how old this stuff is.

Quote
Thus you cannot use Old European hydronyms in analysing IE languages, or vice versa.

Actually you can. Languages don't replace each other, they are layered on top of each other. Comparing Irish and Serbian, which are very distant languages which should not have but do have a lot of common vocabulary and grammar, you can find these old layers. If you connect them to archaeology and ethnology, you can actually date them. A lot of "Pre Indo European" hydronimes and toponimes, god names have clear etymologies in Serbian. How do you explain this?

Quote
Hypotheses of explicit phonosemantics will also be met with a great degree of scepticism.

I don't mind skepticism. I approach everything with skepticism myself. But outright dismissing is what you seem to be showing, as seen from your last statement:

Quote
As such there is very little of your hypotheses that I can in all honesty take seriously.

How can you know that what I am presenting is without value, without actually reviewing any of the material i listed? Not a very scientific approach, don't you think?

It seems that you are not informed about the latest research in the area of voice analysis. There has been a lot of research done in this field as i discovered yesterday. It seems that i am on the right track here...They already use vowels to automatically detect emotions in speech analysis engines...

Quote
Recently, automatic emotion recognition from speech has achieved growing interest within the human-machine interaction research community. Most part of emotion recognition methods use context independent frame-level analysis or turn-level analysis. In this article, we introduce context dependent vowel level analysis applied for emotion classification. An average first formant value extracted on vowel level has been used as unidimensional acoustic feature vector. The Neyman-Pearson criterion has been used for classification purpose. Our classifier is able to detect high-arousal emotions with small error rates. Within our research we proved that the smallest emotional unit should be the vowel instead of the word. We find out that using vowel level analysis can be an important issue during developing a robust emotion classifier. Also, our research can be useful for developing robust affective speech recognition methods and high quality emotional speech synthesis systems.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6012003&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6012003
 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6012003&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6012003)

I don't know how they arrived to their conclusion, probably using statistics, but they came to the same conclusion that i came to using comparative linguistics, that vowels are carriers of emotional message.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on January 25, 2014, 08:21:17 AM
Quote
Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.
Can you explain what you mean here? I don't get the connection between the gene markers and why that means the term Indo-European needs evaluating. Are you connecting that to the Irish-Serbia thing? Irish populations have large distributions of both R1a and R1b. Yeah, the comment warrants a further explanation.

I would just like a confirmation on that before we go on to address how on earth it is possible to discern paleolithic elements in these languages.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 08:24:19 AM
Let me continue with the root of the language analysis:
 
I already listed the south Serbian dialect words for pointing:

go - neutral, child, domestic animal, something we control
gu - female, woman, desire, things we want
ga - male, man, aggression cause by fear, things we don't control
ge, ke, gde, de - where is the thing we want. give it to us.
gi - group, group emotions, family, cooperation, sacrifice,

There is however another set of pointing words:

to - neuter
tu - feminine
ta(j) - masculine
te - those (we want)
ti - those (we see)

The vowels are the same, but the consonants are different.
The first set of words start with "g" and are used only for living beings, people and animals.
The second set of words start with "t" and are used only for inanimate objects.

Sound "g" is root sound of following Serbian words:

"grlo" - throat
"glas" - voice
"gutati" - swallow
"gristi" - bite

These are all characteristics of living beings. This connects sound "g" with meaning "alive".

Sound "t" together with sound "d" are sounds of hitting something hard, like wood or stone or soil with your hand or foot. This connects these two sounds with material objects. These two sounds are interchangeable as they are made with the same position of the speech apparatus.

So we have:

"go" - pointing at child, animal, living thing that can make voice
"to" - pointing at inanimate objects



Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 25, 2014, 08:31:05 AM
Yes I do realize this. However certain things found in Irish and Serbian do not exist in any other Indo European languages, and are clearly pre Indo European.

Such as? and why?

Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.

Like lx, I fail to see why it needs reevaluation?

Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language, and have preserved the oldest language roots. You can build "PIE" roots using roots found in Serbian and Irish. This is how old this stuff is.

You can build PIE roots from all IE languages. What is this supposed paleolithic substratum and why must it be pre-IE paleolithic?

Actually you can. Languages don't replace each other, they are layered on top of each other. Comparing Irish and Serbian, which are very distant languages which should not have but do have a lot of common vocabulary and grammar, you can find these old layers. If you connect them to archaeology and ethnology, you can actually date them.

What are these toponyms and why must they be Old European?

A lot of "Pre Indo European" hydronimes and toponimes, god names have clear etymologies in Serbian. How do you explain this?

Data mining.

I don't mind skepticism. I approach everything with skepticism myself. But outright dismissing is what you seem to be showing ...

You have presented no evidence.

How can you know that what I am presenting is without value, without actually reviewing any of the material i listed? Not a very scientific approach, don't you think?

It is your duty to prove it reliable and relevant.

It seems that you are not informed about the latest research in the area of voice analysis. There has been a lot of research done in this field as i discovered yesterday. It seems that i am on the right track here...They already use vowels to automatically detect emotions in speech analysis engines...

Voice analysis and intonation is not the same as language. A strawman argument.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Corybobory on January 25, 2014, 08:33:03 AM
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence to back it up - if we seem skeptical, it's quite logical.  The onus is on you to not just tell us your hypothesis, but to show us the evidence that supports it.  I only see claims, not evidence...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 25, 2014, 08:35:18 AM
Phonosemantics (the association of sounds with meanings) is intriguing but requires a very high burden of proof.

Indo-European research is very well established. Anything against that would also require a high burden of proof.

So as lx said, before getting into any details, I think it would be important to figure out exactly what you are claiming and how high the burden of proof is.

The Italo-Celtic hypothesis suggests that those two groups split off at the same time. There's evidence for it.
The Balto-Slavic subgroup is also one of the best established (after only Indo-Iranian).
Germanic also goes somewhere within those groups, at least in contact with both if not closely related to one of them.
So saying that Irish (Celtic) and Serbian (Slavic) are most closely related goes against a lot of established research.

There are two possibilities which you cannot dismiss easily:
1. Coincidence. If you look at the dozen Slavic languages and handful of Celtic languages you may be able to find two that seem very similar. But that's not surprising. Here you must show that the similarities are beyond what would be expected by chance.
2. Shared history. With languages innovating all the time, it's very possible that Proto-Indo-European had these features and they were only preserved in a couple cultures/languages.

You might enjoy this paper:
http://hdl.handle.net/2142/13178
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 10:31:44 AM
Thank you all for joining in the discussion. I have posted links to discussion threads where i have already answered quite a lot of these questions. Please feel free to read through.

I will here just try to, in short, clarify one thing:

Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.

All old cultures from central European Corded ware culture, to Tocharians, IndoIranians, Scythians are exclusively R1a. Today, the same area is inhabited by Slavs and Indo Iranians, who are still R1a. All other "Indoeuropean" people have or had high percentage of R1a population. I believe that "Indoeuropean" equals R1a. But because R1a cultures in Europe are older then "Indoeuropean" culture, I believe that R1a is actually pre Indoeuropean. I believe that what we call "Indoeuropean" is composite culture formed by mixing of old European R1a, I2, J...and invading R1b people in the third millennium BC.

I have written a lot about this. Just follow links I posted...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 25, 2014, 10:50:31 AM
A lot of claims, hypotheses, and speculation, but little if any evidence.

Quote
However certain things found in Irish and Serbian do not exist in any other Indo European languages ...

Such as?

Quote
... and are clearly pre Indo European.

Why?

Quote
Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language ...

Such as and why?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 25, 2014, 11:32:45 AM
I don't honestly have time to read through all of the material you posted on the chance you might be right. Further, the preliminary arguments you posted are both contradictory to common understanding and not plausible to me. DNA is not related to language. DNA correlates with geography and people while languages can move and transfer between people.
Finding new evidence is not enough: you must also address the many decades of established theories. Explaining less with a new theory is possibly inevitable but often an indication of a problem.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 12:28:07 PM
Quote
I don't honestly have time to read through all of the material you posted on the chance you might be right.

Well you will miss a lot of interesting reading, and i really couldn't be bothered repeating what i already said.

Quote
Further, the preliminary arguments you posted are both contradictory to common understanding.

I know. I didn't start this thread because i wanted to "join the gang" and repeat "official" well known and "agreed" dogma. I started it because I believe that I have discovered something new, which doesn't fit into the "common understanding", because common understanding was developed before all the advances in genetics and new archaeological discoveries.

Quote
...and it is not plausible to me.

Why? Because it does not confirm to what you believe in, or because there is something wrong with my arguments?

Quote
DNA is not related to language.

I beg to differ. I believe that tribes are are carriers of languages. Tribes are family related, therefore genetically related groups. So languages and genes are quite well correlated.

The reason why we have Common language, customs, between Ireland and Serbia, is because of old European R1a and I2 genes found in Ireland and language and culture they carried with them and R1b genes in Serbia and language and culture they carried with them. The reason why we have common language and customs between Slavs and Germanics is because of their common R1a and I genes and language and culture they carried with them. And so on.

The only reason i can use modern Serbian to give etymology for Vedic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic god names, which have no etymologies in Sanscrit, old Greek, Germanic of Gaelic,  is because these goods were originally named in R1a or I2 language, preserved by R1a and I2 population of Ireland and Balkans...There is no other explanation for this. .Too many "coincidences" to be coincidences. Especially because Serbian and Irish language based etymologies solve some very old "mysteries" of the ancient world and make sense of a lot of "nonsense" in the old belief systems...

I would again ask you to read through the material i posted links for. It is customary for any scientific paper review to actually read the paper first, then ask questions...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on January 25, 2014, 01:03:41 PM
It seems that you are not informed about the latest research in the area of voice analysis. There has been a lot of research done in this field as i discovered yesterday. It seems that i am on the right track here...They already use vowels to automatically detect emotions in speech analysis engines...

Quote
Recently, automatic emotion recognition from speech has achieved growing interest within the human-machine interaction research community. Most part of emotion recognition methods use context independent frame-level analysis or turn-level analysis. In this article, we introduce context dependent vowel level analysis applied for emotion classification. An average first formant value extracted on vowel level has been used as unidimensional acoustic feature vector. The Neyman-Pearson criterion has been used for classification purpose. Our classifier is able to detect high-arousal emotions with small error rates. Within our research we proved that the smallest emotional unit should be the vowel instead of the word. We find out that using vowel level analysis can be an important issue during developing a robust emotion classifier. Also, our research can be useful for developing robust affective speech recognition methods and high quality emotional speech synthesis systems.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6012003&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6012003
 (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6012003&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6012003)

I don't know how they arrived to their conclusion, probably using statistics, but they came to the same conclusion that i came to using comparative linguistics, that vowels are carriers of emotional message.

Their claim is completely different from yours. You are claiming that specific vowel categories are cross-linguistically associated with emotional states: one vowel category is associated with one emotional state or a group of emotional states. They are claiming that people pronounce all vowels with more variation and higher formant values when they have high arousal emotions: when people are excited, they speak with more extreme tongue movements, and with their tongue closer to the roof and front of their mouth.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 25, 2014, 02:39:50 PM
jkpate

Quote
Their claim is completely different from yours. You are claiming that specific vowel categories are cross-linguistically associated with emotional states: one vowel category is associated with one emotional state or a group of emotional states. They are claiming that people pronounce all vowels with more variation and higher formant values when they have high arousal emotions: when people are excited, they speak with more extreme tongue movements, and with their tongue closer to the roof and front of their mouth.

Yes, but the point is that vowels carry emotional content in words. If you look at what I wrote about vowels, i also said that different pronunciation of the same vowel will gradate the emotional message from positive to negative. But the message type will be the same. Maybe I discovered something they did not know. I contacted them and am waiting for a reply.

I would really like if you concentrated your comments on concrete examples of sound analysis i have presented so far, and let me know what you think about them.
I know this is very very different from everything you heard before, but I believe that it deserves fair trial and examination. I can't find any hole in my vowel analysis, but maybe i did not see something that you will. Maybe we will all go away laughing at how silly it all is, but maybe not.

Let me continue with the core language analysis:

I already said this:

Sound "g" is root sound of following Serbian words:

"grlo" - throat
"glas" - voice
"gutati" - swallow
"gristi" - bite

These are all characteristics of living beings. This connects sound "g" with meaning "alive".

It is also root sound of these words:

"glava" - head
"glagol" - word, language
"glagolati" - talk
"glagoljica" - letters, writing, alphabet

But also

"gledati" - to look
"gluv" -  deaf, root of word "gluvati" which become slušati - to losten
"gladan" - hungry
"glabati" - eat hungrily
"glodati" - gnaw, chew

and so on.


Sound "g" is the sound you make with the end of you tong deepest down in your throat ("grlo" in Serbian).
Sound "l" is one of few frontal sounds you can make with the tip of your tong by touching your teeth.
"gl" sound combination slides the whole tong against the top of our mouth, from it's root, deep inside of us, to its tip, at the place where we stop and the rest of the world starts.
"gl" sound combination carries outward direction, from us to the world. Serbian word "glasati" means to let sound out, to talk.
"lg" sound combination slides the whole tong against the top of our mouth in the opposite direction, and therefore carries inward direction, from the world to us. Serbian word "lgati" which today means "to lie" probably originally meant to "listen, decode, to understand" therefore to "misinterpret, to lie".

gl+lg = gllg = glglglg = glagol, glagolati = conversation, communication, language.

h,g,k,j are all deep throat consonants produced with the same position of speech apparatus. s,z,t,n are all tip of the tong consonants produced with the same position of speech apparatus.

Now look at these words for language:

Albanian - fjalë - outward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Eglish - tong - inward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Latin - lingua- inward movement from tip to root of the tong.

Modern Serbian and other Slavic languages - jezik - equivalent of glg, language, Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Irish - Gaeilge - glg - language
Irish - teanga (tong) - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Irish - béarlagair - slang (remember word lagati, to lie)

Basque - hizkuntza. equivalent in meaning with glgl = glagol = language

Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Danish - sprog - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

Dutch - spraak - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
German - Sprache - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Norwegian -  språk - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Swedish - språk - inward movement from tip to root of the tong. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Estonian - keel - outward movement, rolling, old
Finnish - kieli - outward movement, rolling, old
French - langue - inward movement from tip to root of the tong, rolling, old

Greek - glossa, glota - equivalent to Serbian glas, voice, outward movement, rolling, old
Hungarian - nyelv - equivalent to lgl - language. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Icelandic - tungumál - equivalent to llgll - language. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Lithuanian - kalba, outward movement, rolling, old
Mongolian - khel - outward movement, rolling, old
Romaian - limbaj - inward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin
Welsh - iaith - outward movement. Not rolling, more controlled, probably newer in origin

We see the same pattern repeated in words for language.

But in Serbian we have all these other words which are describing head and all the functions performed by the head used in communication. How many languages do we have which have the same cluster of words?

Look at Greek which has glossa, glota for language.
head - kefáli
throat - laimós
voice - foni
swallow - chelidóni
look - matiá, vlémma
listen - akoúo

Where did Greeks get their words glossa, glota from? Their Pre Indoeuropean northern neighbors from the Balkans?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on January 25, 2014, 02:53:35 PM
Quote
Let me continue with the core language analysis:
Please could you address the questions freknu has put to you twice now.
I'm suspicious of how you're not answering them. It would put my mind to ease and bring me back on track if you could provide a good answer. After all, you're all for proving a theory and if you're as geared up and excited about this prospect as I think you are, you must have good answers or even tentative suggestions that are realistic.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 25, 2014, 04:21:10 PM
Quote
Well you will miss a lot of interesting reading, and i really couldn't be bothered repeating what i already said.
A short summary that seems convincing would be fine.
Quote
I would again ask you to read through the material i posted links for. It is customary for any scientific paper review to actually read the paper first, then ask questions...
There simply isn't time to consider every idea in science, and there must be some burden of proof on thoroughly investigating new ideas. That's the case for realizing the world was in fact not flat, for Einstein defending his ideas, and every other innovation. As for a peer review process, often it begins with an abstract that the editor will briefly consider and decide whether it is a candidate for peer review.

Quote
I know. I didn't start this thread because i wanted to "join the gang" and repeat "official" well known and "agreed" dogma. I started it because I believe that I have discovered something new, which doesn't fit into the "common understanding", because common understanding was developed before all the advances in genetics and new archaeological discoveries.
That's entirely irrelevant. Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't make you right or wrong. I'm not suggesting you can't innovate; you should, if that's where the data leads. But innovation requires a convincing argument. Innovation just because it is new is irrelevant.

Quote
Quote
...and it is not plausible to me.
Why? Because it does not confirm to what you believe in, or because there is something wrong with my arguments?
Both. The fact that your main arguments so far are based on potential coincidences and DNA make me very skeptical. I would be skeptical of that from a well established theory. And then you also are going against relatively widely accepted research.

You are consistently selecting convenient evidence that supports your claims while dismissing all other evidence as irrelevant. This is a huge sampling bias!

In terms of plausibility the major problem I have is this: your theory is just as plausible as about any other random theory that could be made. Therefore, I find it implausible. The PIE hypothesis makes sense to me. I'd be willing to consider counterevidence, but not in the form of a claim that doesn't stand out as better than other claims.

Quote
I beg to differ. I believe that tribes are are carriers of languages. Tribes are family related, therefore genetically related groups. So languages and genes are quite well correlated.
Sometimes. But languages can easily spread to speakers in different regions with very different genetic backgrounds. What typically happens is that a relatively small group moves to a new location and then they begin to inter-marry and the genetic code shifts while the language stays the same (or you could phrase it the other way around).
As a very basic example, skin color in the United States varies a lot, certainly, but you won't find many correlations between language and skin color, although it is possible you will find some.

As a very simple test, what would happen if you checked the DNA of speakers of neighboring languages? Would you find that Dravidian speakers are clearly genetically distinct from Indo-Aryan speakers? And that Welsh speakers are clearly genetically distinct from English speakers?

There are sometimes correlations (to some degree) between languages and DNA, but it's not like a fingerprint-- it wouldn't hold up as evidence in court.

Quote
The reason why we have Common language, customs, between Ireland and Serbia, is because of old European R1a and I2 genes found in Ireland and language and culture they carried with them and R1b genes in Serbia and language and culture they carried with them. The reason why we have common language and customs between Slavs and Germanics is because of their common R1a and I genes and language and culture they carried with them. And so on.
No... the genes aren't causing anything. It *might* be the case that the genes and language are distributed as they are because they were distributed by the same migrations of people.
In order to show this convincingly you'd need to consider alternative explanations and show they they can't be correct.


Now, looking more broadly:
1. Do you believe that Slavic is a family of languages? Are Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian closely related?
2. Do you believe that Celtic is a family of languages? Are Irish Gaelic, Welsh and Breton closely related?
3. If so, then please refer to your hypothesized relationship between Slavic and Celtic.
4. What about Iberian Celtic? And Baltic? There are well known reasons for supposing that these are related to Insular Celtic and Slavic respectively.
5. If all of that is true, then why is it only showing up in Serbian and Irish? Is it by chance? Is it due to a shared history now hidden in the other languages? If either of those, when why does your argument hold up?

Quote
The only reason i can use modern Serbian to give etymology for Vedic, Greek, Germanic, Celtic god names, which have no etymologies in Sanscrit, old Greek, Germanic of Gaelic,  is because these goods were originally named in R1a or I2 language, preserved by R1a and I2 population of Ireland and Balkans...There is no other explanation for this. .Too many "coincidences" to be coincidences. Especially because Serbian and Irish language based etymologies solve some very old "mysteries" of the ancient world and make sense of a lot of "nonsense" in the old belief systems...
Perhaps. But given that we already know all of these languages are related anyway, it's just a matter of determining the direction of change and so forth.



In the end, if you want to argue this, then:
1. You must show that the current theory is wrong.
2. You must support your new theory.
3. You must show that your theory not only explains the new evidence but that it also explains the old evidence.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 26, 2014, 05:58:32 AM
djr33

Quote
Please could you address the questions freknu has put to you twice now.
I'm suspicious of how you're not answering them. It would put my mind to ease and bring me back on track if you could provide a good answer.

Let me try to answer freknu's questions. I can only do it here in short, for more details please have a look at links provided.

I already answered why term "Indoeuropean" needs reevaluation. But let me here elaborate a bit more.  We need to reevaluate term "Indoeuropean", because it does not take into account latest current and paleo genetic data. It is absolutely clear that language is linked with tribe and tribe is linked with genes. Language is invented so that members of the same family and later the same tribe can communicate. When tribe moves and comes in contact with another tribe with different language, they have to find ways of communicating with each other. This is the case regardless of the relationship between the two tribes. If they are in friendly relationship, they need to trade, they intermarry and so need to communicate. A hybrid border language is created which allows this to happen. We have examples of trading and border languages all over the world. If one tribe conquers another, they still have to communicate. The rulers need to be able to issue commands to the slaves, or subdued population. Subdued population is forced to adopt the language of the new elite, but the new elite also adopts some of the subdued population language. The subdued population uses the language of the new elite when communicating with the new masters and when they are engaged in official business. But they continue using their old language at home. Eventually new language is formed as a mix of old and new language. The new language does not just replace the old. The example is the preservation of Irish language and emerging of Hiberno English. Irish language is peppered with foreign words, but at the same time English spoken in Ireland is full of Irish words and grammatical constructs. Sometimes new ruling elite, if it is small in numbers, completely adopts the language and customs of the local subdued population, bringing into the mix only few phrases, god names and such. The example are Normans in Ireland which became completely gaeicised.
This is why it is possible to reconstruct old, Pre Indo European languages of Europe (there were at least two), by intersecting distant Indo European languages. Old Europe (pre 3000 bc) had no R1b population at all. The most dominant genetic type was R1a and I (I2). People of old Europe belonged to tribes and had to therefore use some common language to communicate. That language is still used by people of R1a and I2 populations of Europe. In Serbia and In Ireland we find the mix of the oldest strands of R1a and I2. This is why Irish and Serbian (Croatian, Bosnian..) have preserved the most conservative the oldest elements of these old European languages. They are buried under many layers of languages which came after, but the core has been preserved. This core I am trying to present to you here for evaluation.
What official linguistic science is calling "Indo European" is a mix created from R1a agricultural people of old Europe and R1b herders coming from central Asia and probably from north Africa via Iberian peninsula. This is still debated. The mix, I believe, occurred at the southern edge of the Eurasian steppe, and gave us Vučedol culture, the first Indo European culture which later gave us mixed R1a + R1b + I2 Celtic culture of Central Europe. The expansion of R1b population into Europe was accommodated by the catastrophic climate change which occurred in the middle of the third millennium BC, and which almost wiped out the old European agricultural population, and had left huge tracts of land empty. This brought about huge cultural shift from old sun centered agricultural society, to new animal centered herding and warring society. this is all well documented and supported by archaeological and other scientific evidence.
But this period also brought the emergence of a new "Indoeuropean" language, the mix of R1a, I2 as subdued and R1b as dominant language in Central Europe which gave us Germanic, and Celtic languages. The I2 population remained out of reach of the R1b below Sava and Danube rivers and formed Ilirian culture. The mix of I2 and R1a gave us Etruscan, Venetic cultures. The R1a and I2 cultures mixed with E1b and R1b gave us Greeks. All these cultures together created Rome and Latin culture. The R1a from the northern Eurasia gave us Slavs. R1a mixed with central Asian population gave us Avestan culture and R1a mixed with native Indian population gave us Vedic culture.

This is why it is possible for me to use cross section between Serbian and Irish to canalize the roots of all these "Indoeuropean" languages. They have both preserved the oldest layers of the building blocks of Indoeuropean languages, R1a, I2 and R1b tribal, old languages...

I hope this clearly explains my understanding of what "Indoeuropean" is and why we have pre "Indoeuropean" roots of "Indoeuropean" languages. I will continue with answering freknu's questions soon.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on January 26, 2014, 06:24:24 AM
Quote
But they continue using their old language at home
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. You can't hold a personal speculation about what seems right and then put it across as a scientific fact to which there would be no counter evidence and then use that as a logical backbone to the argument. If anything, that would only be an acceptable side-point about a potential tendency which backs up other evidence. There are so, so many incidents of people taking up a whole new language and not using the old one anymore. Look at the Normans, for example. It only took 2-3 generations for them to completely stop speaking Germanic and pick up the French surrounding them.
Quote
Sometimes new ruling elite, if it is small in numbers, completely addopts the language and customs of the local subdued population, bringing into the mix only few phrases, god names and such. The example are Normans in Ireland which became completely gaeicised.
Ah, it was just, moments ago you were making the opposite argument.  :o
Quote
Old Europe (pre 3000 bc) had no R1b population at all. The most dominant genetic type was R1a and I (I2)
Ehhh? The daughter marker of R1b (R1b1) has been found in modern humans all around modern France and Spain during the last Ice Age, the last point of which ended 10,000 years ago. That places a clear massive string of R1b DESCENDANTS in a period that ended at 8,000BC. There are more holes in this argument than Swiss cheese. Is your argument that the pre-Ice age DNA was wiped out? Well, I'm here (R1b1b2a1a2f3) at least.

Linguists and archaeologists don't use the term Indo-European with reference to genes, so how can they be wrong? If they're talking about a culture, culture crosses gene pools the world over. It's not linked to genes. This is the absolute quintessential rationale for needing to point out correlation does not imply causation. You could make the same argument about types of animal skins people wore were signals of cultures, different tribes would have brought different traditions with them and they might be different across tribes, but it's still as little connection between languages as genetic markers. Correlation, yes, causation, no.
Quote
This is why it is possible for me to use cross section between Serbian and Irish to analize the roots of all thes "Indoeuropean" languages. They have both preserved the oldest layers of the building blocks of Indoeuropean languages, R1a, I2 and R1b tribal, old languages...
You really did not even take any successful step in setting up the argument of what this has to do with the Serbian-Irish connection, nor did you even make any attempt to talk about the building blocks of languages. Genetic markers might be linked to populations that brought specific languages to specific places, but I can't pull a coherent argument out on the connection.

I can appreciate that sometimes an idea seems so appealing, you don't want to let it go and you might see some pieces of evidence as fundamentally supporting, but sometimes you really need to get the big picture back again.
Quote
I will continue with answering freknu's questions soon.
I haven't really seen you start answering them in any sort of academic fashion. How about sticking to agreeable premises and then providing a solid backing for why/how these distinctions can connect Serbian and Irish or something. I know this isn't stuff you might want to hear, but a theory needs to be a hell of a lot better presented than how you're doing now. You'd never get anywhere in the scientific world with that. Maybe this can be considered the first steps to honing in on how to present it - I doubt it, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 26, 2014, 06:39:51 AM
Let's make my questions even more direct:
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 26, 2014, 10:33:36 AM
I'm far from convinced. You're making assertions that don't strike me as factual in any way.
Can you cite any sources other than your imagination/observations?

If you really do know something about the theories you're rejecting, then I might be willing to see where your argument goes. If not, I don't see the point. Feel free to comment on that if you'd like.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 05:08:22 AM
djr33

Quote
I'm far from convinced. You're making assertions that don't strike me as factual in any way.

How are you going to be convinced after reading three of my posts interspersed with all the "no no it is not possible"? Did you go and read any of the material on the external links? I bet you didn't. If you guys let me explain and elaborate you might get convinced. Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?

Quote
Can you cite any sources other than your imagination/observations?

Quote
I did say this is new, so no. New, Original, Inventive, Imaginative...Do you remember these words? They all have positive connotation.

Quote
If you really do know something about the theories you're rejecting, then I might be willing to see where your argument goes. If not, I don't see the point. Feel free to comment on that if you'd like.

First how do you know what I am rejecting? Secondly, i am not your student or your child so change your tone please. And actually i don't care if you don't are willing or not to participate in this discussion. If you want do it If you don't do something else. It is up to you.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 05:25:37 AM
lx

Quote
Ah, it was just, moments ago you were making the opposite argument.

Actually you should maybe read the whole text through, think about it and then write comments.

What i was trying to explain, but you didn't get, is that languages don't get replaced by new languages.  They merge with, they merge into, they get overlayed, but they don't disappear completely. There is always a trace of the old language left. I am not talking about single person or even a family migrating into a new language zone. I am talking about whole tribes and clans migrating. And evidence here is that once you have large enough numbers of the people in mixing populations, their languages merge rather than replace each other. The percentage of the old and new language in the mix varies depending on number of people from each group and their economic political and reproductive power.

You are talking about present day single person migration, i am talking about tribal migrations. Completely different things.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: ibarrere on January 27, 2014, 05:27:12 AM
Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?

Nobody is stopping you from presenting what you have. The problem is that what you've presented so far is not very convincing. If you have some solid evidence that you have not yet presented, by all means, do so. What you're attempting to undermine is based on hundreds of years of systematic scientific method; that's not to say that it can't and shouldn't be overturned, it's simply saying that the body of evidence with which to overturn it needs to be exceptionally convincing.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Corybobory on January 27, 2014, 06:09:25 AM
What i was trying to explain, but you didn't get, is that languages don't get replaced by new languages.  They merge with, they merge into, they get overlayed, but they don't disappear completely. There is always a trace of the old language left.

The past languages of Canada would like to disagree with you.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 06:46:35 AM
Corybobory

Quote
The past languages of Canada would like to disagree with you.

Are people who spoke these languages still with us? Can they disagree too, or are they all dead? If you destroy a population that speaks certain language, the language disappears as well. Murderous genocidal invasions where one population replaces another are one thing, merging of populations is another. In Serbia and in Ireland we have mix of all major European haplogroups from oldest to newest. And at the same time we find cultural and language traits and words from major languages from all these haplogroups (tribes). What conclusion can you draw from this? Replacement of merging?

ibarrere

Quote
Nobody is stopping you from presenting what you have. The problem is that what you've presented so far is not very convincing. If you have some solid evidence that you have not yet presented, by all means, do so. What you're attempting to undermine is based on hundreds of years of systematic scientific method; that's not to say that it can't and shouldn't be overturned, it's simply saying that the body of evidence with which to overturn it needs to be exceptionally convincing.

As i said i only managed to write three posts about the core language analysis. Not enough to convince anyone that i am right about what i am talking about. But i have hundreds of pages of data on the links i posted in my first post. Did you bothered reading any of it?

And i know it is new, and i know it is going against official dogma, but as i said, when official dogma was created they didn't have data we have today. Maybe it is time to reevaluate the whole thing?

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 07:14:31 AM
Ls

Quote
Look at the Normans, for example. It only took 2-3 generations for them to completely stop speaking Germanic and pick up the French surrounding them.

Normans melted into subdued population, because they were not homogeneous genetic, cultural and linguistic group. Normans were mix of Norse, Danes and south Baltic Slavs.

Have a look at this discussion about ring forts and Slavic solders in Viking armies:

http://historum.com/european-history/56897-old-europe-vinca-language-culture-early-layers-serbian-irish-culture-8.html#post1503554?postcount=76 (http://historum.com/european-history/56897-old-europe-vinca-language-culture-early-layers-serbian-irish-culture-8.html#post1503554?postcount=76)

This is the bit that concerns Normans:

Harald blue tooth united Danmark, Norway and south Baltic Slavic lands into one country. Does that mean that he fought the Slavs and Conquered them? Not really. He was allied with them as it is seen from the mention of Obodrites and the Danes fighting the Germans together. Of course Slavs were also fighting on the German side but that is understandable when we know what we know about the tribal organisation of the Slavic society. Harold also had a Slavic Obodrite princess as his second wife, so the alliance must have been quite strong:

Quote
Tove of the Obotrites, also called Tova, Tofa or Thora, (10th century) was a Slavic princess and a Danish Viking Age queen consort, the spouse of King Harald I of Denmark. Thora (Tova) was the daughter of Prince Mistivir of the Obotrites. She married King Harald in 970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tove_of_the_Obotrites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tove_of_the_Obotrites)

Tova was daughter of Obodrite king Mstivoj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstivoj (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mstivoj)

Was this alliance between the Danes and the Obodrtes something new and temporary? No. It all started much Earlier as we can read in The origin of the Anglo Saxon race. There we can read that the Anglo Saxon Alliance was ethnically mixed and included Danes and Slavs. This link between the Danes and the Slavs probably started even Earlier as both were living in the same clan, tribal society where clan tribe alliances of mixed ethnic origin were completely normal. But This is what i managed to find about our friend Harald the father of Danmark and his clan's link with Obodrites Slavs.

Harald Bluetooth,s mother was Thyra. Thyra's father was another Harald: Harald Klak Halfdansson. Does his name mean that this Halfdansson was half Dane? Yes.

Quote
Harald 'Klak' Halfdansson (c. 785 – c. 852) was a king in Jutland (and possibly other parts of Denmark) around 812–814 and again from 819–827.[1]
The identity of Harald's father is uncertain. He had at least three brothers. Anulo (d. 812), Ragnfrid (d. 814) and Hemming Halfdansson (d. 837).[2][3] An 837 entry in the Annales Fuldenses calls Hemming a son of Halfdan.[4] This is the only mention of their father in a primary source.

The Royal Frankish Annals entries of 814 start with the death of Charlemagne. Louis the Pious became sole emperor and turned to diplomatic relations with other European powers. The Royal Annales then mention the continuation of the conflict among the Danes and that Harald Klak sought refuge in the court of Louis. "Heriold and Reginfrid, kings of the Danes, had been defeated and expelled from their kingdom the year before [813] by the sons of Godofrid, against whom they regrouped their forces and again made war. In this conflict Reginfid and the oldest son of Godofrid were killed. When this had come to pass, Heriold despaired of his cause, came to the emperor [Louis], and put himself under his protection. The emperor received him and told him to go to Saxony and to wait for the proper time when he would be able to give him the help which Heriold had requested."...The 815 entries of the Royal Annals focus on the campaign for restoring Harald to his throne. "The emperor [Louis] commanded that Saxons and Obodrites should prepare for this campaign, and twice in that winter the attempt was made to cross the Elbe. But since the weather suddenly turned and made the ice on the river melt, the campaign was held up. Finally, when the winter was over, about the middle of May, the proper time to begin the march arrived. Then all Saxon counts and all troops of the Obodrites, under orders to bring help to Heriold, marched with the imperial emissary Baldrich across the River Eider into the land of the Norsemen called Silendi....But the sons of Godofrid, who had raised against them a large army and a fleet of two hundred ships, remained on an island three miles of the shore and did not dare engage them.... "He [Louis] settled the affairs of the Slavs and of Heriold, and, leaving Heriold behind in Saxony, returned to his palace in Frankfurt."... Harald apparently continued operations against his rivals. An 817 entry of the Royal Annals reports "Because of the persistent aggression of Heriold, the sons of Godofrid, king of the Danes, also sent an embassy to the emperor [Louis], asked for peace, and promised to preserve it. This sounded more like hypocrisy than truth, so it was dismissed as empty talk and aid was given to Heriold against them"....A next attempt in 819, again with help from the Obotrites, met with more success and some kind of settlement seems to have been reached with the sons of Gudfred, since Harald was joint king with two of them in 821....In 823, tensions had appeared in Harald's relations with his co-rulers. Louis was asked to mediate....According to the Vita Ansgari by Rimbert, "After this it happened that a king named Heriold (Latin:Herioldus), who ruled over some of the Danes, was assailed by hatred and malignity, and was driven from his kingdom by the other kings of the same province....

During the reign of Louis the Pious, the Frankish Empire had no effective fleet, and this made the coast of Frisia a weak point in the defense of his realm. The motivation for granting Harald a fief in Frisia possibly had to do with Harald committing himself to defending the Frisian coastline against future Viking raids. The center of his fief was located in northwestern Germany, west of Oldenburg. This may have been the first piece of Frankish territory given to a Dane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Klak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Klak)

And so on it goes. So this particular Half Danish king, the ancestor of Harald Bluetoot, the Norman king, was brought to power in Danmark by Obodrite (Slavic) - Saxon army under command of the Franks. And he has in return created first Frankish navy and has protected the Frankish coast from the "Vikings". Interesting.

If Harald blue Tooth was using Slavic army in Scandinavia, then these Slavic solders built for themselves Slavic ring forts in places where they were stationed.

Quote
While quiet prevailed throughout the interior, Harold Bluetooth turned his energies to foreign enterprises. He came to the help of Richard the Fearless of Normandy in 945 and 963...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth)

Quote
Motte-and-bailey castle

A motte-and-bailey castle is a fortification with a wooden or stone keep situated on a raised earthwork called a motte, accompanied by an enclosed courtyard, or bailey, surrounded by a protective ditch and palisade. Relatively easy to build with unskilled, often forced labour, but still militarily formidable, these castles were built across northern Europe from the 10th century onwards, spreading from Normandy and Anjou in France, into the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century.

]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey)

Very soon after Harald Bluetooth's Slavic army arrived in Normandy Slavic type gards and gords start appearing in north western Europe under the name Motte-and-bailey castle. There were no fortifications of this type there before.

Now here is a question worth million pounds: Where did Fitz in Norman surnames come from?

Quote
Fitz is a prefix in patronymic surnames of Anglo-Norman origin. This usage derives from the Norman fiz / filz, pronunciation: /fits/ (cognate with French fils < Latin filius), meaning "son of". In noble families, this was preposed to the name of the father (e.g. Fitz Gilbert, meaning "son of Gilbert"), mirroring the Scandinavian tradition of adding -son after (usually) the father's name. There are, however, exceptions in which the name of a more noteworthy mother (Fitz Wymarch) or a parent's title (Fitz Count, Fitz Empress) was used instead. Such surnames were later created for illegitimate children of royal princes.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz)

It is strange that this prefix is used by Normans, but not by Norse or by French. The official explanation is that it derives from Latin filius, meaning "son of". However this does not explain how come Normans all of a sudden decided to start using it. Especially when they already had de- as "of the, son of":

Quote
De: "of the": a Norman-French habitational prefix used by some of the most common Irish surnames among which are De Búrca, Le Brún, De Barra, De Cíosóg, Devane and de Faoite. 'De' historically has signaled ownership of lands and was traditionally therefore a mark of prestige.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name)

So who were the Norman Fitzes? If we look at the Wiki page about family names we see this:

Quote
-ić -vić -ović -ič -vič -ovič -ich, -vich, -vych, -ovich, -owicz: Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Republic of Macedonia (rare), occasionally Bulgaria. Yugoslav ex.: Petrović, means Petar's son. In Russia, where patronyms are used, a person would have two -(ov)ich names in a row; first the patronym, then the family name (see Shostakovich).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name)

So in Central Europe among the western Slavs, the same people who were fighting on the side of the Harold Bluetooth and his descendants, who built first "Norman" castles, "Vić" means son of. This word is often pronounced by Germanic people as witz as in Clausewitz and was probably pronounced by the new Slavic Normans as "fitz".

Did this Slavic suffix become prefix when South Baltic "Norman" Slavs from the army of Harold Bluetooth, decided to change their names to be more "Norman" in line with the local fashion and real Norman "de-" was translated into Fitz? Probably.

What is really interesting is how strongly the Fitz surnames took root in Ireland:


Quote
Fitz: a Norman-French word derived from the Latin word filius ("son"). It was used in patronymics by thousands of men in the early Norman period in Ireland (e.g. fitz Stephen, fitz Richard, fitz Robert, fitz William) and only on some occasions did it become used as an actual surname, the most famous example being the FitzGerald Earls of Kildare. Yet well into the 17th and 18th century it was used in certain areas dominated by the Hiberno-Norman of Ireland in its original form, as a patronymic. The Tribes of Galway were especially good at conserving this form, with examples such as John fitz John Bodkin and Michael Lynch fitz Arthur, used even as late as the early 19th century. A number of illegitimate descendents of the British royal family were given surnames with this element: some of the illegitimate children of King Charles II were named FitzCharles or FitzRoy ("son of the King"); those of King James II were named FitzJames; those of Prince William, Duke of Clarence and St Andrews (later King William IV) were named FitzClarence. Note that "Fitzpatrick" is not Norman: it is actually a Normanisation of the Gaelic surname Mac Ghiolla Phádraig.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name)

Quote
In later times, similar forms were coined for members of the English and British royal family, who historically lacked a surname, and particularly for illegitimate children of kings and princes (Fitzroy, son of the king; Fitzjames, son of the king James II of England; and FitzClarence, son of the Duke of Clarence). From this later use, it has been inferred that the name indicates illegitimacy, which was not originally the case. More generally, the prefix has been used to connote nobility as is the case in Anthony Trollope's 1862 novel Orley Farm which features the rakishly aristocratic figure of Lord John Fitzjoly.
The Irish surname FitzGerald is thought to derive from Gerald de Windsor, a Cambro-Norman nobleman whose son and grandson were involved in the Norman invasion of Ireland.
The Irish name Fitzpatrick does not indicate a Norman origin of the family; it is the translation into English of the Gaelic surname Mac Giolla Phádraig. Other surnames beginning "Mac Giolla" were made into "McGilli-" (e.g. McGillicuddy), but the Fitzpatricks claimed Norman heritage in a time when the Normans dominated much of Ireland.
Fitz is also a stand-alone German surname originating in the Palatinate region of Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz)

So Normans merged into local population because they were band of mercenary soldiers who married local wives. And as anyone who married a girls from another tribe and moved to that tribe's territory will tell you, you quickly become one of them.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 27, 2014, 07:15:53 AM
Quote
How are you going to be convinced after reading three of my posts interspersed with all the "no no it is not possible"? Did you go and read any of the material on the external links? I bet you didn't. If you guys let me explain and elaborate you might get convinced. Are you going to let me do that? Do you really want to know what i have to present, or do you only care about the fact that i am not conforming to what you believe in?
As with any new idea, the burden of proof is on you. This isn't me treating you unfairly. I'm treating you like I would anyone making new claims. Given that you have not summarized the information in a way that makes me suspicious of the old ideas or curiously intrigued by the plausibility of yours, I don't think that's unfair at all. Quite literally, you could be saying just about anything else ("Basque must be related to Japanese!!!!") and I would feel similar. Your arguments seem to rely on rejecting a lot of what has been established and are based on very controversial (at best) claims like an assumed close relationship between genetics and language.


Quote
First how do you know what I am rejecting?
I asked you, and your ideas appear to be rejecting established ideas about Indo-European at least. For this to hold up, I think you'd need to reject a lot more. If you could reply by saying "oh, no, look, this can very conveniently fit into the existing theory in this way" and include some citations, I'd be more likely to buy your argument. Sweeping rejections, controversial evidence and just-new ideas don't make a convincing argument.
Quote
Secondly, i am not your student or your child so change your tone please. And actually i don't care if you don't are willing or not to participate in this discussion. If you want do it If you don't do something else. It is up to you.
Then, sincerely, good luck. But you seem more interested in being defensive and making undefended sweeping claims (or telling us "no, it'll make more sense if you just believe me and read all of what I've written"-- it makes less sense as I read more, to be honest). You're welcome to claim/write whatever you'd like. I'm just asking for a summary addressing some basic points that strike me as implausible. Being right (or wrong) and getting others to believe you (or not) are two very different things!


In general as a simple example, I'm very concerned about your perceived association between genetics and language. You use it to defend your argument, but in fact it makes me more skeptical because in itself, it is very controversial (at best). You don't seem to want to question your assumption on this (or explain the details to us), but this is fundamental: you can't use it to support your argument if you can't first establish it as a general convention of how to do science, and you certainly can't support it via your argument because that would be circular. If it does matter to you whether I/we believe you, this would be a crucial point to start with: try citing some existing literature and giving us less controversial examples to start (if they exist); then show how you can use similar (thus established) argumentation for the new data to reach your final conclusions.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: ibarrere on January 27, 2014, 07:51:40 AM
But i have hundreds of pages of data on the links i posted in my first post. Did you bothered reading any of it?

You can't seriously expect the members of this forum to go out and read hundreds of pages of text willy-nilly. With the sheer amount of misguided linguistic theory there is out there, it would be unrealistic for linguists to have read it all. That's why an abstract, or a short summary of work goes a long way during the peer review process. With an abstract, the editors or peer reviewers have a good idea of what the paper is about (and whether or not its worth their time) before they dive into the unsorted bulk of it.

I, like others on this forum, am hesitant to adopt any view that relates language with genetics. If the two were truly related, then how does a child whose parents are both Chinese become a native speaker of Swedish after growing up in Stockholm? How is it that we, as language learners, are able to move anywhere in the world and start learning the language? Regardless of our genetic makeup, we are native speakers of the language(s) to which we are  exposed as children.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 07:53:59 AM
djr33

Quote
In general as a simple example, I'm very concerned about your perceived association between genetics and language.

If you are implying that i could be racist let me tell you this: I don't know what my haplogroup is, i don't know what haplogroup any of my family members and friends belong to. And i don't care. Genes are not something we choose. They determine a lot of who we are, but we should strive to be as best human being as possible regardless of what tribe we come from. I was brought up not to care what culture, religion or nationality someone belongs to, and to take difference as positive and enriching.

But saying all that, if you want to research anything to do with anthropology, you always come to genes sooner or later. Why? Because you always come to family, which becomes extended family, which becomes clan, which becomes tribe, which becomes confederation of tribes, which becomes people...Nucleus is always in the family. And family needs to be able to communicate. So they agree on a language that everyone understands. As the family expands the language develops and evolves, but always stays understandable to all members of the family. Otherwise family will break up. The more family spreads geographically, the more it comes in contact with other families that it needs to communicate with, the more and more foreign elements enter the fringe dialects of the original family language. But the core stays the same. Otherwise the family, clan, tribe can not function as a unit. Family is a carrier of genes and language. So these two were originally directly linked. The bigger the family gets, the more likely it is for members of other tribes to be absorbed into the family, either through marriage, clan mergers, mercenaries, slaves... These people bring in their genes and adopt the culture and language. Some of them may become progenitors of new powerful families and clans withing tribes and then we have situation where we have genetically different people sharing the same language. Examples are in Ireland where multiple ceps of the same clan have different genetic type. Serbia is the best example, where we have every haplogroup known to man, all sharing the same language. But with different local dialects and customs, which you can identify as links to old cultures belonging to the original genetic tribe from which particular local family or clan came from.

I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages. So far i think it works. I know everyone cringes when they hear genes and cultures mixed together, but just because someone abused something in the past, doesn't mean that we should never use it again. Just because someone killed someone with a knife, should we never use knife again?

Tribes develop from families, and families propagate genes. This is a fact and can not be ignored. Look at Slavs. From Central Europe to Siberia, they can all more or less understand each other. They are all more or less R1a. Their cultures are also very similar, and all that after crusades, conversions, occupations, exterminations, communism, nazism, huns, avars, mongols, turks, germans, austrians, hungarians, vikings and all the other invaders and conquerors. After thousands of years, over two continents, the language and culture is the same where the population is the of the same genetic type (R1a). All this without schools and without books to codify the language.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Corybobory on January 27, 2014, 09:31:25 AM
Are people who spoke these languages still with us? Can they disagree too, or are they all dead?

What?  No, of course they're not all dead, there's a few million first nations people in Canada, of which a very tiny percentage speak a fraction of the languages that were once spoken.  The genes live on, the languages have died. Languages, genes, completely independent. You cannot forensically look at a human body and say 'oh he's clearly a French speaker'.

I was a student in a school that was about 1/3 native, and I guarantee you not one of my classmates was a speaker of Nuuchahnulth, while many of their great grandparents certainly were!
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 10:23:01 AM
Corybobory

You have the same situation in Ireland, where despite Irish being obligatory subject in Schools very few people actually speak it. We are talking about process of forced assimilation, through political, economic and cultural pressures. With mass media we are bound to loose many more languages. But What about 100 years ago? Before television, radio, newspapers, rock and roll...Was the situation the same as now? Did they speak their languages then. If a ruling elite wants to eradicate a language, it is possible to do it. Look at Hungary where they banned use of Slavic languages in 17th century under punishment, and now we have majority R1a, old Slavic population speaking Hungarian and feeling Hungarian. Yet before 17th century, you can not find anyone speaking Hungarian in Hungary except small ruling elite. A lot of the language that I am talking about is almost extinct in Ireland and in the Balkans. But it has been documented in 19th and 20th century, so it has been preserved for future generations. In 50 years time we wont have any of the small languages left. They will all die out. People will be assimilated because they want to be assimilated, or because they have no choice but to be assimilated. I am not saying that the line that divides languages and the one that divides genes is the same and static, i never claimed that. Just that languages are originally product of genetically homogeneous, family related group of people. And that we can uncover who made which language by doing some linguistic archaeology coupled with genetic research.

Lx

Quote
Ehhh? The daughter marker of R1b (R1b1) has been found in modern humans all around modern France and Spain during the last Ice Age, the last point of which ended 10,000 years ago. That places a clear massive string of R1b DESCENDANTS in a period that ended at 8,000BC. There are more holes in this argument than Swiss cheese. Is your argument that the pre-Ice age DNA was wiped out? Well, I'm here (R1b1b2a1a2f3) at least.

Can you give me link to data that shows that there are any ancient remains carrying R1b haplogroup from 8000 bc from western Europe. The data i have is that the oldest R1b was found in bell beaker remains:

Quote
Early papers publishing results on European-wide Y-DNA marker frequencies, such as those of Semino (2000) and Rosser (2000), correlated haplogroup R1b-M269 with the earliest episodes of European colonization by Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH). The peak frequencies of M269 in Iberia (especially the Basque region) and the Atlantic façade were postulated to represent signatures of re-colonization of the European West following the Last Glacial Maximum.[81][82] However, even prior to recent criticisms and refinements, the idea that Iberian R1b carrying males repopulated most of western Europe was not consistent with findings which revealed that Italian M269 lineages are not derivative of Iberian ones.[83]
More recently, data and calculations from Myres (2011),[84] Cruciani (2010),[85] Arredi (2007)[86] and Belaresque (2010)[87] suggest a Late Neolithic entry of M269 into Europe.
These hypotheses appear to be corroborated by more direct evidence from ancient DNA. For example, Early Neolithic Y-DNA from Spain did not reveal any R1b, but rather E-V13 and G2a,[87] whilst a similar study from a French pre-Beaker Neolithic site revealed haplgroup G2a and I-P37.[88] It is only later, from a German Bell Beaker site dated to the third millennium BCE, that the first evidence for R1b is detected. Ancient Y-DNA results for the remains of Beaker people from Iberia have yet to be obtained.
Whilst Cruciani, Belaresque and Arredi support a spread of R1b from South-Eastern Europe, Klyosov (2012) postulates that "Western European" R1b-L150 entered Europe from Northern Africa, via Iberia, coincident with the spread of the Bell Beaker culture.[89]

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

Where were R1b before that period. This is a bit of a mystery. This is a simplified diagram that Dr. Michael Hammer presented at the FTDNA conference late last year, representing spread of R1b into Europe:

(http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6904/2eow.png)

But i actually believe that this is wrong and that you could be partially right about the existence of R1b in western Europe much earlier than 3 millennium bc. But not in western Europe of today, but in western Europe which today lies under hundred meters of sea, off the coast of western Europe.

The main question about the above diagram of R1b expansion into Europe, is how do we know they came from Asia minor over Balkans and not from central Asia via Black Sea steppe, which is much more logical route if the oldest R1b people are found at the edge of the European Steppe, and if they came from Asia? Or, which is also not possible, that R1b people entered Europe from North Africa via Iberian peninsula, the western Atlantic, via Ireland and Britain, to Germanic lands of lowlands and Frisland?

If this is diagram of the spreading of the Bell beaker culture:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg/400px-Beaker_culture_diffusion.svg.png)

Why and how did they draw the diagram posted earlier, showing the entry point into Europe to be the Balkans? Is this based on some clairvoyant knowledge or wish, rather then facts? The spreading of Bell beakers from North Africa, West of Europe, then to the north west of Europe and finally into Central and Eastern Europe seems much more likely. At least it is possible that the expansion took place from both sides, from Atlantic coast and from Black Sea steppe, at different periods in history.

How can we explain this discrepancy between the archaeological, genetic, linguistic data, which all show concentration of R1b genes, languages and culture diminishing from west to east, and your map which shows that they entered Europe from the Balkans? Wouldn't have they left some trace from Bosporus to Germany?

Here is a map showing distribution of R1b genes in the world:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG/300px-Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG)

Data says no traces of Bell Beaker people in the Balkans. And this is the reason why. Look at the geography of the Balkans. Lots of rivers, lots of mountains, lots of bad people with lots of weapons. Very bad for people on horses and later chariots. This is why they all stayed east and north of Carpatian mountains and Danube. This is why old Balkan cultures survived until today. This is why you have an island of I2a in the sea of R1 (A and B). So I really doubt that there was any Balkan rout into Europe. If R1b people came from Armenia, then they came via Black sea steppe, like Huns after them. But they could equally have come into Europe from Central Asia, via Asia minor, via north Africa to west of Europe as well as via Black Sea steppe. Maybe the original Bell beakers came via the sea. And the later waves came via the steppe with the steppe people invasions of the migration period. Not everyone had to come at the same time. The fact that the concentration is the highest in the West of Europe surely points to the fact that R1b people have been in that part of Europe the longest?

But where could R1b people have come to western Europe so early after the last glacial maximum? From Africa. R1 haplogroup, the father group of both R1a and R1b, came into Euroasia before last glacial maximum. When they came to Europe is debated, by i believe well before last glacial maximum. Where and when did the split occur, we don't know for sure, but it is quite possible that that too happened before the last glacial maximum. When Ice started advancing, the human population moved partially to Spain, partially to the Balkans, and partially to Black sea region. These became centers of linguistic and cultural changes. Did the people from Spain reach North Africa 10,000 bc? Quite possibly. They had tools and knowledge to build rafts and boats. Sea level was 110 meters lower. So it is possible that some of the Early Europeans escaped to north Africa. But It is also very likely that some early R1b people were already in North Africa at that time. This is attested by huge presence of R1b, R1a genes in Africa and cultural and linguistic similarities between Berbers and the Irish. Look at these links:

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

The Kablye Berbers in the atlas mountains of Morocco are known for having red hair. The Kablye are a very big ethnic group they are one of the biggest Berber speaking ethnic groups. Berbers take up most of northwest Africa and if Arab Muslim didn't invade north Africa, Berber language would probably have been spoken in much of north Africa Today.

There are some Kablye tribes with 18% blonde hair, so obviously they did get their red hair and pale skin from Europeans originally but when and from which Europeans is still debated.

Riffian people are another Berber ethnic group and they also are known for European features like Kablye.

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

Look at the percentage of R1b people in populations of Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)

When did R1b and R1a get there? Were they there before last glacial maximum? Were they among the people who lived in green Sahara between 7th and 4th millennium BC? And did they get back to western Europe as the ice started to retreat? If they did, they probably lived in now submerged lands off the western coast of Europe. And if so, our chances of finding any early genetic material is very small as it is lying under 100 meters of water. Did R1b emerge in what today is dry western Europe from wetlands which now form the coastal waters of western Europe?  Most people at that time lived in coastal areas, because the availability of food was the greatest. And as water rose, population moved further and further east, until they reached the land that is still dry land today. This happened sometime before 3000 bc. Is the maximum frequency of R1b in Ireland, England, western France and Western Iberia proof of that? Quite possibly.

Once established in north west Europe, they mixed in central Europe with R1a, I2 and N populations forming Celts, Germanics, Norse, Western Slavs. Then they could have moved toward south of Europe and the Balkans. These invasions are well documented with Celtic invasion of the Balkans and Asia minor one of the ways of spreading the genes below Danube. If R1b genes in the south east are older then the ones in the north west, this does not necessarily mean that the spreading was from south east to north west. At the time of Celtic and migration period invasions, whole clans went together, including women and children. No one stayed at home. So it is entirely possible that some clans with the oldest genes just moved south and settled in the Balkans and in Asia minor during Celtic invasions of the south eastern Europe. And maybe the oldest clans never left central Asia until the migration period and only then moved to south of Europe with Huns, Tatars and Slavs. And maybe some of them moved down to Asia minor and later entered Europe with Turks? It is also possible that a lot of R1b people came to Europe with Macedonians and Romans and settled in the Balkans, bringing old R1b subclades with them. We can't exclude any of these migration options.

How is this possible if the main body of the R1b people came through the Balkans? And how did they enter western Europe through the wall of R1a people living above Danube all the way to Baltic?

Did R1b people prosper because they were nomads, shepherds and they survived the sudden climate changes which devastated agricultural population of Europe several times over?

In the book "The Secrets of the Irish Landscape" we read that according to the dendrochronological research done in Ireland on Irish bog Oaks, during the period between 2354 bc and 2345 bc the oaks completely stopped growing and showed bark changes which indicate that they were submerged in water. It seems that it started to rain and it didn't stop for 10 years. This caused complete failure and disappearance of the existing stone age culture due to crop failure. After the rain stopped we see the old culture being replaced by the beaker culture in a sharp artifact cut. Interestingly in the annals of four masters we find this:

Quote
The Age of the World, 2545. Rudhruidhe, son of Parthalon, was drowned in Loch Rudhruidhe, the lake having flowed over him; and from him the lake is called.

The Age of the World, 2546. An inundation of the sea over the land at Brena in this year, which was the seventh lake eruption that occurred in the time of Parthalon; and this is named Loch Cuan.

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/T100005A/

Quote
The Ussher chronology is a 17th-century chronology of the history of the world formulated from a literal reading of the Bible by James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh (Church of Ireland). The chronology is sometimes associated with young Earth creationism, which holds that the universe was created only a few millennia ago by God as described in the first two chapters of the Biblical book of Genesis.

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

The reason why i am mentioning Ussher chronology is that in his list of dates the date for the biblical flood to 2348 bc, right in the middle of the above major weather event.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc

But the bible and the Irish are not the only ones to record this event.

In Chinese records we read that after there were 9 years of rain after 2346 bc.

Mayans talk about big floods and rain in 236o.

Something major weather wise has happened in the middle of the 3rd millennium bc. Did that wipe out the original agricultural R1a and I2 agricultural population from the north of Europe, freeing the land for the expansion of the first wave of R1b shepherds?

The same thing happened around 800 BC, when all the bog bodies were deposited across northern Europe, because of the sudden change of climate to wet and cold climate, which devastated local agricultural population again.

In Serbia, R1a, I2, R1b, E1b people have been living side by side for millenniums. R1a and I2 predominantly in valleys and agricultural flat lands working the land, and R1b in the mountains minding their flocks. E1b on the coast. There was never any animosity among them because there was no competition for resources. I believe that we had the same situation in the rest of Europe, but the balance was destroyed not by war but by climate change.

R1a tribe, people which since at least early neolithic lived in Eurasia, still lives there today. On it's fringes it mixed with other tribes and produced mixed tribes with many mixed languages. These languages we today classify as Indoeuropean, but the common link between them is R1a language. R1b shares the most basic common roots with R1a as they both belong to the same paternal genetic and therefore linguistic branch. They share the natural language, the earliest language based on natural sounds.
The important thing is that R1a, R1b, I2, J, E1b languages, which contributed in creation of all modern Indoeuropean languages are also pre Indoeuropean. Indoeuropean means post mix in third millenium bc, pre Indoeuropean is pre mix in third millenium bc. For relatively pure R1a languages, Slavic languages, it is all one and the same language from beginning of language to today, with more or less foreign elements added to it. For relatively pure R1b language, Gaelic language, it is pretty much unchanged since at least 8000 bc but with noticeable components from I2 and R1a language added to it. The core is however the same, unchanged. For Balkan south Slavic languages, the situation is the same as far as R1a language part is concerned. But South Slavic languages are a mix of R1a and I2 languages, which occurred a lot earlier than 3000 bc. Western dialects of Croatian and Serbian preserve a lot of this oldest I2a language, which is mostly covered with R1a language. The same language can be found in traces in Irish. Later this old Balkan language was mixed with R1b and E1b languages. In western Europe things were a lot more turbulent, as can be seen from numerous changes in languages of western Europe through history. These changes are not present in Slavic languages (R1a) or in Irish Gaelic (R1b) which are pretty much unchanged. We can see this from the fact that there were very little changes in these languages since the first written records were made in these languages to today. These are very conservative old languages. Between them we have an ever changing see of western European languages. 

Each of these original languages which contributed to the creation of the Indoeuropean language family is also pre Indoeuropean. No need to wander what the language of the pre Indoeuropeans was. Each tribe spoke their own language in their own territory. Look at the genetic map of Eurasia and all becomes clear at once.

I hope this clarifies my understanding of what Indoeuropean is. Next i would like to give a quick summary of what i mean by early human language, and how i believe it was developed from natural sounds.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 27, 2014, 10:43:36 AM
Quote
If you are implying that i could be racist let me tell you this: I don't know what my haplogroup is, i don't know what haplogroup any of my family members and friends belong to. And i don't care. Genes are not something we choose. They determine a lot of who we are, but we should strive to be as best human being as possible regardless of what tribe we come from. I was brought up not to care what culture, religion or nationality someone belongs to, and to take difference as positive and enriching.
Great! That sounds like a good attitude (similar to mine).
So your motives aren't problematic. But I'm still very concerned about the association you're trying to draw logically. Languages and genetics are simply different things, and while sometimes you will obviously find correlations (skin color, for example, will give you SOME information statistically), it won't actually be precise or reliable enough to tell you anything important. There's nothing wrong with considering genetic data (in fact, I think it's a good idea among many, many other things), but there is something wrong in founding an argument about linguistics on that. If you don't understand why, then you have some background reading to do. Language, at least as far as all linguists are concerned, is not something you can study by looking at genetics, archaeological evidence or other areas. All of these types of evidence can work together and build a powerful theory, but one is not a substitute for another, and language, when the data is available, can be very useful in that.
Genetic differences are relatively minor and have a very large time depth. Languages change faster than that. In my (admittedly newly exposed) perspective, any theory that compares Irish and Serbian directly (without instead discussing Slavic and Celtic, at the VERY least) is absurd. If you would like me to sympathize with your concerns about Indo-European and understand your perspective, you'll at least need to address that.
Maybe you're just using random examples (eg, Serbian), and I've mistaken them for central claims (eg, about Slavic and Indo-European).

If you ever want to get published or present at a conference (or, yes, just post effectively on a relatively informal forum!), you will need to learn how to effectively and convincingly summarize your work into an abstract form. It's not easy, and no one is holding that against you.

But, no, I won't be reading hundreds of pages on a theory that doesn't make sense to me from the start. If you can address some of these fundamental questions we have and then it starts to seem more reasonable, then, sure, I'll put some more time into it. Questioning things is great. But in doing so, you must realize that you're probably going to be wrong most of the time, or at least that you won't be more right. (You might discover that one theory is wrong only to come up with a different but equally wrong theory.)



---

Your discussion of genes and families:
The scale of study is hugely important and possibly problematic here. You might be able to do what you're talking about with a massive computer simulation that can actually track things like fatherhood and differentiate siblings who move to different places, but that would involve entire genomes, not just two different genetic types. Two genetic types are going to tell you almost nothing about language. In fact, you will find lots of false positives out there, even if you are right about the subset you're looking at. Look at neighboring groups with their own languages in the two regions-- you'll find that those people actually share these same two genetic markers but that they don't share languages. The resolution for two values is not large enough to then start comparing something as diverse as languages.

Quote
Serbia is the best example, where we have every haplogroup known to man, all sharing the same language. But with different local dialects and customs, which you can identify as links to old cultures belonging to the original genetic tribe from which particular local family or clan came from.
Whoa! Present-day minor cultural variation is due to ancient genetic and historical factors? This not only seems implausible (or at least unreliable) to me, but it seems to go against your theory that there are clear genetic indicators correlated with all speakers of Serbian.

Quote
I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages.
To me this seems like a very bad idea. Or at least it is a bad idea if it is your only source of data. As I've said, there is simply not enough data in the genetic data to deal with the minor variations in Slavic and Celtic dialects you're talking about.

Quote
So far i think it works. I know everyone cringes when they hear genes and cultures mixed together, but just because someone abused something in the past, doesn't mean that we should never use it again. Just because someone killed someone with a knife, should we never use knife again?
Not at all. But there are two reasons people cringe:
1. It was used for bad motives.
2. It was bad science to begin with. The bad motives clouded their judgment and biased their science.
Just because someone used a certain method for bad purposes does not mean it's appropriate for good purposes.

Rather than your "knife" example, consider something like extreme torture. If it really is bad (in addition to be used for bad purposes), it should be avoided. I'm not claiming that relating genes and language is pure evil (like extreme torture), but that it may just be a bad methodology. That's all that would matter scientifically; you're right that misuse is irrelevant-- I agree completely.

So the problem then is that you're basing your theory on the idea that genes and language are reliably related. Fine if so. Then don't try to work out the Serbian issue right now. Instead, try to establish some basis for genes+language claims!

Quote
Tribes develop from families, and families propagate genes. This is a fact and can not be ignored.
True, but irrelevant.
Quote
Look at Slavs. From Central Europe to Siberia, they can all more or less understand each other.
Hm?
(And so are you now talking about Slavic as a whole? Still some big issues open!)
Quote
They are all more or less R1a.
That certainly doesn't cause anything. If anything, it's just a fortunate coincidence for a researcher. That's not a good feeling, that your research program is based on what you hope is a coincidence.
Quote
Their cultures are also very similar, and all that after crusades, conversions, occupations, exterminations, communism, nazism, huns, avars, mongols, turks, germans, austrians, hungarians, vikings and all the other invaders and conquerors.
Sure.

Quote
After thousands of years, over two continents, the language and culture is the same where the population is the of the same genetic type (R1a). All this without schools and without books to codify the language.
Perhaps. But so what? What does this say about Proto-Indo-European, in a case where there was a lot of migration?

Let's look at a simple, established fact:
Proto-Indo-European was spoken somewhere probably by a relatively homogenous group at the time. About 6000-8000 years later (or, looking back, about 3000 years later), those people had spread and their languages were then spoken by people who were genetically and obviously physically very different. Compare the red-haired Irish to the blonde-haired Scandinavians, to the dark-haired and darker skinned Italians, and then the very, very different looking Indians. They all speak related languages.

Now you might argue something is wrong with that hypothesis. If that's the case, then, well, good luck! There's essentially definitive evidence for IE languages being related, although many details are unclear. Nothing in historical linguistics is ever certain, but the field may as well collapse if the major IE languages don't actually work out as Jones proclaimed 250 years ago. Sanskrit is related to Greek and Latin. Therefore, there is no clear relationship between genes/appearance and language. Often, there might be a relationship. But it's not reliable. And that's where you're left.

Another area where a lot of research has been done is with the so-called Khoisan languages (a disputed group, really). The genetic and linguistic relationships are intertwined but not strongly correlated. It's possible to figure out the relationships, but they're things like "group X stopped speaking their language 1000 years ago and then they picked up a language from group Y". That research is specifically about disentangling genes and language! Something to read about.




By the way, your posts are being flagged by our spam filter (because of how many links they contain, I think). There's nothing wrong with your posts and the moderators will approve them as soon as we see them. Just in case you were wondering.
(We're developing a new spam filter, which will be customized to eventually not target established members.)
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on January 27, 2014, 11:37:22 AM
<Looks around for answers to freknu's questions>  :-[
Yes, there's a decided attempt to not face them, from what I can see.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 27, 2014, 01:41:41 PM
lx

do you even know what freknu asked?

me:

Quote
Also the whole term "Indoeuropen" needs to be seriously reevaluated, as latest genetic data are connecting Indo European directly with R1a haplogroup and to lesser Extent R1b haplogroup only.

freknu's question: Like lx, I fail to see why it needs reevaluation?

Quote
Both Irish and Serbian (South Slavic) languages  have very large layer of paleolithic language, and have preserved the oldest language roots. You can build "PIE" roots using roots found in Serbian and Irish. This is how old this stuff is.

Freknu's question: You can build PIE roots from all IE languages. What is this supposed paleolithic substratum and why must it be pre-IE paleolithic?

I am currently trying to answer these two questions first as they are important to set frame of reference for further discussion. You don't have to agree with me. But you have my answer. I will clarify few more things in reply to djr33 tomorrow.

So please read and feel free to make comments. I will address his other questions later.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on January 27, 2014, 01:49:18 PM
Quote
Let's make my questions even more direct:
1) provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
2) explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
This is what I was referring to.
I see you're pretty read up on genetic migratory patterns, though you come to some conclusions that I've seen debated, about R1b being strictly linked to the first PIE speakers that came into Europe. I understand the scene needs to be set (and in fact I did ask earlier to stick to less fringe topics and set a basis to lead out to the new ideas) but even if we say the underlying migratory theories you're citing are correct, this still has no bearing on how you translate this to languages. That's why people are saying you're dodging the question and not providing any evidence.

Freknu's questions get right to the point. You seem to have a theory you want to prove, but haven't got the evidence just yet. Herein lies the problem.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 27, 2014, 02:00:39 PM
You begin with the central claim (or claims) of your theory (or theories), and work outwards from there — make your claim and incrementally explain it.

You do not begin with the periphery and work towards the centre — drowning the reader with "irrelevant" data that won't make any sense at all (if ever) until you make it to the final and central points (if you ever get there to begin with).

As has been pointed out already, the link between genetics and language is more artificial than Donald Trump's hairpiece.

My central inqury was and still is:

  • provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
  • explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 28, 2014, 08:29:30 AM
djr33

Quote
Great! That sounds like a good attitude (similar to mine).

Great. So we can talk about languages, genes, customs and cultures calmly, impartially and without preconceptions rooted in bigotry. I hope. We can accept facts when they are presented to us and use logic and not emotions to evaluate each other's arguments.

Freknu and Lx

I am going to continue my conversation with djr33. I believe that my answers to him, also answer your questions. So here we go:

I said:

Quote
I use genetics as a tool to track spread of cultures and languages.

Then you said:

Quote
To me this seems like a very bad idea. Or at least it is a bad idea if it is your only source of data. As I've said, there is simply not enough data in the genetic data to deal with the minor variations in Slavic and Celtic dialects you're talking about.

And I agree with you 100%. You can not use genetics to determine a language of a population. I started this research about 20 years ago. I know I am old. This was before public internet, discussion boards and genetic data. I started by trying to understand very peculiar local customs, traditions and dialect characteristics of the South East Serbia, the Southern Carpatian region. They use "Celtic" standing crosses to mark the border between villages, their language is one of the oldest and most conservative dialects of Serbian language and it contains some constructs that, as far as I am aware, only exist in Irish. This was the start.
Most of my research is in the area of anthropology, archaeology and ethnography. Linguistics is a crucial part of this research. Languages, part of languages, survive when one language replaces another. As I said, when two languages merge, smaller or bigger percentage of the less dominant language survives inside the new mixed language. Sometimes we can clearly see the layers of the previous languages, because a lot of both languages which went into the mix was preserved, like in English, or German, or French. But sometimes only a fraction of the less dominant language will survive. Like in Hibernian English. A slang word, a name of a plant or an animal breed, a name of an archaic tool or custom, a name of an ancient god or a demon, a grammatical construct, toponimes and hidronimes. If the population that originally carried the swallowed language is also completely swallowed or destroyed, we will have problems finding these bits of old language (or languages) in the mass of the new language because we will have no reference language. But if only part of the population carrying the less dominant language was assimilated into the new culture and language, and the other part still lived somewhere where they still spoke their original language (or an evolved variation of it), and still had preserved their old customs and traditions, then the situation is completely different. You can literally overlay two languages and cultures together and spot the similarities straight away. If you then compare your results with a third language and culture, which is directly related to the dominant language and culture from the mix you are investigating, picture becomes even clearer. You can tell exactly what came from where. This is what I did with Serbian (South Slavic languages) and Irish. South Slavic languages are the most conservative and the oldest dialects of Slavic language. Church Slavonic was based on south Slavic dialect of the population which lived around Thessaloniki in the 9th century.

Quote
Old Church Slavonic, also known as Old Church Slavic (often abbreviated to OCS; self-name словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first Slavic literary language. The 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with standardizing the language and using it in translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianisation of the Slavic peoples. It is thought to have been based primarily on the dialect of the 9th century Byzantine Slavs living in the Province of Thessalonica (now in Greek Macedonia).


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

This language is still spoken in south of Serbia. And actually even older dialects exist in the Balkans still today. Irish is also very conservative language. But it is actually a conglomerate of old Irish (R1b) language and I2 and R1a languages. In early medieval Irish texts (before Vikings, Normans and British) there are references to a peculiar "Iron" language which half of Ireland spoke and which was not like "our" language (Gaelic). Eventually Gaelic language prevailed and non Gaelic population was subdued and absorbed or exterminated. But part of their language and culture was also preserved in Irish language and culture, as well as in toponimes and hidronimes. If you compare Irish language, culture and toponimes and hidronimes, with South Slavic and Germanic languages, culture and toponimes and hidronimes, you can clearly see which parts come from these languages (a very large part) and which part comes from the original Gaelic (R1b) language.

I started looking at genetic data only a few years ago. The available data is still very limited particularly data coming from "interesting" parts of the world, like north Africa, central Asia, even Balkans. People have no money to do expensive genetic tests. So when we say "15%" of population has R1a haplogroup, that means 15% of 0.01 percent of the population...Not something i would like to use as my main argument for anything. As more an more people get tested, data becomes "statistically" more reliable. But you know what they say about "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

Now why do I then use genetic types to name languages? Because I can not use names like Irish or Slavic or Celtic to identify the language through time that spans millenniums. Languages like everything else get born (or created in case of slang languages) and then they evolve. As I said already, natural languages are born within genetically compact families. So originally every language was linked to some genetic type. I am talking about original languages, from the times of Cro Magnons. By the time people recolonized Ireland after the last glacial maximum, the language that particular tribe spoke was already old, but still descendant of same language the original population of the dominant genetic type within the tribe once invented. The megalithic R1b inhabitants of Ireland had a language, before Celts were Celts and Irish were Irish and part of that language is in Celtic languages and in modern Irish. The Celtic languages are Indoeuropean, and R1b as part of R1b language went into creation of the Celtic languages. But Celtic languages are also R1a, and I2 as part of these languages went into creation of Celtic languages too. We have the same situation with Serbian, Slvic, Scythian, Vedic...All of them are stages of the evolution of one language. R1a language. But what are we going to call that language before it became Vedic language? You can call it Proto Indo European. However this language has been through history directly linked to R1a population as all ancient dna from burial sites are confirming. The direct ancestor of this language is the language spoken by the direct genetic ancestors of the R1a Proto Indo Europeans, Slavs. Indo European languages were created by mixing of R1a language (and it's dialects) and other pre merge, pre Indo European people like R1b people, E1b people, various Asian people. This is, i have to repeat it again, the reason why we need redefining of what Indoeuropean, proto Indoeuropean and pre Indoeuropean means. I believe, based on archaeological, historical, ethnological, anthropological, linguistic and genetic data that i have collected and correlated, that R1a people were proto Indoeuropeans, the core component of all Indoeuropean languages, and what makes them related to each other.

This is the diagram of the distribution of R1a in Eurasia and north Africa:

(http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1a.gif)

Here is what Eupedia says about R1a haplogroup:

Quote
Haplogroup R1a probably branched off from R1* around the time of the Last Glacial Maximum (19,000 to 26,000 years before present). Little is know for certain about its place of origin. Some think it might have originated in the Balkans or around Pakistan and Northwest India, due to the greater genetic diversity found in these regions. The diversity can be explained by other factors though. The Balkans have been subject to 5000 years of migrations from the Eurasian Steppes, each bringing new varieties of R1a. South Asia has had a much bigger population than any other parts of the world (occasionally equalled by China) for at least 10,000 years, and larger population bring about more genetic diversity. The most likely place of origin of R1a is Central Asia or southern Russia/Siberia.

R1a is thought to have been the dominant haplogroup among the northern and eastern Indo-European speakers who evolved into the Indo-Iranian, Mycenaean Greek, Thracian, Baltic and Slavic branches.

I would say that R1a haplogroup was also very influential in creation of western European languages by mixing with R1b, I1,I2, N, E1b, J...haplogroups.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#R1a

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 28, 2014, 08:29:49 AM
I believe, based on the same data, that R1b and E1b languages were Afro Asiatic languages or Afro Atlantic or Central Asia, North Africa, Atlantic languages. They contributed in the creation of Indoeuropean languages by mixing with proto Indoeuropean R1a language. R1b and E1b languages also formed other languages by mixing with other genetic language groups such as J, G and C in Africa and Asia.

Look at Basque language. Non Indo European language, and one of few almost pure R1b, pre Indoeuropean mix, languages left. Everyone expected Basque people to have one of the old European, pre Indoeuropean, haplogroups. The fact that Basque people have, with Irish, the highest percentage of R1b people, came as a shock. First this was used as a proof that R1b was the original hunter gatherer type of Europe. But we know now that this is not true. What is special about Basque people is that they did not mix their language with R1a languages, and so have not become Indoeuropean. Irish on the other hand, another R1b language, did mix extensively with R1a and I2 languages and became Indoeuropenised. Both R1a and R1b share common language roots, as both genetic types which are carriers of the languages share common genetic progenitor R1, same father. But long period of separation and extensive mixing of R1b with other non R1 languages in central Asia and Africa, change R1b languages so much, that when they finally entered Europe in Neolithic, they only partially resembled R1a languages, and partially had Afro Asiatic characteristics. This Afro Asiatic influence is evident in Irish, even though it is still debated: 

Quote
The concept of the Insular Celtic languages being descended from Hebrew was part of Medieval superstition, but the hypothesis that they had features from an Afro-Asiatic substratum (Iberian and Berber languages) was first proposed by John Morris-Jones in 1900.[2] Some well-known linguists have been adherents such as Julius Pokorny,[3] Heinrich Wagner,[4] and Orin Gensler.[5] There has been further work on the theory by Shisha-Halevy [6] and Theo Vennemann.
The theory has been criticised by Graham Isaac[7] and by Kim McCone.[8] Isaac alleges, that the twenty points identified by Gensler are trivial, dependencies or vacuous, but without giving an rationale. Thus he considers the theory to be not just unproven but wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celtic_languages#Possible_Afro-Asiatic_substratum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celtic_languages#Possible_Afro-Asiatic_substratum)

Quote

Celtic languages – Irish, Scots Gaelic and Welsh – incorporate grammatical traits found in Afro-Asiatic tongues that are otherwise unrelated, according to research published last week in Science magazine.

Other Celtic languages that were spoken in continental Europe and have since died out did not have these grammatical quirks. Afro-Asiatic languages are currently spoken in countries across Northern Africa and the Near East. This points to the possibility that there was early contact between Celtic and North African populations in the British Isles.

Orin Gensler, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, said the similarities would be explained if, when Afro-Asiatic people learnt Celtic from the new immigrants, they “perpetuated aspects of their own grammar into the new language”. Gensler has studied many grammatical features found in both Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages. He found many of the shared features were rare in other languages.

Linguists have discovered surprising differences between Celtic languages and related languages such as French, while seeing striking resemblances between Celtic and Afro-Asiatic languages that are spoken in countries including Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria.

Gensler examined features of the languages such as the order of words in a sentence. In Gaelic and Welsh the standard sentence structure is verb subject-object, which is a rare sequence. This is also the case in many Afro-Asiatic languages. Celtic languages that used to be spoken in  continental Europe had the verb in the final or middle position.

Berniece Wuethrich, author of the Science article, said: “The only other non-linguistic evidence that could point towards this connection is in blood type, but it is not definitive. Irish and British people have different proportions of blood types to most Europeans. Where there are comparable proportions is in the Atlas mountains in Northern Africa, home of the Berber people.” Berber is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language group.

Geneticists say there is no evidence of North African ancestors in Irish genes. “There is no particular correspondence between northwest Africa and this island but that is not to say we won’t find something,” said Dr Dan Bradley of the department of genetics at Trinity College. “There is no good genetic evidence to support what the linguists are saying. You have to keep an open mind though.”

While in general clues about the identity of prehistoric inhabitants are gleaned from archeological remains and DNA, linguists say that certain elements of a language can preserve information about ancient times.

It is widely known that when the Celts invaded Ireland there were people already here. Man is first believed to have arrived on Irish shores about 9,000 years ago – the earliest-known archeological evidence for human habitation dates to 7,000BC.

Archeologists are not sure of the origins of prehistoric immigrants to Ireland. A team of scientists in Dublin and Belfast, including Bradley, is studying the genes of modern Irish people to find evidence of these origins, a project which is partly funded by the government’s millennium fund

These oddities of grammar still persist in the English language spoken in Ireland. They do have a slightly different way of composing a sentence.

 ’ What would you be wanting with your Guinness?’

Instead of

‘What do you want with your Guinness?’

So who do you think brought these Afro Asiatic characteristics to Irish? I believe R1b population with their languages.


Germanic peoples speak Germanic languages, and it has long been recognized that a substantial pre-Indo- European component exists in those languages. Piergiuseppe Scardigli estimates that a full 40% of the basic ancient Germanic vocabulary is not Indo-European, but rather comes from some other source. This includes such basic words as land, rain, path, silver, and word (Scardigli, Der Weg zur deutschen Sprache). Edgar Polomé finds it "obvious" that Germanic retains traces of the language spoken by the pre-Indo-European inhabitants of Denmark and northern Germany (Polomé The non-Indo-European component of the Germanic lexicon).


Are there any linguistic links between Berber and German? Berber, the simplest and most conservative Afro Asiatic language, like the related Semitic languages, uses vowel mutation to express a change of meaning. Thus amagur (camel) becomes imugar (camels). This same feature is characteristic of Germanic languages as well; thus English man/men, foot/feet, write/wrote, etc. In The Loom of Language, Bodmer observes that Germanic and Semitic share this distinctive feature (Bodmer, The Loom of Language) which is, needless to say, uncommon in other Indo-European languages. Based on its traces in Germanic, Eric Hamp reconstructs the pre-Indo-European language of northern Europe as one in which there was a four-vowel system with no distinct "o," and which used the same words for deictic and relative pronouns (Markey and Greppin, When Worlds Collide: Indo-Europeans and Pre-Indo-Europeans- The Bellaio Papers). Berber also has a four-vowel system with no "o" and uses the same words for deictic and relative pronouns.


Many pre-Indo-European root words surviving in Germanic can be traced back to an Afro-Asiatic source (the parent language family of Berber as well). An excellent example is the word silver, which comes from Berber azerfa. This term was apparently spread throughout Western Europe by the Beaker Folk, who traded in silver (Cardona, Indo-European and Indo-Europeans). Berber (Afro Asiatic) words in Germanic include:



Quote
EARLY GERMANIC ~ AFRO-ASIATIC (Proto-Berber)

baus (bad, evil, useless; German böse) ~ ba's (calamity, misfortune)
ela (eel) ~ 'il (snake)
gawi (district; German Gau) ~ gawad (land, with epenthesis)
kelikn (loft, upper story) ~ qal'a (fortress, hill, citadel [Skomal, 223ff])
land (land, country) ~ lha'nt (grassland, with collective suffix)
paþa (path) ~ put (to step along)
preu (awl, piercing tool) ~ par (to separate, cut apart, make an opening)
regen (rain; German Regen) ~ rayyn (well-watered, with noun suffix)
sek (to cut, mow; English sickle) ~ tsîk (to pluck up)
silver (silver) ~ azerfa (silver)
summer (summer) ~ asammar (hot weather)
werð (word) ~ werd (to call out)

Germans are not the only West European nation deeply influenced by Berber culture. Celtic is especially rich in Afro Asiatic vocabulary. Even a common Irish word like aue, "grandson," cognates with Berber aouwi, "son." This is, by the way, the root of the Irish prefix Ó, still found in Irish names like O'Reilly this most common "Irish" word is actually Afro Asiatic and has cognates in Berber! Irish tribal names like Uí Máine, Uí Faoláin, and Uí Néill, seem to have been patterned after the Afro Asiatic collective prefix found in Berber Ait Frah, Ait Ouriaghel, and Aït Ndhir (Adams Hamito-Semitic and the Pre-Celtic Substratum in Ireland and Britain). According to world-renowned scholar Julius Pokorny, it is "from every point of view impossible" that the Celts were the earliest inhabitants of Ireland; the Berbers came first (Pokorny, The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland). He reminds us that the Megalithic inhabitants of Éire were long- headed Mediterraneans, who "still form the principal element in the population of North Africa." There are many customs in common between Celts and Berbers, Pokorny assures us, including "queer sexual morals" (Pokorny The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland). Welsh scholars have also affirmed "the kinship of the early inhabitants of Britain to the North African white race" (Sergi, The Mediterranean race), while the linguistic evidence of nouns, verbs, infixed pronouns, pre-verbs, consonant quality, and lenition of consonants all proves "close relations between Berber and Insular Celtic" (Pokorny, The pre-Celtic inhabitants of Ireland).


Especially in their syntax, Celtic, Spanish, Basque, Portuguese, French and English have all been deeply affected by this same "Atlantic" substratum, which Gessman calls "almost certainly Hamitic" (Gessman, The Tongue of the Romans).

Here is a list of common Basque and Berber words:

Quote
English, Berber, Basque

tree ...saGar (pl.).. SAGAR (*)
Basque "sagar" actually means "apple"

to arrive ...fel.... HEL
Basque "(h)el-"

to attach...aGi ....ATXI
Basque "atxiki" (to add, to stick)

beef ....esu (t-esu-t "cow") ...ZEZEN
Basque "zezen" means 'bull'

wood.... saRir ....ZUR
Basque "zur"

to run fast .... azl ZAL
(no such word in Basque, but compare Basque "zaldi", 'horse')

to say ...... enn ERRAN, ESAN
Basque "esan", "erran" probably from earlier "esran"

to sleep..... eTTes ETZAN (to lie)
Basque "etzan"

sheet ......axawlil OIHAL
Basque "oihal" (cloth)

child .....araw (H)AUR
Basque "(h)aur"

enemy .....henGa ETSAI
Basque "etsai"

to sneeze .....usraG urtzinz
Basque "usin"

to do .....eG / ekn- EGIN
Basque "-gin-" (to do, make)

String.....ehed HEDE
Basque "hede"

gazelle ....ahenkoD AHUNTZ (goat)
Basque "ahuntz"

drop.... eTTeb ITOITZ
Basque "itoi"

seeds ....âllun ALE
Basque "ale"

to throw .....enDw ANDEatu
the Basque word for 'to throw' is "-gotz-"

milk ....ax ESNE
Basque "esne"

master..... mess messaw MAISU
Basque "maisu" means "teacher"

sick ..... iran -urn- ERI
Basque "eri"

name ......isem IZEN
Basuqe "izen"

smell ..... ûxem USAIN USNA
Basque "usain", from an earlier *usani

shadow ..... têle ITZAL
Basque "itzal"

nail...... êsker AZAZKAL
Basque "atzazal" means "finger nail", and it's a compound of "atz-" (finger) + "azal" (skin, bark).

Gold ......ûreR URRE
Basque "urre"

to milk ......eZZeG JEIXI JAITZI
Basque "jaitzi"

to chose .....ebres BEREXI
not a Basque word ("berezi" means 'special')

to find..... eGraw AURKItu
Basque "aurkitu"

valley.... eRahar HARAN
Basque "(h)aran"

calf .....ahRu ARATXE
The Basque word for 'calf' is actually "txahal", which requires an earlier *zanal or *sanal.

Quote
Linguist Jaime Martín, claims in his book "An enigma untangled: the origin of Basque" that he had found similarities between Dogon languages of Mali with Basque.

On linguistic structures, Dogon and Basque concur in sentence placement order, with the subject at the beginning, the verb at the end – which is the biggest difference from Romance languages – and the direct object in the middle. Also, demonstratives (this, that) go after the verb, as opposed to Latin and Spanish, where it goes before. “I was surprised”, he confesses. They differ in that Basque maintains declinations while Dogon does not have them.

As far as vocabulary goes, he compared 2,274 from both languages and found 1,633 similar pair, which represents 70% of the total.

According to the author, comparative linguistics from a %50 of similarity one can talk about a relationship between two languages.

Ten examples of almost identical words: bede/bide (path in Dogon and Basque, respectively); soro/soro (agricultural land); beri/bero (hot); gara/garai (high); bana/banandu (to separate); gogoro/gogortu (to hold on); kwiye/kuia (pumpkin); pipilu/pipil (bud); togi/toki (place); kose/gose (hunger).

He also found Basque words made up of two Dogon terms, such as “senide” (brother), which is “sani de” in Dogon. Furthermore, he noticed that most of the words were older in Dogon that in Basque. All that has taken him to the conclusion that the Basque language originates from Dogon.

Therefore, according to this professor, the Basque language, which has been the subject of multiple theories about his origin, none of them conclusive, would have an African origin.

He is not the first comparing Basque with other languages; as Martin points out, Koldo Mitxelena – the most famous Basque linguist – denied the correlation between Basque with African languages.

Another well-known linguist, Antonio Tovar, carried out a comparative study among Basque, Berber, Copto and Egyptian and three other Caucasian languages.

Tovar only found up to 7% of similitude with Berber, very little, but pointed out how similar Basque sentence structure was to other languages.

What is interesting is that Mali is part of west Africa where we find a lot of R1b haplogroup. Fulani of Mali, a nomadic, herders tribe who also live in Niger, and Chad, have a high frequency of R1b1c. The also carry the European version of lactose persistence at a pretty high frequency, especially for Africa, of 37%. Lactose tolerance is almost directly linked with R1b herders population. If you look at these maps you will see that they are quite similar:

Lactose tolerance map. Red is most tolerant.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-snKmMS7WKpo/T-PZnbOkogI/AAAAAAAAAZk/741ftY2LOE0/s1600/Old+World+LP+phenotype+frequencies+based+on+all+phenotype+frequencies.png)

R1b distribution:

(http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b_World.png)

There is a great chance that lactose tolerance is passed on through a genetic block related to original R1b herders.

When and how did dairy herding reach these parts of Africa? Or maybe the real question is how did dairy herders reach Europe from Africa?



So to recapitulate this. I did not base my conclusions on Genetics. I used genetics as one of, the last and least used, tool. But you can not exclude genetics from this conversation. I agree with the existence of proto Indoeuropean people but I believe they are R1a people today known as Slavs. I agree that there is such a thing as Indoeuropean people but only as a mix of original proto Indoeuropean R1a people with Afro Asiatic people R1b, E1b, old European people such as I, G, J, and Central Asian and Indian people. I believe that pre Indoeuropean languages are the original languages that formed Indoeuropean languages by mixing together. Some of these pre Indoeuropean languages survive pretty unchanged (Slavic in R1a, Basque in R1b) some preserved quite a lot of pre mix structure and vocabulary (Gaelic), and some are mix of original languages with varying percent of the original languages (the rest of European and Indo Iranian languages).

Serbian language and other South Slavic languages, have preserved a lot of the oldest pre mix (pre Indoeuropean) language roots and their meanings. These roots are used for building syllables and words. They are very much pre Indoeuropean. They come to us straight from at least Cro Magnon times. The vowels i presented are the core languages roots. "GL-LG" root is one of the oldest consonant roots of human language. It defines the length of your tong inward and outward. It defines binary code which can be used to describe any amount of information. Pronounced fast it creates "glg" sound which if pronounced sharp becomes "klick" sound, found in most primitive klick languages of Africa. I will after this go back to vowels and add few more things that made me conclude what i concluded about vowels and their meaning. I will also give examples of pre-Indoeuropean words from Irish and Serbian and explain why I believe they are pre Indoeuropean (older than 3000 bc). 

Until then stay happy.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 28, 2014, 08:46:45 AM
R1b in Africa:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26626-R1b-in-Africa

"Celtic" torques from west Africa:

(http://www.africaandbeyond.com/media/new-products/African%20currency%20Manilla%20small%2019.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/2005_0101MusAlbertandVictoria0138.JPG/220px-2005_0101MusAlbertandVictoria0138.JPG)

They are called manilas and come from west africa

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


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

Interesting and not really talked about...Who came from where?

African bracelet money

(http://coincoin.com/bDuchBeninS60.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLcJNwqVREYZViWpmCWAVcm9PzndB_fVA0DrMs5Oam7d49It-0)

(http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1991.17.13.jpg)

http://coincoin.com/I062.htm

A man holding exactly the same torcs can be seen on a relief showing Scythians bringing presents to Persian king.

(http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Scythian/sakas_persepolis.jpg)

How do we explain this? Who came to Africa and when and brought these torques with them? Copper production originated in the Balkans with Vinca culture 5000 bc. Gold production originated int the Balkans too at the same time.  The oldest golden treasure in the world, dating from 4,600 BC to 4,200 BC was found in Varna, Bulgaria. The oldest silver artifacts date from ancient Sumer about 4000 bce. Sumer is culturally directly linked with Vinca. So metal production, and torques were brought to West Africa from Europe or middle East.
So who and when brought torques to Africa? And how and when did R1b end up there in such numbers? Did the root go from Ireland along the Atlantic coast to west Africa? Or the other way round?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 28, 2014, 11:09:45 AM
Quote
Great. So we can talk about languages, genes, customs and cultures calmly, impartially and without preconceptions rooted in bigotry. I hope. We can accept facts when they are presented to us and use logic and not emotions to evaluate each other's arguments.
Absolutely. I never intended to imply anything else. However, we still seem to disagree about the validity of using genetic data for this purpose. That's a purely scientific concern. I'm not unwilling to be wrong about this, if your arguments are convincing.

Quote
I started by trying to understand very peculiar local customs, traditions and dialect characteristics of the South East Serbia, the Southern Carpatian region. They use "Celtic" standing crosses to mark the border between villages, their language is one of the oldest and most conservative dialects of Serbian language and it contains some constructs that, as far as I am aware, only exist in Irish. This was the start.
The simplest hypotheses:
1. It's just by chance. It seems important because you noticed it. But if I asked you "Would you believe that two Indo-European languages/cultures have striking chance similarities not due to historical relationship?" would you be willing to believe that? I mean, would you believe that out of the several hundred modern IE languages that such a pair exists among those. The fact that you noticed this makes it seems much more statistically relevant than it is: with a level of significant set at, say, .05, the chance of finding one major coincidence among all of the IE languages is remarkably high. You must show that something more is going on.
2. Let's assume these are related historically. What reason do you have to think that they were not there in the original language (PIE) and lost in all of the others? That's the standard default assumption for shared features in languages. For example, very few modern languages preserve the instrumental case, but that doesn't make researchers assume that those languages are older or more closely related than the others; it just means that it was lost elsewhere. In fact, this is necessarily the case within the subfamilies of Slavic and Celtic already! So why not the others too?

In fact, for both possibilities I would imagine there are very compelling examples to be found that do work out that way.

Therefore, you have a hypothesis based on suggestive evidence (in your opinion), but even if you can somehow work out a way to defend it, should you? Is it a better hypothesis than what already exists?


It would help me if you could provide a very short, very simple timeline of what you think the evolution of the IE languages looked like. Did PIE exist within that? What existed after, and what before?


Quote
Most of my research is in the area of anthropology, archaeology and ethnography. Linguistics is a crucial part of this research. Languages, part of languages, survive when one language replaces another. As I said, when two languages merge, smaller or bigger percentage of the less dominant language survives inside the new mixed language.
So maybe you can be right without challenging the PIE hypothesis in any way: you're hypothesizing a substratum that was spoken in modern Serbia and Ireland. That's possible. What you're seeing is the result of IE being adapted into the existing regions, and the same with the genetics. I'd be much more likely to accept this argument, although it's still very tentative.

The concept of proposing unknown substratums to explain change (or similarities across a region) was common practice for a while. Why did sound X develop? Simple, there must have been a language spoken there that had sound X. It makes sense. However, recent approaches have questioned this, and even come up with the term "substratomania (https://www.google.com/search?q=substratomania)" to confront the problematic assumption in the literature. Certainly sometimes there are substratums to be discovered. But it's not as reliable as you might think.

In fact, this sounds more and more like the conclusion you should be reaching, assuming that your argument holds up. That's a whole different conversation we can have, although most of it will just be guessing and imagining.

Quote
OCS... This language is still spoken in south of Serbia
Huh? I took a class on Slavic linguistics (specifically historical development from PIE) and I don't think this fits in with that. OCS is dead, while I have heard that Bulgarians consider it "Old Bulgarian" because it evolved into that. Certainly dialects that descended from OCS (or it's spoken form, more specifically) might exist in Serbia, but don't confuse that with them necessarily being special or "old"-- all languages are equally old, given that each has an ancestor and so forth, at least for tens of thousands of years.

Quote
I started looking at genetic data only a few years ago. The available data is still very limited particularly data coming from "interesting" parts of the world, like north Africa, central Asia, even Balkans. People have no money to do expensive genetic tests. So when we say "15%" of population has R1a haplogroup, that means 15% of 0.01 percent of the population...Not something i would like to use as my main argument for anything. As more an more people get tested, data becomes "statistically" more reliable. But you know what they say about "lies, damn lies and statistics"?
Another reason to be more skeptical of this. If you are going to rely on data, you better be able to rely on statistics. If not, that's even worse ;)

Quote
Now why do I then use genetic types to name languages? Because I can not use names like Irish or Slavic or Celtic to identify the language through time that spans millenniums. Languages like everything else get born (or created in case of slang languages) and then they evolve.
That appears to me to represent fundamental misunderstandings that, for example, the class I teach is intended to correct. While some of this may just be your background and lack of familiarity with technical terms, "slang languages" is very concerning because of (what I think are) the implications of that. All languages are "slang" languages; some just happen to be socially perceived as "standard" and thereby valued. There is nothing whatsoever about the linguistic forms themselves that can be evaluated in such a way. Therefore, in historical linguistics, the standardization is all but irrelevant, except to the extent that it is a factor in determining the size and distribution of certain dialects.

Quote
As I said already, natural languages are born within genetically compact families.
Sometimes. That's not entirely reliable. Intermarriage is very commonly practiced in some parts of the world (such as Australia, the Americas, and perhaps old Europe).

There are no easy boundaries for dialects and languages. Family "trees" are likely more accurately represented by the gradient "wave model", where every individual essentially acts as a drop of water in the ocean, with what we identify as languages forming "waves".

Quote
So originally every language was linked to some genetic type.
That's possible. It's far from a clearly necessary assumption!

Quote
But what are we going to call that language before it became Vedic language? You can call it Proto Indo European. However this language has been through history directly linked to R1a population as all ancient dna from burial sites are confirming. The direct ancestor of this language is the language spoken by the direct genetic ancestors of the R1a Proto Indo Europeans, Slavs. Indo European languages were created by mixing of R1a language (and it's dialects) and other pre merge, pre Indo European people like R1b people, E1b people, various Asian people. This is, i have to repeat it again, the reason why we need redefining of what Indoeuropean, proto Indoeuropean and pre Indoeuropean means. I believe, based on archaeological, historical, ethnological, anthropological, linguistic and genetic data that i have collected and correlated, that R1a people were proto Indoeuropeans, the core component of all Indoeuropean languages, and what makes them related to each other.
That may be entirely true. But (read Anthony (2007) The Horse, the Wheel and Language) the Indo-Europeans spread by conquering diverse populations. Whatever their original genetic makeup was, it is now very mixed in the daughter languages. (And the opposite can happen where a population loses its language.) Again, genes and languages are not necessarily correlated!!



Ok, that's one of the three posts. I'm running out of time at the moment, so I'll try to look through the others later. Feel free to reply to this now.



---

Edit: ok, third post is short--
Quote
... A man holding exactly the same torcs can be seen on a relief showing Scythians bringing presents to Persian king. ...
Interesting. Again, see my alternative explanations above (coincidence, lack of loss).

But evidence like this sometimes exists and can be legitimately confusing. The question is whether it overwhelms the other evidence so that we reject a theory like PIE.

An example that comes to mind is something I saw somewhere (you may be able to find it by searching-- it was on a forum I wasn't previously familiar with, I just stumbled across it) about depictions (carvings, statues) of elephants by the Mayans. How can that possibly be explained? Not surprisingly, a lot of crazy theories followed in the thread. "It's proof that X!!!!" Something about the Basques was mentioned I think... bringing elephants to the Mayans. I don't recall. Crazy stuff.
The point is that weird data does come up, but there is usually a rational explanation. If you can't find an obvious way to explain it, then maybe it's non-obvious and complicated, but something that doesn't contradict existing theories. The problem with theories is that with enough imagination we can theorize just about anything and even come up with some way to make almost any two theories [at least data!] compatible (even if they seem incompatible). So... that's why science is hard, and why scientists exist. I'm not suggesting you give up at all, but do consider, to the greatest extent you can, alternative theories! Getting excited by a theory is one of the most dangerous things you can do in science-- but we like the idea, we're tired of not knowing, and we just want it to be right. The scientist's dilemma. (And why won't everyone just believe us for once!?)
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 28, 2014, 01:09:24 PM
You still haven't answered my questions, and from your wall of text I can find only one Irish word and no Serbian words.

Ir. ó "grandchild, descendant" < OIr. úa < aue < PC. *awyos < *PIE. awos- "grandfather; descendant"
cf. PG. *awô *awōN, Lat. avus, Ind. āyā, PSl. *uj, Serb-Cro. ujāk

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

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

PG. *ēlaz "eel" < PIE. *ēl- "line, strip"
cf. OInd. ālī, Grk. olinge

PG. *gawi < *gaawja "riverlands" < *awjō "island" < *agwjō < *ahwō < PIE. *akwa- "water"

PG. *landaN "land" < PIE. *lendh- "land, heath"
cf. OIr. land "open space", Rus. ljádá "land covered with young trees", Alb. lendina "meadow"

PG. *paþaz "path" < PIE. *pent- "to go, walk; way, path"
cf. Lat. pons, pontis, OCS. pǫtь, Grk. pontos, Skr. patha

PG. *preunaz "awl" < PIE. *breu- "protrusion, tip, edge" < *bhares- "point, stubble"
cf. Lit. briauna, Alb. brez, breth, Lat. fastus, Rus. borščь

PG. *regnaz "rain" < PIE. *reǵ- "damp; rain"
cf. Lat. rigō, irrigō, Alb. rrjeth, rrjedh, Lit. roki

PG. *sumaraz "summer" < PIE. *sem- "summer, year"
cf. OInd. samā, Arm. am, OIr. samrad, Cymr. hafod, Gaul. samon

PG. *wurdaN "word" < PIE. *wrdho- "word" < PIE. *wer- "to speak"
cf. Lat. verbum, Skr. vrata, Hit. werija, Av. urvāta, OInd. vrāta, Grk. eiro, Rus. vru, OCS. rota

Got. kēlikn "tower" < Gaul. cēlicnon < PIE. *kel- "to tower; hill; protrusion"
cf. Grk. kolonos, Lat. celsus, collis, PG. *hulliz, PSl. *cьlnъ

OHG. sihhila < Lat. secula "sickle" < Lat. secō "to cut" < PIE. *sēk- "to cut"
cf. PG. *sagô, *sagō, *sahsaN, *sīþaN, *seglaN, Lat. secō, scissor, sectiō, saxum, sīgnum, OCS. sěčivo, sekyra, MIr. arasc, tescaid, airsce, Lit. išsēkti

However, you still have not provided a list of Serbian and Irish words you believe to be of a pre-PIE substratum and why you believe this. The recent posts you have made is random and circumstantial at best, and more importantly, assumptive.

  • provide a list of Serbian and/or Irish words which you claim to be of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
  • explain why you believe these words are of a pre-PIE paleolithic substratum.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 28, 2014, 01:28:09 PM
The middle post, to which I didn't reply yet, is too much at the moment. Those are kinds of examples I would use to discuss chance similarities, which is to say they're examples of most likely bad science. (Of course we can't be sure about that, but it's more likely wrong than right, based on available evidence. Intriguing, certainly.)

Among many other things you should look at, here's an explanation of why finding some examples is not evidence of much:
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm



At this point, I'll let freknu's question take over. It's really what matters here, anyway: the actual vocabulary in question.

I would appreciate reading a, say, 200-300 word abstract of your claims that states very clearly what you're claiming and which theories are maintained and which must be abandoned. At this point I'm lost.


This, in particular, is so extreme that I don't even know where to start. I suppose a proper answer is "maybe", but I'd guess not. The time depth involved in what you're talking about is just way too much. The English word "click", for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phonemes used in the Khoisan languages of Africa...
Quote
Serbian language and other South Slavic languages, have preserved a lot of the oldest pre mix (pre Indoeuropean) language roots and their meanings. These roots are used for building syllables and words. They are very much pre Indoeuropean. They come to us straight from at least Cro Magnon times. The vowels i presented are the core languages roots. "GL-LG" root is one of the oldest consonant roots of human language. It defines the length of your tong inward and outward. It defines binary code which can be used to describe any amount of information. Pronounced fast it creates "glg" sound which if pronounced sharp becomes "klick" sound, found in most primitive klick languages of Africa. I will after this go back to vowels and add few more things that made me conclude what i concluded about vowels and their meaning. I will also give examples of pre-Indoeuropean words from Irish and Serbian and explain why I believe they are pre Indoeuropean (older than 3000 bc). 



Broadly speaking, your approach is based on a biased sample of evidence. You gather many kinds of convenient evidence while not addressing those facts that do not support your point. You're using selective evidence to try to show that your point is correct, while the extreme lengths you need to go to for this is most likely an indication that either the evidence isn't there or your hypothesis is actually incorrect. Drawing together so many facts "and this... and this!" makes your argument appear to be solid because you have so much evidence, but that's just because the small percentage of evidence that happens to support your claims appears large when you take that percentage from as diverse sources information about lactose tolerance and click phonemes.

And yet science has no way of definitively proving that you're wrong on this one, partly because of the lacking evidence in this case. You're welcome to continue, but I can't see myself believing this theory based on the evidence you have provided, which I assume is the best evidence out there.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 04:36:35 AM
djr33

We can't talk about this, if the only argument you are going to use against my examples is chance, coincidence...How many coincidences do we need to start considering some other explanation? If you have the same toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions, and we know that for instance Celts lived in South of Serbia for a very long time how is this a coincidence? More troubling are all Serbian words, toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions in Ireland, and that they are only explicable using Serbian language and additional set of customs. And we have no documented influx of Serbians (Balkan of Baltic) or Slavs into Ireland. And no late Celtic migration into Ireland either, which could have brought to Ireland things Celts picked from Slavs. This points at much older, common stuff. But then we come to the question: Why is the key to understanding this old stuff found only in Serbian?

Quote
The concept of proposing unknown substratums to explain change (or similarities across a region) was common practice for a while.

I am not proposing any new unknown language. Just saying that Indoeuropean as we see it today (or as you see it) is a mix of R1a proto Indoeuropean language and R1b and other Afroasiatic languages or old European (G, J, I2) languages. And these old, pre mix, pre Indoeuropean languages, are still here. You just have to look at the whole Indoeuropean term differently. Then it is easy to explain why we have certain language traits in only one part of Indoeuropean territory and not in others. It is not that everyone except Serbian and Irish forgot to use a certain grammatical construct, It is that it only developed where and when Serbs and Irish came in contact. No need to push this ridiculous thing about 99% of Indoeuropeans forgetting pert of their language, and only one percent still clinging to it. These local differences are due to local mixes of local R1a dialect and what ever local R1b or other Afroasiatic or old European dialect they mixed with on that territory. 

Quote
I took a class on Slavic linguistics (specifically historical development from PIE) and I don't think this fits in with that.

I speak the local dialects I talk about. If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it. Again PIE = old R1a language whose direct descendant is Slavic family. 

Quote
Certainly dialects that descended from OCS (or it's spoken form, more specifically) might exist in Serbia, but don't confuse that with them necessarily being special or "old"-- all languages are equally old, given that each has an ancestor and so forth, at least for tens of thousands of years.

So you agree with me that languages survive for a long time. That is great. People in Eurasia actually spoke before Indoeuropeans appeared. :) When I say old, I mean probably older than R1a languages, or as old as them but from a different genetic family - I2. There are a lot of language traits in Serbian (South Slavic) dialects which are not found in other Slavic dialects, and which are specific to the I2 territory and tribes and families that come from that area. Some of these traits are also found in Irish language. This territory also shares common cultural traits and customs with the Irish which are not found in Eastern Serbia for instance where R1b and R1a mix is dominant. And Celts never lived in that area. That was the land of Illyrians.

Quote
Another reason to be more skeptical of this. If you are going to rely on data, you better be able to rely on statistics.

The way I do it is that I look at everything else first, then check various genetic data, to see what comes out. A lot of times you see genetic patterns which closely follow the linguistic and cultural ones.

I am not the first to link genes to cultures. Lactose tolerance is directly linked with Linear Pottery culture and their descendants.

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


Quote
It has been suggested that the Funnelbeaker culture was the origin of the gene allowing adults of Northern European descent to digest lactose. It was claimed that in the area formerly inhabited by this culture, prevalence of the gene is virtually universal.[2] A paper published in 2007 by Burger et al. [3] indicated that the genetic variant that causes lactose persistence in most Europeans (-13,910*T) was rare or absent in early farmers from central Europe. A study published by Yuval Itan and colleagues in 2010 [4] clearly shows this. A study published in 2009, also by Itan et al.,[5] suggests that the Linear Pottery culture (also known as Linearbandkeramik or LBK), which preceded the TRB culture by some 1,500 years, was the culture in which this trait started to co-evolve with the culture of dairying.
Ancient DNA extracted from three individuals ascribed to a TRB horizon in Gökhem, Sweden, were found to possess mtDNA haplogroups H, J, and T.[6]

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

Funnel beaker people built megalithic tombs, henges a lot earlier then they appeared in England and Ireland. So they brought the the culture, and probably language, with them. Bell beaker people then inherited the genes from them, as it takes only one parent to pass the lactose tolerance to children. So R1b Bell Beaker man having children with Lactose tolerant woman will produce lactose tolerant children, and the other way round. This is why we have such high concentration of lactose tolerance gene in the genetically mixed north west of Europe.

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


Quote
That appears to me to represent fundamental misunderstandings that, for example, the class I teach is intended to correct. While some of this may just be your background and lack of familiarity with technical terms, "slang languages" is very concerning because of (what I think are) the implications of that. All languages are "slang" languages; some just happen to be socially perceived as "standard" and thereby valued. There is nothing whatsoever about the linguistic forms themselves that can be evaluated in such a way. Therefore, in historical linguistics, the standardization is all but irrelevant, except to the extent that it is a factor in determining the size and distribution of certain dialects.

Every language is slang, created. Agreed. Certain groups introduce slang to distinguish themselves from the rest of the tribe.  Language evolves through slang.  But some languages, the oldest ones, are created from natural sounds, like the ones i posted in my opening post, and some are partially or completely artificial. The reason oldest languages are built from natural sounds is because when they were built there was no grammar or language to give meaning to non natural sounds. I will elaborate on that in my next post.

Quote
Broadly speaking, your approach is based on a biased sample of evidence. You gather many kinds of convenient evidence while not addressing those facts that do not support your point. You're using selective evidence to try to show that your point is correct, while the extreme lengths you need to go to for this is most likely an indication that either the evidence isn't there or your hypothesis is actually incorrect. Drawing together so many facts "and this... and this!" makes your argument appear to be solid because you have so much evidence, but that's just because the small percentage of evidence that happens to support your claims appears large when you take that percentage from as diverse sources information about lactose tolerance and click phonemes. And yet science has no way of definitively proving that you're wrong on this one, partly because of the lacking evidence in this case.

We have surviving religious customs, traditions, language and associated symbols that go back to at least 10,000 bc. They are linked to the fire worship, and particularly fire bird worship, and are tightly linked to R1a Arian people. I call them Arian because the symbols which are related to this culture are bird (eagle), swastika and god Agni, Fire, Triglav Trimurti. The root terms of this fire cult, the symbol names, god names, practice names, of which most either have no Etymology in their related languages, or have etymology which has nothing to do with their function, or is completely opposite to their function, have clear etymology in the language you get as overlap of Irish and Serbian. If such complex things as whole belief systems can survive so long (12000 years at least), language or some of it's parts, can survive even longer.

I would really appreciate some argument against what i said, or agreement with me. Not we can't prove you are wrong but that does not mean you are right. What does that mean anyway? That I am right but you will refuse to accept it? I don't expect people to agree with me. I appreciate your critique and freknu's questions and comment very much. I never claimed to be all knowing. I came here so you can point at the mistakes i made. But actually point at them and say: this is wrong because...And not this is wrong because i can't believe it is right.

freknu

Thank you for your analysis. I will talk about it more in my next post. Sorry have to rush.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 29, 2014, 06:18:26 AM
Quote
We can't talk about this, if the only argument you are going to use against my examples is chance, coincidence...How many coincidences do we need to start considering some other explanation?
But that's the entire point. The fact that the data is intriguing does not mean that there is an equally intriguing explanation. It might just be chance. There's nothing wrong with me saying that it is possibly chance, but you're right that it doesn't start a very interesting discussion. The issue here is plausibility and burden of proof. Your ideas are pretty out there (non-mainstream) and, you must admit, not obvious in the larger picture. If there is some simpler explanation, then it must be considered.

Quote
If you have the same toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions, and we know that for instance Celts lived in South of Serbia for a very long time how is this a coincidence? More troubling are all Serbian words, toponimes, hidronimes, grammatical structures, words and customs, traditions in Ireland, and that they are only explicable using Serbian language and additional set of customs. And we have no documented influx of Serbians (Balkan of Baltic) or Slavs into Ireland. And no late Celtic migration into Ireland either, which could have brought to Ireland things Celts picked from Slavs. This points at much older, common stuff. But then we come to the question: Why is the key to understanding this old stuff found only in Serbian?
You're already assuming that your questions are well-formed. Coincidences do occur. Remnant traditions that have disappeared in other groups do occur. Ancient contact was possible. Certainly the answer isn't just "they aren't similar", but it's far from a necessary logical conclusion that we must abandon existing theories!

Quote
I am not proposing any new unknown language. Just saying that Indoeuropean as we see it today (or as you see it) is a mix of R1a proto Indoeuropean language and R1b and other Afroasiatic languages or old European (G, J, I2) languages. And these old, pre mix, pre Indoeuropean languages, are still here. You just have to look at the whole Indoeuropean term differently. Then it is easy to explain why we have certain language traits in only one part of Indoeuropean territory and not in others. It is not that everyone except Serbian and Irish forgot to use a certain grammatical construct, It is that it only developed where and when Serbs and Irish came in contact. No need to push this ridiculous thing about 99% of Indoeuropeans forgetting pert of their language, and only one percent still clinging to it. These local differences are due to local mixes of local R1a dialect and what ever local R1b or other Afroasiatic or old European dialect they mixed with on that territory. 
I'm totally lost. As I said, a clear 200-300 word abstract on exactly what you do want to claim would help.
You seem to be taking on the absolute most extreme position possible-- not just not fully supported by the evidence, but among those positions, the one that is least supported. A substratum theory might not be entirely reliable, but it's compatible with everything you're saying and compatible with existing theories. So far you have offered absolutely nothing in support of your theory in contrast to a substratum theory, for example, so I don't understand why you're claiming what you are.

Quote
I speak the local dialects I talk about.
Oh no!  :o
You're necessarily biased then. (If I told you that American English was really cool because X, you'd be right to wonder about my biases too!)
Whatever else goes on with this research, I urge you strongly to consider:
1. How this might be affecting you.
2. Whether someone else who knows what you know but isn't directly part of it would come to the same conclusions you have.
If nothing else, you're putting much more emphasis on the implications of this evidence than anything else. Your entire theory of, well, everything, is starting from the two dialects you just happen to speak. That's a big warning sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that you're likely to have a biased perspective.

Quote
If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it.
Really? I'm interested in that detail. How literally do you mean this? Certainly the script isn't familiar.

Quote
Again PIE = old R1a language whose direct descendant is Slavic family. 
Not sure what you mean by "old R1a language", but... yeah, that's exactly what every book out there says: PIE split and the daughters became Slavic and other subfamilies (including Celtic). So again, it's very hard to figure out whether what you're saying makes any sense if it isn't clear what you're accepting and rejecting.

Quote
So you agree with me that languages survive for a long time.
That entire statement is completely incoherent!!
The problem is the definition of "language". What is a "language" such that it can "survive" for some period of time. Is it a mental object? If so, it can't really outlive a single person, so, no, not a long time. Is it a social communication system? If so, then, sure, dialects and individual internal languages interact in a complex network and eventually "languages" are preserved for hundreds and thousands of years, but they are constantly changing, and they vary across individuals.
The very idea of an "old language" is completely incoherent even though people seem to like using it. For example, Basque is not "an old language". That's like telling me that a particular region of water in the ocean is very old. Things move around, but it's really odd to actually talk about age. Unless language developed independently in different regions tens of thousands of years ago (and that's not what we're talking about here), the entire topic is unfounded. But, ok, sure, languages are old. They have histories. Yes.

Quote
People in Eurasia actually spoke before Indoeuropeans appeared.
Absolutely, and obviously. There is a huge amount of evidence to that effect including written records-- Akkadian, Dravidian, Basque, Estrucan, Iberian. Etc.
If you think your theory is better than existing theories because it is based on that, then you must re-evaluate existing theories.

Quote
When I say old, I mean probably older than R1a languages, or as old as them but from a different genetic family - I2.
As I said, that's a completely incoherent point.
I think you mean to say something about either location ("has been in a certain location a long time") or our analysis ("we can analyze as going back to a certain time depth"), but neither of those is particularly significant in the big picture.

Quote
There are a lot of language traits in Serbian (South Slavic) dialects which are not found in other Slavic dialects, and which are specific to the I2 territory and tribes and families that come from that area. Some of these traits are also found in Irish language.
It's completely absurd to think that Serbian is not part of Slavic. It's unclear to me how you can balance Serbian as slavic with Serbian is as special and connected to Irish. Beyond that, however you do manage to work that out, I cannot see why it's any less plausible to work it out within PIE rather than just within Slavic.

Quote
This territory also shares common cultural traits and customs with the Irish which are not found in Eastern Serbia for instance where R1b and R1a mix is dominant. And Celts never lived in that area. That was the land of Illyrians.
So you keep saying. But why must your conclusion be the right one? Why not just deep shared history? In 3000 years the world might change significantly. Perhaps only Zimbabwe and Canada will remain democracies. But you wouldn't want to posit a theory that they were mysteriously related countries in contrast to all other countries. You would want to realize that the other countries also shared this (actively or passively) and lost it. Simple enough.

Quote
The way I do it is that I look at everything else first, then check various genetic data, to see what comes out. A lot of times you see genetic patterns which closely follow the linguistic and cultural ones.
Eyeballing data is bad!!
Create a hypothesis, look at all of the data (or a random sample thereof) and use a statistical method to test it. If you can blindly support your theory without hand-picked supportive data, then you can feel confident. If you can only support it by eyeballing and selectively interpreting evidence, something is wrong. Or at least you haven't yet reached a reliable level of analysis. You're still in the "what if" stage of research, which is where it all starts.

Quote
I am not the first to link genes to cultures. Lactose tolerance is directly linked with Linear Pottery culture and their descendants.
Sure. But how reliable is this? Is it reasonable to then assume that it has anything to do with language?
There's a huge danger in the field of citation misuse. "Someone said something similar once!" It all builds up. Where did the citations start? Was it well founded at that point? Clearly you must recognize this, given the vast amount of research on PIE that you are flatly rejecting!

Quote
Every language is slang, created. Agreed.
Then why say it?
Everyone is stupid because we're not smarter than we are.
Everyone is intelligent because we're not dumber than we are.
Meaning comes out of contrast. "Slang" here is now meaningless.
Quote
Certain groups introduce slang to distinguish themselves from the rest of the tribe.  Language evolves through slang.
=Language evolve through speaking. Yes!!
Quote
But some languages, the oldest ones, are created from natural sounds, like the ones i posted in my opening post, and some are partially or completely artificial.
Ack!  :o
This sounds, honestly, truly insane. What is this even meant to imply?
What defines "natural" and what defines "artificial"?
Do you believe that a god created some good languages and some bad ones? Or maybe some cultures found good languages by chance and others didn't do a good job?
How else could you explain this?
Really worrying ideas! Do you understand the implications of what you're suggesting?
If one of the students in my class said something like that (I've heard worse probably) I'd immediately try to correct them.
There is no objective criteria from which we can determine which languages are natural or artificial (or good or bad or whatever). The fact that you're suggesting we could is a clear indication of very very bad science.
But I'll hear you out: what's your theory on that one?
Quote
The reason oldest languages are built from natural sounds is because when they were built there was no grammar or language to give meaning to non natural sounds. I will elaborate on that in my next post.
Ooh. I think I might get what you're saying a bit.
The first languages (maybe several hundred thousand years ago?) were simple pointing and grunting, with little conventional/abstract grammar. This would be, among other things, considered an iconic system-- surface-level. Instinctual.
Then over a long time, languages have built up systematicity and arbitrary conventions, disconnected from what one could "guess" and so forth.

That's a reasonable assumption, though it is controversial. Some people (like Chomsky) would argue that it was more of an abrupt change, that Human Language (as it is used today) was developed with a small change in the brain and that earlier, iconic forms of communication are simply not the same thing. Language is what it is because of these properties, so it isn't a question of being "more evolved" or not. Complicated area.

Regardless, here's the problem with your claims about this: the time depth is massively different. Many historical linguists believe with some certainty that about 10,000 years is the limit of how far back we can go reliably in a language due to the extent of changes and the speed at which borrowing occurs, etc. So whatever happened before that is masked. Even if we double or triple that, we're still not back far enough to be at a kind of language like you're describing. The very shortest window for human language to be like it is now is 40,000 years ago. The window is something like between 40,000 and 2 million years-- not before 2 million years (physiologically) and not after 40,000, because every human on earth shares the capability so clearly it must have evolved when humans were still one group. I'd guess it's more like 100,000+ to 2 million, but anyway, it's not shallow enough to apply to the kinds of dates you're talking about.

Quote
We have surviving religious customs, traditions, language and associated symbols that go back to at least 10,000 bc. They are linked to the fire worship, and particularly fire bird worship, and are tightly linked to R1a Arian people. I call them Arian because the symbols which are related to this culture are bird (eagle), swastika and god Agni, Fire, Triglav Trimurti. The root terms of this fire cult, the symbol names, god names, practice names, of which most either have no Etymology in their related languages, or have etymology which has nothing to do with their function, or is completely opposite to their function, have clear etymology in the language you get as overlap of Irish and Serbian. If such complex things as whole belief systems can survive so long (12000 years at least), language or some of it's parts, can survive even longer.
In language, frequent lexical items retain irregularities longer. "Be" is irregular in so many languages because of this. Something like religion is so central to a culture that it might preserve that rather than something less important like specific linguistic properties.
Alternatively, some of what you're describing is really not specific. Worshipping fire? That's more logical than worshipping sky-dwelling gods. It's so obvious that it almost supports itself just by default. So along with preserving it over time by habit/culture, that doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that would really show arbitrary cultural conventions being retained for a long time.

Quote
I would really appreciate some argument against what i said, or agreement with me. Not we can't prove you are wrong but that does not mean you are right. What does that mean anyway? That I am right but you will refuse to accept it? I don't expect people to agree with me. I appreciate your critique and freknu's questions and comment very much. I never claimed to be all knowing. I came here so you can point at the mistakes i made. But actually point at them and say: this is wrong because...And not this is wrong because i can't believe it is right.
Well, I've tried to provide some details above.
Why is alchemy wrong, as opposed to chemistry?
It would be very easy to point out a simple problem with your argument or to agree with you if most of our standard assumptions were in place. For example, if everything else was equal, and you said "I think Serbian is a Celtic language" I'd say you're wrong. Simple, no real argument to be made there. I could show you some sound changes confirming it for example. Or if you said "I think Serbian is an East Slavic language" I could equally well show you why that analysis doesn't make sense, given standard assumptions.
But you're not saying anything so concrete. What kind of evidence would disprove your theory? That's important. Falsifiability! If your theory is meaningful then there should be hypothetically some kind of evidence you'd accept against it. What would that be? Then we can discuss whether it exists. At the moment it's simply at the stage of being unbelievable. It appears to explain less than existing theories, less coherently, and based on problematic evidence.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 29, 2014, 06:30:06 AM
Thank you for your analysis. I will talk about it more in my next post. Sorry have to rush.

It's not an analysis, it's the current scientific knowledge, which your hypothesis is going against.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 07:21:52 AM
freknu I am sorry, I am not ignoring you or your questions, I just want to complete my conversation with djr33. Just one question for you:

djr33


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Quote
Pavel Serafimov

CELTO-SLAVIC SIMILARITIES

Abstract

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

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


Or this:

Quote
Pavel Serafimov, Giancarlo Tomezzoli

Slavic influences in the Ancient Gaul

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Have a look at this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057129408
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 07:42:44 AM
You said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link is probably R1b language.

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

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

Look at this:

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


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

No root etymology.

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

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

No root etymology.

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

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

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

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

Look at this as well:

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

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

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



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

Djr33 I just can't type fast enough to respond to two people at the same time. Can you please wait until I respond to your last comments as i did not see them while i was typing my last reply to you. Otherwise we sill have crossed communication, and things will get lost. Thanks.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 29, 2014, 08:14:17 AM
Why is this worrying you? This is a strange attitude to have towards linguistic claim?

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

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

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

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

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

(etymology 1) PIE. *bhag-

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

(etymology 2) PIE. *pū-

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

Both unrelated to PIE. *bhes-

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

Irrelevant.

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

Rubbish.

No root etymology.

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

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

Rubbish.

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

Indic, Greek, and Germanic have recognised cognates.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: ibarrere on January 29, 2014, 08:17:33 AM
Quote
If you take old church Slavonic and give it to anyone in south of Serbia, Macedonia or Bulgaria, they will be able to read and understand most of it.
Really? I'm interested in that detail. How literally do you mean this? Certainly the script isn't familiar.

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

However, with that said, I certainly wouldn't claim that anybody speaks OCS these days. They may be able to understand it when written, but there have been a number of phonological changes over the years that would render it pretty difficult to speak or understand for the untrained.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 29, 2014, 08:45:53 AM
Thanks ibarrere.


Dublin, now you're using the incredibly controversial (in my opinion just plain wrong) idea of phonosemantics. I'm happy to respect your choice but we really have nothing more to discuss. As I recommend for anyone (including myself) just keep in mind how you might be wrong-- otherwise you won't be able to know when you are on the right track.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 10:22:37 AM
freknu, djr33:

me: logical arguments
you: "rubbish".

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Now look at these words:

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




Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 29, 2014, 10:53:07 AM
me: unsubstantiated, biased, assumptive claims
you: "rubbish"

There. That's your problem.

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

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

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

Even more unsubstantiated and assumptive claims.

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

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

No root etymology

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

Now look at these words ...

Ser-Cr. lizati "to lick" < PS. *lizati < PIE. *(s)leiǵh- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. ljubiti "to love; to kiss" < PS. *ljubiti < PIE. *leubh- "to love"
Ser-Cr. pljuvati "to spit" < PS. *pljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. bljuvati "to vomit" < PS. *bljuvati < PIE. *(s)pyēu- "to spit; to vomit"
Ser-Cr. ljigav < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ljaga "stain, blemish" < Rus. ljaga "adhestive, sticky" < PIE. *lei- "slimy; to slip, glide"
Ser-Cr. ulje "oil" < Lat. oleum "oil" < Grk. elaion "oil" < elaia "olive"
Ser-Cr. jegulja "eel" < Lat. anguilla "eel" < PIE. *angh- "worm, eel, snake"
Ser-Cr. lapati "to lap" < PIE. *lab- "to lick"
Ser-Cr. lokati "to drink, guzzle" < PS. *lokati < PIE. *lak- "to lick"
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 01:21:33 PM
freknu

Quote
There. That's your problem.

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

Quote
You have no evidence.

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

Quote
You are making claims and wild speculations based on data mining

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

So are you a scientist of a priest?

Quote
Even more unsubstantiated and assumptive claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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



Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 29, 2014, 03:30:59 PM
I have few things to add about the vowels and their meaning. I said this earlier:

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

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

There are actually two sets of complete sighing sounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hand positions, gestures:

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

Hand movements, actions:

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

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

black, red, yellow, blue, white

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

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

or this:

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

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

It is in any case interesting how these things correspond to each other.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on January 29, 2014, 04:57:37 PM
Dublin, is it possible that you are wrong? A good scientist is open to that possibility. You seem to be opposed to your theory being wrong and instead assuming that the entire goal of this conversation is to support it and prove it right.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 29, 2014, 05:19:16 PM
If you cannot understand the purpose, methods, and limitations of comparative linguistics, or even the phonology of PIE, then there is probably no point in continuing.

Sadly you are looking for exposure and validation, not review.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 30, 2014, 05:03:53 AM
djr33

Quote
Dublin, is it possible that you are wrong?

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

Quote
A good scientist is open to that possibility.

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

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

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

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

Freknu

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

These are Serbian words:

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

trešnja - cherry
črešnja, čerešnja - cherry

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

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

Now please let me know why don't we find this in the above etymology?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on January 30, 2014, 05:16:57 AM
Ser-Cr. krv "blood" < PBS. *krouio < PIE. *kreu- *krū- "blood; flesh"
Ser-Cr. crn "black" < PS. *crn < PIE. *ḱer(s)- "black; dirty"
Ser-Cr. trešnja "cherry" < Lat. cerasia < Grk. kranos, keranos < PIE. *ker- "cherry"

Three unrelated roots.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on January 30, 2014, 05:23:16 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?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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?

(http://s30.postimg.org/4of7rfya9/lines1.png)

(http://s23.postimg.org/c29ws4tcr/lines2.png)

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?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel 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!
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel 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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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?

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 01, 2014, 09:29:01 AM
More random speculation. Good luck.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin 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...

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 01, 2014, 10:32:42 AM
Do you genuinely believe yourself and believe that we will be convinced by random statements like "N means boundary"?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 01, 2014, 11:04:47 AM
Quote
Do you genuinely believe yourself and believe that we will be convinced by random statements like "N means boundary"?

These are not random statements. Maybe they seem random to you, but that is your problem not mine. This statement is in complete agreement with everything else i said about the original language development. If you don't agree with me, can you explain creation of word no, ne, ni please? Why do we say no and not "ma" or "ut", or something else? You can see that in other non "Indoeuropean" languages, non R1a languages, word for no is different. I have no idea what Greeks used to develop "OHI" as no and "NE" as yes, in complete opposite to all the other "Indoeuropeans"? Maybe the language developed later as deliberate exclusion slang.
But why are all "Indoeuropeans" using "N" to express refusal to allow, to give, to accept? Because all their languages come from the original root natural language developed in paleolithic times. Natural sound of refusal is "NNNN". Look at babies, and small kids, which are trying to protect something you are trying to take away from them. They will pull at it and produce sound "NNN" which is the sound of exertion when you pull something your way or pushing it away. Look at people threatened with physical violence. They will try to protect themselves and squirm producing sound "NNNN". These are involuntary sounds. And everyone makes them and knows how to understand them especially when they are combined with action. Eventually you wont need action any more. "NNN" will be enough.
What is the root of this word in all these languages? What does no mean? When do we use it? When do you thing people needed to use it originally, in what situations? Please give me better explanation from the one i gave you?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 01, 2014, 11:20:49 AM
Please give me better explanation from the one i gave you?

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you. It is your obligation to show why your hypotheses should be considered valid. So far you have presented no evidence and only a chain of assumptions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: ibarrere on February 01, 2014, 11:28:22 AM
(http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif)
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 01, 2014, 11:35:46 AM
I have already given you proof, but you refuse to accept it as such. All the "N" words (no, ne, ni...) used to specify protection of boundary. Here is another proof that "N" sound means boundary:

An object can be only in two positions relative to a surface of the earth:

On - on top of a hill, mountain, tree...
In - at the bottom of a valley, hole

In Serbian these two words are:

Na - on something
Un - in something

N in all these cases represents the extreme boundary of the hill or a hole. In Serbian:

NA = N + A = boundary + up = upper boundary, top
UN + U + N = in + boundary = lower boundary, bottom

freknu, what exactly do you consider to be a proof for something like this anyway? I am curious..



Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 01, 2014, 11:38:14 AM
What you have proven is that "na" means "on" and "un" means "in".
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 01, 2014, 12:06:06 PM
Can you find better explanation why these words have "N" in them? Why "no" has "N" in it? Please i would love to hear it? Just point me to the explanation that you support if it exists? But i doubt it does...

ibarrere, can you translate your comment to me please. I don't speak "Thug" language, that you freknu and djr seem to understand so well. The language of people who when they have no arguments to support their opinion sink into ridicule and mocking. Very adult, and scientific. But I thank you for posting your "funny black person" joke, because after your "joke" and freknu's and djr's thanks, everyone can see you for who you are.

I am yet to hear one of you give me counter argument for why N is all the above words? Any ideas or are you all out?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 01, 2014, 12:14:00 PM
Can you find better explanation why these words have "N" in them? Why "no" has "N" in it? Please i would love to hear it? Just point me to the explanation that you support if it exists? But i doubt it does...

ibarrere, can you translate your comment to me please. I don't speak "Thug" language, that you freknu and djr seem to understand so well. The language of people who when they have no arguments to support their opinion sink into ridicule and mocking. Very adult, and scientific. But I thank you for posting your "funny black person" joke, because after your "joke" and freknu's and djr's thanks, everyone can see you for who you are.

I am yet to hear one of you give me counter argument for why N is all the above words? Any ideas or are you all out?

We are under no obligation to give you any counterargument. It is your obligation, your responsibility, your burden of proof, to show why we should believe you, why your hypotheses should be accepted as valid.

Why does it matter if "no" has an alveolar nasal in it? You are making the extraordinary claims, you need need to provide the extraordinary evidence.

What you have shown is not statistically significant. It is indistinguishable from statistical noise.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 01, 2014, 01:09:07 PM
They just have N. Like Zimbabwe starts with Z.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 01, 2014, 01:14:18 PM
Quote
We are under no obligation to give you any counterargument.

No but it would look better for you if you actually had an argument, instead of just shouting "no,no,no" and looking like spoiled children.

Quote
You are making the extraordinary claims, you need need to provide the extraordinary evidence.

You are avoiding to explain what you would consider a satisfactory evidence. This way you can keep shouting "no,no,no" for ever and never have to accept that i have proved my theory. Unless you explain to me what you consider as evidence i will be forced to ignore everything you say from now on as noise made by someone who actually does,t have any argument to support his own claim. Or do you have no way of explaining where your stand on this is because you have no stand at all, and this is why you can not give me the definition of satisfactory evidence.

Quote
They just have N. Like Zimbabwe starts with Z.

As i thougth, you have no idea why...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: swills on February 01, 2014, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: freknu
That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on you. It is your obligation to show why your hypotheses should be considered valid. So far you have presented no evidence and only a chain of assumptions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism#Subsequent_usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism#Subsequent_usage)
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 01, 2014, 01:36:53 PM
The latest arguments posted could apply to anything.

"Pigs fly!"
--insert rest of defense about why we should be open minded here.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 03, 2014, 04:02:15 AM
djr33

You said "insert rest of defense about why we should be open minded here."

No one is asking you to open your mind. Just use it for thinking.

By the way, I have finally gotten around to read some of your old post from couple of days ago, and "o my god"! I have never seen anything so arrogant:


I said:

Quote
I speak the local (Serbian) dialects I talk about.

And then you said:

Quote
Oh no! You're necessarily biased then. (If I told you that American English was really cool because X, you'd be right to wonder about my biases too!).

Whatever else goes on with this research, I urge you strongly to consider:
1. How this might be affecting you.
2. Whether someone else who knows what you know but isn't directly part of it would come to the same conclusions you have.
If nothing else, you're putting much more emphasis on the implications of this evidence than anything else. Your entire theory of, well, everything, is starting from the two dialects you just happen to speak. That's a big warning sign. It doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means that you're likely to have a biased perspective.

Depends what your argument was for claiming that American English is cool. And I do believe that it is cool, particularly for linguists, because it is a "real time" language laboratory showing you how languages mix and evolve.
But I wouldn't accuse you of bias. That is your way of looking at things, not mine.

Do you think that anyone told sir William Jones that he was biased when he proposed that there is a relationship between English and Hindi and when he coined term Indo Euoropean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)

The only reason he was able to spot the similarities between European languages and languages of the Indian subcontinent was because he was fluent in English, Welsh and he learned several Indian languages when he worked there as a lawyer. He used  languages he new and understood best to draw his conclusions. So do I.

I speak local south Serbian dialects, but I also speak (to a various degrees) all the other south Slavic languages. I can speak Russian and English. I understand Irish, some Greek, Spanish, Latin. All of this helps me to see similarities between languages, in the same way it helped sir William Jones.

So do you think sir William Jones was biased? And if you don't, why do you think I am biast?

And by the way, what do you use to come to your conclusions? Your own knowledge of languages, your own experience in comparing them and your own investigation or do you rely on what other people tell you?

Etymology for English word no:

Quote
From Middle English no, na, from Old English nā, nō (“never”), from Proto-Germanic *nai (“never”), *nē (“not”), from Proto-Indo-European *ne, *nē, *nēy (negative particle), equivalent to Old English ne (“not”) + ā, ō (“ever, always”). Cognate with West Frisian né (“no”), West Frisian nea (“never”), Dutch nee (“no”), Low German nee (“no”), German nie (“never”), Icelandic nei (“no”). More at nay.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/no#Etymology_2

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.

Let me show you another picture, which might help you understand the meaning of the term boundary:

(http://s28.postimg.org/ce4zzr1b1/inon.png)

U and V are two sounds which mean "IN" in various Serbian dialects.

The red line tracing the shape of the future Vinca script letters, defines the boundary specified with the sound "N".
 
I will continue with my elaboration on the meaning of N sound as boundary sound in my next post.

jkpate

I am writing my summary text and will post it at the end of the week.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 03, 2014, 09:13:35 AM
Quote
So do you think sir William Jones was biased? And if you don't, why do you think I am biast?
Alright, fair enough. But... yes, he was biased. And in fact, he was wrong about many of the details. It just happened that he got the main ideas right and others improved his arguments later. So one important point there is that you must have convincing arguments so that others can extend/continue the work.

As for his bias, one aspect is that at the time no one was aware that kind of analysis/comparison was possible. So due to his bias, the world is now especially aware of Proto-Indo-European and relatively unaware of many other proto-languages out there. That's not a crucial thing, of course. But it means that his bias wasn't so much of a problem because he happened to discover a very general pattern within his specific set of languages. In your case, you seem to be suggesting that the two languages you are closely familiar with just happen to reflect the old state of Europe and also give us insight into the original meaning of sounds in human language.

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

Quote
Let me show you another picture, which might help you understand the meaning of the term boundary:
Haha. Entertaining. Not convincing.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 03, 2014, 09:46:59 AM
Let me show you another picture, which might help you understand the meaning of the term boundary ...

Did you know that:

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 03, 2014, 09:47:43 AM
freknu:

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

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

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

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

(http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/420/copyofzapisdobardesktop.jpg)

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

Irish:

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

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

South Serbian:

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

A: na petra. (of or on peter)

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

Bulgarian:

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

Macedonian:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

The name for wolf is onomatopoeic:

vuk, volk, voulk, olk, oulk

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


the sound is wof,wolf

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

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

Why do i think that people originally used characteristic sounds of animals as their names? Because we are talking the beginning of the language. There were no words, yet people wanted to communicate and pass a message. In case of wolf, the message was simple: Look there is a wolf! Except that they did not have a word for wolf and even if someone decided to call a wolf a wolf, he had no way of explaining to the others what wolf is, because there was no language yet. But everyone have seen a wolf, and have heard a wolf. So if you imitate the sound of a wolf, everyone knows what you are talking about. So "woulk, oulk, olk,wolf" conveys the message: "look there is a wolf" perfectly and simply. Later on people invented other words for wolf, but that was much later when they had a language as means to associate these "wolf" words with "wolf" meaning.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 03, 2014, 11:03:16 AM
Here is the link to the list of animal names and sounds:

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

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

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

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

As I said before:

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

And you replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
Haha. Entertaining. Not convincing.

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

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

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

Like someone who is defending the idea that god created the world in ten days, 4000 years ago, by quoting the lines from bible while staring at the dinosaur bones....
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 03, 2014, 11:04:27 AM
PIE. *h2eu- > PIE. *h2ū- > PBS. *Hū- > PS. *ū > Late PS. *u > Ser-Cr. u
PIE. *h2no- > PBS. *Hna- > PS. *na > Ser-Cr. na

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dative" constructs are very common.

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

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

Lat. est canī os
[is dog-DAT bone-ACC]
(is at-dog bone)
the dog has a bone
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 03, 2014, 11:09:34 AM
Like someone who is defending the idea that god created the world in ten days, 4000 years ago, by quoting the lines from bible while staring at the dinosaur bones....

You are only proving that you do not understand in the least how comparative linguistics works. Ignorance on your part does not disprove current theories.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 03, 2014, 11:23:44 AM
Quote
You are only proving that you do not understand in the least how comparative linguistics works. Ignorance on your part does not disprove current theories.

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

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

The idea is that possession is equated with having something with, on, in you. When you say "Da" (yes in Serbian) to give something to someone "Ti" (you in Serbian) you perform "Dati" (give in Serbian) from which you have Dativ. But the the thing is "of" the person when it is "on" the person. English "of" is the equivalent of Serbian "O", Irish "O", Slavic "Od" meaning "of". In Serbian "O" means hanging of something, or being around something, among other things. It defines belonging through being around, hanging of someone's horse, body (like a baby for instance)...So again we have the same idea of ownership through direct possession...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 03, 2014, 11:36:24 AM
What exactly don't i understand about Irish that you have demonstrated? Also these are not dative constructs. They are Lokativ (where) not Dativ (to who, to where). These are connected but not identical. Did you read the Hyberno English explanation of the construct and how it is translated to English from Irish?

Irish "an" = definite particle

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

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

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

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

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

Dative, locative, and instrumental are also very close semantically in PIE languages. Thus possession can be expressed with both dative and locative, and some cases even instrumental.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 03, 2014, 12:03:51 PM
Read the how the Irish express ownership in the Hyberno English text i gave you the link for.

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

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

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

No one except Irish and South Carpathian people uses na (on) to express possession. Most other people use de, of, od, o....
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 03, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Irish does not use "na" to express possesion, "na" (plural of "an") is the definite particle.

Irish expresses possession with genitive and dative constructs.

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

is maith liom na daoine
[is good at-me DEF person-PL]
I like the people
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 03, 2014, 12:17:30 PM
A lot of the latest claims are just made up things. Skipping past those, I'll address the more specific ones:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
The main thing in science is to know when to stop laughing...
Only if the crazy theories stop. Until then it's simultaneously amusing and disturbing.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 04, 2014, 04:01:06 AM
freknu

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

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

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

and so on...

Look at the etymology of the word "one":

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

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

Why do we have "N" sound in one?

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

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

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


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

Look at this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at this:

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

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

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

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

This is etymology of the definite article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a look at this:

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

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

Look at these Serbian words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But in Serbian we also have these words:

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

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

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

There are lots more examples that support this claim and i will present them in next couple of days.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 04, 2014, 04:31:06 AM
It seem your site can't handle some unicode characters.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 04, 2014, 04:37:48 AM
... then we can assume that "na" in Irish originally meant "on" as in belonging, separateness, distinction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Put bluntly, you are throwing shit at a wall, hoping some of it will stick.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 04, 2014, 04:37:59 AM
freknu

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

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

Gàidhlig na hAlba
Scotland's Gaelic
Gaelic of Scotland

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

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

djr33

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

Which things. Explain, give evidence.

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

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

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

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

Quote
That's really what I meant about bias.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

People quoting bible think of any new idea and discovery as crazy. I would much rather explore new things and fail, then keep quoting bible for the rest of my life believing i am right. Not everything fails, not everything is wrong, not everything is right either...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 04, 2014, 05:20:11 AM
If you don't see this then you are blind.

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

Now, I'm not saying aliens did it ... but aliens obviously did it. If you cannot see this then you are blind. The R1-k and R0-l Duplogroups clearly proves this beyond any Baud. Also note that if you put the red two-dot Lego I-shape on the black three-dot Lego L-shape, then it spells "an" in the Standard Galatic Alphabet, which once again, proves that aliens did it.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 04, 2014, 06:00:46 AM
freknu you are funny....
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 05, 2014, 08:13:11 AM
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:

Quote
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"?


Quote
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.


Quote
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
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 05, 2014, 10:08:16 AM
Quote
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:

Quote
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?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 06, 2014, 08:16:47 AM
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 06, 2014, 09:40:28 AM
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

Quote
"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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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

Quote
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/

Quote
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

Quote
"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

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 06, 2014, 10:58:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 06, 2014, 01:17:22 PM
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"?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 06, 2014, 02:42:34 PM
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 06, 2014, 03:04:22 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.


Quote
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.


Quote
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).
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 10, 2014, 10:49:52 AM
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:

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

(http://www.boston.com/community/photos/raw/Footprints_at_waters_edge.jpg)

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

(http://consumer.media.seagate.com/files/2012/05/clouds.jpg)

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

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Canadian_maple_leaf_2.jpg)

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.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Eudyptes_chrysocome_at_waters_edge.jpg)

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

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RoaCkKjdTJE/S-8egTaq25I/AAAAAAAAAwo/CAHIgu9yWSw/s1600/P1020264%2BWall.jpg)

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)


Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 10, 2014, 11:40:44 AM
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?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 11, 2014, 06:25:43 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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


Quote
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

Quote
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


Quote

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

Quote

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?

Quote
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...

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 11, 2014, 06:56:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 11, 2014, 07:04:08 AM
Quote
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.

Quote
...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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 11, 2014, 07:05:24 AM
Quote from: MalFet
The difference between the two, in my experience, is almost always the presence of a testable null hypothesis.
Indeed.
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 11, 2014, 07:12:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 11, 2014, 07:14:00 AM
In terms of scope, are those major claims (as in this thread) or are they making additional points about tendencies more subtle than other forces like arbitrariness of form?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 12, 2014, 05:24:45 AM
When I said that you really don't understand language, because to understand language you need to start looking at it, listening to it and thinking, you replied that what i said was absurd. This just shows that not only you don't understand what language is and how it works but you don't understand how understanding works. In schools, there are two types of kids: those who are good at memorizing things and repeating them, and those who are good at figuring things out. I bet you were the first kind of guy. They usually go to study humanities, where there is a lot of memorizing and very little thinking.

You are still asking the same questions even though I have answered them many times.  Either you don't understand English language, you refuse to understand or you didn't even bothered reading most of what i wrote, because you have decided at the start that it was all rubbish, just because it is not what you believe in. Let me answer these questions again, and I hope that you will read and understand the answers this time.

1. I never said that "N" is the only sound that carries the meaning of a boundary. I said that sound "N" carries the meaning of a boundary. There could equally be other sounds that carry the same meaning, like "Z" for instance. Spoken language is associated with situations, context. So you can have different sounds having the same meaning in different contexts.

2. When I made my prediction, I said this: "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. ". So I fully expect that there will be words that contain "N" in English language which are not related to boundary.

3. Group languages are invented by families. Families expand to clans, tribes, nations, races and propagate the language. They also propagate genes. This is why genes and languages are linked.
Different families can use different logic to link context to sound. Some of them will use "N" to represent boundary, some will use "Z" and some will use "K" of what ever other sound they though was logically linked to the concept of a boundary in the environment they lived when they developed the language. These families merged, languages merged. Not all words in English come from the same "family" language.

4. Words change phonetically through time. This is due to the the fact that what we say is dependent on what we hear and our ability to reproduce it. 

5. The meaning of words changes through time. Gay used to mean gentle. Words which are most critical for making sense and coordinating group actions stay the same the longest. The words which are not so critical can change in meaning. When people invented traffic light language, red meant stop, green meant go, yellow meant press on the break, prepare to stop, red light is coming. Stop and go are critical and still mean the same. Yellow now has many meanings, of which most common is press on the gas, speed up, red light is coming.

6. Words and sentences are linked to situations, context. This is how people learn language. And this is why you can not analyze the spoken language in isolation. You always need to link it to the context of which it is an integral part.

Quote
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

There could be many reasons. First reason could be that two words came from two different family languages, and became associated with each other in third.

Example: Serbian words "Kraj" (pronounced kray) and "Konac" (pronounced konats) both mean end. One has "N" sound in it the other doesn't. 

Second reason could be that words changed phonetically through time so they could have lost some of it's sounds.

Example: In Serbian words "Udji" - come in and "Izadji" (go out). Word "Udji" used to be, and still is in some dialects "Unidji". Unidji = u + n + idi = in + boundary + you go. It is easier to say "udji" and the meaning is still preserved udji = u  + di = in + go

Third reason could be that words associated with the meaning of moving in and out are dependent on the situation and the position of the speaker. When you are in you are within the boundary. When you are out, there is no boundary any more as boundary is linked to what it defines.

(http://irelandxo.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/add_image_1200px/caher.jpg)

Inside you are within the boundary. Outside it is the open space. This is consistent across a lot of European languages, which obviously have the same meaning of the sound "N". :

English:

in; Entrance; Inside
out; Exit; Outside

Serbian

Un (in), Unutra (Inside); Ulaz from Unilaz (entrance); Udji from Unidji (come in)
Na (on, out); Napolju (out, literally on the field); Izlaz (exit), Izadji (go out).

German

in; innen; Eingang, Eintritt

aus; außerhalb; Ausfahrt, Ausgang

Spanish

en; dentro; entrada

fuera; afuera; salida

But in Czech we see that the situation, the context associated with these terms is different.

Czech

v; uvnitř; vstup
ven; venku; mimo, výjezd

Here we can see that in is represented with sound "V" instead of "U" like in Serbian. In boundary is represented with "VN" the equivalent of "UN" which we can see from the word "uvnitř" meaning inside. uvnitř = U + VN + iti = in + inside boundary + go. But out is "ven" which basically means not inside. ven = vn + e + n = in + is + not. Words for entrance and exit are newer and derived from specific context of entering a house and leaving the house. "vstup"  meaning entrance, comes from vustup = v(u) + stup = in + step = step in, step over the door step. "výjezd" meaning exit, comes from vi + jezd = out + ride, go.

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

Like that. The predictions i made are still valid.

Quote
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?

Language is linked to context. But you don't know that.



Quote
Show me some data, a graph, and a statistical test.

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

I asked you to think about it, and tell me from your point of view when is the frequency of coincidences too high to be a coincidence. But you didn't understand what I said. Again. Do you understand my question now and can you give me the straight answer. 10% or 90%? Instead you say this:

Quote
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.

The key here is "As far as you know". You don't know everything. Use the methodology you preach about and tell me what percentage of hits removes the possibility of coincidence and confirms deliberate action.

You were asking me for a null hypothesis. This is it: I presume that all the "N" words that I found so far linked to the meaning of boundary in English are all coincidences. I believe that if I analyze all of the "N" words in English, and large majority of them is linked to the meaning of boundary then i have proven that this is not a coincidence. To add to that If I find the same correlation in related European languages, then we certainly have a pattern which is deliberate rather then coincidental.

You can read about null hypothesis here. You will see that how you prove it or disprove it is hotly debated.

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



Quote
Explain to me why a word is "related to boundary".

This again is self evident to someone who uses their eyes, ears and brain and who understands what language is. Language exists as part of a context describing information pattern or matrix. This is why "poetry" of the language is so important for it's understanding. Words relate to boundary if they are found in the same context with the meaning of boundary.

Like these words:

English - Knife
Serbian  - nož
Polish - nož
Irish - scian

English, Irish, Slavic languages have "N" in words that represent something with which you create new boundaries, but cutting something in half. Most other western European languages have other roots for knife.


quintuplets

Comes from a number, which is a late development abstract word. Does not need to be related to boundary as people at that time had language to link terms with meaning.  Also as I said I don't expect all "N" words to be linked to a boundary. But you could argue that five is the maximum number of fingers on one hand, so the boundary of what you can count on one hand.

Quote
From Proto-Italic, from Proto-Indo-European *pénkʷe (cf. the Italic *kʷ-kʷ, from *p-kʷ shift, also found in words like coquō; compare proto-Celtic *kʷinkʷe). Cognates include Sanskrit पञ्चन् (páñcan), Ancient Greek πέντε (pente), Old Armenian հինգ (hing) and Old English fīf (English five).

fascinate

From nos, to carry on your self, on your boundary

Quote
From fascinum (“a phallus-shaped amulet worn around the neck; witchcraft”). Of unknown origin; compare Ancient Greek βάσκανος (baskanos, “sorcerer”), possibly from the same European substratum.


sing

"glas" means voice, "glasno" means loud, "na glas" means out loud in Serbian and other Slavic languages.

Quote
From Proto-Balto-Slavic *galsas, from Proto-Indo-European *golHsos, from *gels- (“to call”). Cognate to Lithuanian gãlsas (“echo”), Latin gallus (“cock”) and possibly to Proto-Germanic *kalzōną (Old Norse kalla (“to call”)).


Quote
From Middle English singen, from Old English singan 'to sing, recite', from Proto-Germanic *singwaną (compare West Frisian sjonge, Low German singen, Dutch zingen, German singen, Danish synge, Swedish sjunga), from Proto-Indo-European *sengʷh- (compare Middle Welsh deongl (“to explain”), Ancient Greek ὁμφή (omphḗ, “voice, oracle”), Prakrit saṃghai 'to say, teach').

kaži - say from ga + si = that + say

It could be a late local development meaning speak out loud. si + na + gl

lift was originally action of moving something up. No boundary in context.
childhood originally meant a state, a logical group of children. No boundary in context.

edge - originally mean sharp. Serbian word "oštar" means sharp, "oštrica" means knife's edge. Not a boundary related even though today it means boundary of a knife.

Quote
Middle English egge, from Old English ecg, from Proto-Germanic *agjō (compare Dutch egge, German Ecke, Swedish egg), from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eḱ- (“sharp”) (compare Welsh hogi (“to sharpen, hone”), Latin aciēs (“sharp”), acus (“needle”), Latvian ašs, ass (“sharp”), Ancient Greek ἀκίς (akis, “needle”), ἀκμή (akmē, “point”), and Persian آس (ās, “grinding stone”)).

Quote
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?

Satisfied?

Quote
You need to learn something about statistics. You need to consider a percentage of words with N, not a number.

I know a lot about statistics. You need to determine the number of words with N to get their percentage. But there are two percentages here: percentage of N words related to boundary and percentage of N words in the language. We need to determine both and I am going to do it. You can help me if you want and do something constructive for a change.

Quote
But more importantly, you need to compare it to the likelihood that the observed correlation is due to chance. 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.

As I said already, this is what I am trying to establish. Do you want to help?

Quote
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.

You are maybe listening but you have problems understanding. If you ask me a question, and i answer, and then you ask me the same question again ignoring my answer, then i can at best conclude that you are not listening. But I am beginning to believe that you are incapable of understanding.

Quote
Where's your abstract? Hasn't it been a week? Why are you still rambling?

As i thought, you are not listening, or thinking or reading what i write. Did you see this in one of my posts?

Quote
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.


Do you understand what it means? And drop that attitude. I am not one of your students. Thank god.

Quote
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.

This just shows that you do not understand what language is. Language is an algorithm used for decoding message from data. Period. It can be used for encoding data as well but it doesn't have to be. We can invent a language to decode information which might not be encoded using the same algorithm. For instance language of bird flight used for divination. So our brain invents languages all the time. Some of them become group languages (what you call language) and some stay individual languages. Like for me bunch of flowers in back pocket of trousers  could mean cool, but for everyone else it could mean stupid. You don't understand what language is, and neither do people who argue about whether it is for something or if it is ability. Maybe you should read and learn more about communication theory.


Quote
I mentioned far above that language is "an arbitrary pairing of form and meaning".

And this just shows how little you understand what language is. It is not arbitrary because it is dependent on context. Do you know how kids learn to speak? Do you know what would happen to kids if you constantly changed the words used in the same context? Do you think they would ever learn how to speak. You can use arbitrary sound to create sound part of the context. But once it becomes part of the context, if you want to have a useful language, it stays stuck inside the context.


Quote
Would you prefer that everyone who has an opinion be treated as correct? Or are you a special exception?

Again you didn't understand the language. I was making a joke, but you did not get it.

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

As I said already, I gave you null hypothesis.


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

This is logically wrong. If objects float, that does not mean that there is or there isn't gravity, or that gravity has anything to do with objects floating.

Quote
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).

Get all the words in English, separate the N words, separate the boundary N words, separate the boundary non N words. Compare percentages. Also look at word clusters related to boundary context. Do they follow the same N pattern or not. Find other sound roots which might represent boundary. Repeat the same process.

I am doing all this, you are saying no, you are not doing it scientifically, while deliberately ignoring any evidence presented to you as worthless and refusing to specify what would be positive evidence. You could, if you wanted to be scientific, to prove me wrong, prove the null hypothesis. But you will not do it, because you know that I could be right. You say I should:

1. Come up with a theory. (Done and presented. There is a detectable correlation between sounds and meaning)
2. That theory must have a potential weakness, for a certain kind of hypothetical data. (There is more words which don't conform to the above then there are words which conform)
3. See if that data actually exists. (I am actively looking for the data that supports my theory. If I find some data that does not i will let you know. And you can let me know if you find some as well.)
YES: The theory is falsified.
NO: The theory is (so far) reliable and makes predictions.

Please explain your problem with my approach to all this and what is not Scientific that I am doing.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 12, 2014, 06:46:31 AM
Please explain your problem with my approach to all this and what is not Scientific that I am doing.

If you offered a testable null hypothesis, I seem to have missed it.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 12, 2014, 07:19:13 AM
MalFet

Here we go again. I will spell it this time:

The theory: There is a detectable correlation between sounds and meaning

Null hypothesis: All the "N" words that are related to boundary in English are all coincidences and there is no correlation between sound and meaning. The distribution of sounds in boundary related words is random

Null hypothesis proof:

Get all the words in English, separate the N words, separate the boundary related N words.
Get all non N words from English language, separate the boundary related non N words from the other non N words.
Compare percentages.

If percentage of N words related to boundary is less than the threshold percentage (?), we have random distribution and no correlation between sound and meaning. 

If percentage of N words related to boundary is significantly more than the threshold percentage (?) go to stage two.

If percentage of non N words related to boundary is close to or bigger than the percentage of N words related to boundary we go to stage three.

Check if there is any other common sound in non N words related to boundary. Repeat the above steps.

You repeat this until you prove that none of the sounds that is found in clusters of words related to boundary has the majority in its group.

If you prove this the null hypothesis is validated and the theory is invalidated. If you can't prove this, if any of the perceived boundary carrying sounds appears to be in more words than you would expect if the distribution was random, then the theory is proven.

Or even simpler, get all the words related to boundary, group them by common sound, get percentage for each group with common sound. Compare with threshold percentage. If distribution is uniform, we have randomness. If we have peaks, it is deliberate. Each peak represents one sound which is strongly related to meaning of boundary.

The threshold percentage calculation:

number of all words related to boundary / number of letters = random distribution

What delta would you consider to be the proof that distribution is not random? If this is not testable what is?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 12, 2014, 03:37:32 PM
The theory: There is a detectable correlation between sounds and meaning

A correlation between sounds and meaning is the very definition of (spoken) language. This can't be what you mean. What (I think) you mean is that there is a correlation between particular sounds and particular meanings that cannot be attributed to language history.


Null hypothesis: All the "N" words that are related to boundary in English are all coincidences and there is no correlation between sound and meaning. The distribution of sounds in boundary related words is random

Null hypothesis proof:

Get all the words in English, separate the N words, separate the boundary related N words.
Get all non N words from English language, separate the boundary related non N words from the other non N words.
Compare percentages.

How do you distinguish "boundary related" words from non-boundary related words in a way that is clear and replicatable? How are you going to control for effects of language history if you use only one language?

If percentage of N words related to boundary is less than the threshold percentage (?), we have random distribution and no correlation between sound and meaning. 

If percentage of N words related to boundary is significantly more than the threshold percentage (?) go to stage two.

If percentage of non N words related to boundary is close to or bigger than the percentage of N words related to boundary we go to stage three.

Actually, you would want to do something more like a chi-squared test for independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_test), and see if the probability that a word is "boundary related" and has an "N" in it is higher than the probability of being boundary related times the probability of having an N in it.

Check if there is any other common sound in non N words related to boundary. Repeat the above steps.

This is called data-mining, and would be fine for generating hypotheses on an exploratory basis. To test these hypotheses, however, you'd need to gather a new dataset (especially since the theoretical motivation is so weak!).

Also, since you haven't actually done these tests, why do you expect people to believe you?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 12, 2014, 06:00:45 PM
Quote
In schools, there are two types of kids: those who are good at memorizing things and repeating them, and those who are good at figuring things out. I bet you were the first kind of guy. They usually go to study humanities, where there is a lot of memorizing and very little thinking.
Your ad hominem argumentation style is getting old. Really, stop it.
But to address your point here: that may be the single least insightful thing anyone has ever said about me. I tend to dislike the humanities and lean toward serious science (even though they call Linguistics a "social science"-- but I like psychology as well, so that may be fine). I'm analytical, hate memorizing, and always question everything.
In fact, I'm questioning you right now. The problem is that your argument doesn't make sense. I promise you (so stop claiming otherwise) I have no particular attachment to the status quo. But you have given me absolutely no reason to believe anything you're saying. You may as well be making up some other completely wrong theory. If you'd like my reaction to change, then either: 1) come up with a coherent way to explain it, or 2) move on to a new theory that is coherent. Up to you.

Quote
You are still asking the same questions even though I have answered them many times. 
1. I asked for a short abstract. (We all did.) You haven't written it. Please do. If you don't, we will assume you can't coherently summarize anything meaningful from your claims. I can't at the moment either.
2. You might be right. I'm trying to give you a chance to defend your ideas, but if you have reached the point of not being able to further clarify/support them, maybe it's time to give up.

Quote
Either you don't understand English language, you refuse to understand or you didn't even bothered reading most of what i wrote, because you have decided at the start that it was all rubbish, just because it is not what you believe in.
No, neither of those. Your arguments are unconvincing.
Again, I've explained over and over: you have unconvincing arguments then you act hurt that we don't believe you and claim we're stuck in the past. That could apply to ANY argument, right or wrong. For you to show us that you're right, you'll need to make a convincing argument, not talk about how ignorant and closed-minded we are. (We're not.)

Quote
1. I never said that "N" is the only sound that carries the meaning of a boundary. I said that sound "N" carries the meaning of a boundary. There could equally be other sounds that carry the same meaning, like "Z" for instance. Spoken language is associated with situations, context. So you can have different sounds having the same meaning in different contexts.
Phonosemantics is vacuous if any sound can have any meaning. If you are making a claim that only some sounds have "boundary" as a meaning and not others, then this should be testable. You have not demonstrated a way to objectively test it, just your own intuition.
You have also not clarified the extent of influence of phonosemantics. Does it account for the shape of all words? Does it determine the entire meaning? Does it just "color" the meaning? Does it apply to all sounds? Does it always apply to those sounds?

Quote
2. When I made my prediction, I said this: "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. ". So I fully expect that there will be words that contain "N" in English language which are not related to boundary.
Ok. Good. This is a place to start. Some questions:
1. If even one word isn't about boundaries, then what are you claiming? Why is N sometimes related to boundaries and not always? What kind of theory would be a "sometimes" theory. (Imagine a "sometimes we have gravity" theory!)
[Note: I actually think, if anything, this is the right approach. But it's crucial that you work out the details and significance.]
2. How do you know? Humans are amazingly good at metaphors, so you just claiming "it's about boundaries" is basically meaningless. As a simple test, give me a word and tell me a concept it is "about". I'll make up a very convincing story. That isn't science or reliable, though. So, again, how can we rely on your analysis when it isn't something objectively testable?
Another way to consider this would be to wonder about exact opposites. The opposite of boundary might be "wide open space". What about "savannah", "open", "plain", "plane", "nebula", "navigate", etc.? If N can predict openness and boundaries, then what is it actually predicting?

A scientific hypothesis works like this:
Hypothesis ("H1"): There is some underlying reason that something will happen.
Null hypothesis ("H0"): There is no underlying reason, so the result will not be observed.

This is how falsification works: if you design a proper experiment, you will find that the null hypothesis is supported when the expected results do not occur. If the results do occur, then H1 may be correct. You can't prove H1 is correct, but you can show that it is incorrect-- if the data is inconsistent.

Now... how does this apply to your theory? Then actually test it. Does your hypothesis make predictions that are consistent with real results? Or do other things occur instead?

Quote
3. Group languages are invented by families. Families expand to clans, tribes, nations, races and propagate the language. They also propagate genes. This is why genes and languages are linked.
Shouldn't we also be able to relate family recipes and language then? Also eye color. Also religions. Also location. Also political views.
Certainly all of these things are somewhat correlated-- families and communities are relevant to all of that, sometimes especially language. But none of it is particularly reliable.
If I eat a sandwich and you eat a salad, then do we speak the same language? (Or let's say Greek food and Japanese food respectively.) That's an absurd question to ask, right? So why would genetic evidence be much better?

Quote
Different families can use different logic to link context to sound. Some of them will use "N" to represent boundary, some will use "Z" and some will use "K" of what ever other sound they though was logically linked to the concept of a boundary in the environment they lived when they developed the language. These families merged, languages merged. Not all words in English come from the same "family" language.
Ok! Very important. So: sound-meaning correspondences are entirely arbitrary. Languages vary, so "dog" in English is just coincidentally not like "Hund" in German or "perro" in Spanish.
What you're claiming is that sounds are treated as meaningful units in speech by users of those sounds. That's more reasonable, but also harder to prove, because it's very hard to imagine clear evidence that would falsify it. (You're saying "sometimes" rather than "always", for example.)

So then what is the point of these correspondences? Are you trying to track down individual families that they came from? There's a major time-depth issue in historical linguistics, and I'm certain you'll hit that.

Additionally, what about multiple generations? Are you claiming that following generations of the same family (or speech community) no longer question the form of words? You said families vary in these associations. How are they maintained then? That seems like a fatal flaw in the argument.
Further, why do languages vary at all? If they all (probably) go back to the same original speech community (maybe 100,000 years ago?) then why don't we retain whatever sounds they used? Either it is consistent over time or it is not. So, which?

Quote
4. Words change phonetically through time. This is due to the the fact that what we say is dependent on what we hear and our ability to reproduce it.
5. The meaning of words changes through time.
Yes. They chance so much that any kind of analysis like this seems absurd, even if originally there were correspondences.

Quote
...When people invented traffic light language, red meant stop, green meant go, yellow meant press on the break, prepare to stop, red light is coming. Stop and go are critical and still mean the same. Yellow now has many meanings, of which most common is press on the gas, speed up, red light is coming.
What is a "meaning"?
This may be an incredibly important point to discuss.
Semantics: the study of inherent meanings of words or sentences
Pragmatics: the study of the meaning of language in context

"It's cold in here."
Semantic meaning: It's cold.
Pragmatic meaning: Close the window.

Roughly, semantic meaning is inherent while pragmatic meaning is contextual.

Semantic meaning of yellow light: in a short time this will be red.
Potential pragmatic meanings of yellow light: slow down (if you have time); speed up (if you don't have time or are in a hurry); watch out! (if your breaks are failing); the cars will stop soon (if you're a pedestrian trying to cross); take the picture now! (if you're a photographer wanting pictures of yellow lights).

In the case of language, there is a huge difference between N sometimes being related to boundaries (well, of course it is, as in the word itself) and being predictably related to them.

Quote
6. Words and sentences are linked to situations, context. This is how people learn language. And this is why you can not analyze the spoken language in isolation. You always need to link it to the context of which it is an integral part.
Incorrect. See above. There are two different (and equally valid) kinds of analysis.
To say that "N means boundary" you must establish some sort of conventional meaning for N. It's not just about context.

Quote
I asked you this questions: "What do you think? Coincidences, Statistical noise, or are we approaching statistical impossibility of this all being coincidence? 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? "

I asked you to think about it, and tell me from your point of view when is the frequency of coincidences too high to be a coincidence. But you didn't understand what I said. Again. Do you understand my question now and can you give me the straight answer. 10% or 90%? Instead you say this:
Ridiculous. In answer to your question, then: no. You haven't shown that there is even a coincidence to begin with (no testable methodology), not to even consider whether it's statistically significant.

If you'd like to imagine something statistically significant, then you can use an alpha level of .05 and a real statistical test.

Quote
The key here is "As far as you know". You don't know everything. Use the methodology you preach about and tell me what percentage of hits removes the possibility of coincidence and confirms deliberate action.
As far as I know pigs don't fly.
The fact that I don't know something doesn't mean you're right. It means nothing.

Quote
You were asking me for a null hypothesis. This is it: I presume that all the "N" words that I found so far linked to the meaning of boundary in English are all coincidences.
Ok. So why can't they be coincidences?
Quote
I believe that if I analyze all of the "N" words in English, and large majority of them is linked to the meaning of boundary then i have proven that this is not a coincidence.
How do you determine "is linked"? Do you mean that you can make up something then report it to us as a fact? You need a methodology.
For example, you could do a survey asking 100 people whether certain words are related to boundaries.
Quote
To add to that If I find the same correlation in related European languages, then we certainly have a pattern which is deliberate rather then coincidental.
No, no, no! Don't use related languages to test for lack of coincidence. Use other languages like Swahili, Japanese and Navajo.

Quote
You can read about null hypothesis here. You will see that how you prove it or disprove it is hotly debated.
You don't prove anything, ever. You can simply sometimes falsify a given hypothesis by showing that it is inconsistent with data.

Hypothesis: there is no dog in the room.
Data: there is a dog.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is falsified.
You can't ever be 100% certain there is no small dog hiding somewhere behind you, following you as you turn. You can continue running tests and making more specific hypotheses to determine that it is very likely (statistically significant) to be true, but you can't ever prove it.

What we end up doing is either:
a) falsifying a hypothesis
b) failing to falsify a hypothesis (thereby suggestively supporting the hypothesis)


Quote
This again is self evident to someone who uses their eyes, ears and brain and who understands what language is. Language exists as part of a context describing information pattern or matrix. This is why "poetry" of the language is so important for it's understanding. Words relate to boundary if they are found in the same context with the meaning of boundary.
Absurd. That's the best you can do?
Science is not self-evident. If it was, then we wouldn't need to discuss it.
Plus, if it's self-evident, great. Why? Common sense is not acceptable (that's not science), so you surely must mean it is easy to reliable detect. How would you train a computer program to detect words related to boundaries?
Soup: the boundary between food and drink
Shoe: the boundary between feet and floor
Ice cream: the boundary between me and deliciousness
Side: a boundary of a figure
Edge: a boundary of a figure
Border: a boundary of a figure
Ridge: boundary within a figure
Seam: boundary on clothing
Cliff: boundary of mountain

Are all of those words related to boundary? Please, find a word that ISN'T related to boundaries...

Quote
Satisfied?
Not at all. Your explanations would just be flipped if "edge" contained an N for example.

Your method appears to be:
1. Observe a possible pattern.
2. State that pattern, claim it is correct.
3. Force the data to fit that pattern, without a clear methodology.

Quote
I know a lot about statistics.
Hahaha. Why haven't you used any statistical tests yet then? You've counted a few things, yes.

Quote
As I said already, this is what I am trying to establish. Do you want to help?
No. I think it's pointless.
But feel free to show me some evidence that it isn't.

Why should I spend my time (or you spend yours) on this rather than absolutely any other activity? Your argument so far is completely unconvincing. Sometimes if you haven't found the supporting evidence you need, it just isn't there. Like WMDs in Iraq: they weren't there, no matter how long the government said they were while they were looking for them.

Quote
You are maybe listening but you have problems understanding.
Are you telling me that there are two possibilities:
1. You're right, but I fail to understand.
2. You're right, and I understand.

What about the possibility where you're wrong? Haha. You're being silly about this. Stop with the whining and ad hominem stuff. Just move on to scientific discussion-- can you support your hypothesis? Great if so. If not, move on.

Quote
If you ask me a question, and i answer, and then you ask me the same question again ignoring my answer, then i can at best conclude that you are not listening. But I am beginning to believe that you are incapable of understanding.
No problem. I'll stop asking questions. My conclusion: you're wrong. You haven't even come close to convincing me of anything. Good luck!

Quote
As i thought, you are not listening, or thinking or reading what i write. Did you see this in one of my posts?
No. Your posts a very long and haven't ever had a clearly separate part.
(If I really did miss it, maybe I just had a busy day. Feel free to link to it.)

Quote
And this just shows how little you understand what language is. It is not arbitrary because it is dependent on context. Do you know how kids learn to speak? Do you know what would happen to kids if you constantly changed the words used in the same context? Do you think they would ever learn how to speak. You can use arbitrary sound to create sound part of the context. But once it becomes part of the context, if you want to have a useful language, it stays stuck inside the context.
Silly. That's not what "arbitrary" means at all. Check the dictionary.

Quote
Get all the words in English, separate the N words, separate the boundary N words, separate the boundary non N words.
How do you accomplish the last part? How do you separate them? Is it reliable? Can anyone other than you do it the same way?

Quote
I am doing all this...
Actually you're not. Do some calculations.

Quote
2. That theory must have a potential weakness, for a certain kind of hypothetical data. (There is more words which don't conform to the above then there are words which conform)
So... 55% is enough of a correlation? Why or why not?

Quote
3. See if that data actually exists. (I am actively looking for the data that supports my theory. If I find some data that does not i will let you know. And you can let me know if you find some as well.)
The dictionary has an N section.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 12, 2014, 11:32:12 PM
http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/wordlists/english/ (http://www-01.sil.org/linguistics/wordlists/english/)

Code: [Select]
grep "n" wordsEn.txt > n.txt
Knock yourself silly.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 12, 2014, 11:40:04 PM
MalFet

Here we go again. I will spell it this time:

The theory: There is a detectable correlation between sounds and meaning

Null hypothesis: All the "N" words that are related to boundary in English are all coincidences and there is no correlation between sound and meaning. The distribution of sounds in boundary related words is random

Null hypothesis proof:

Get all the words in English, separate the N words, separate the boundary related N words.
Get all non N words from English language, separate the boundary related non N words from the other non N words.
Compare percentages.

If percentage of N words related to boundary is less than the threshold percentage (?), we have random distribution and no correlation between sound and meaning.

If percentage of N words related to boundary is significantly more than the threshold percentage (?) go to stage two.

If percentage of non N words related to boundary is close to or bigger than the percentage of N words related to boundary we go to stage three.

Check if there is any other common sound in non N words related to boundary. Repeat the above steps.

You repeat this until you prove that none of the sounds that is found in clusters of words related to boundary has the majority in its group.

If you prove this the null hypothesis is validated and the theory is invalidated. If you can't prove this, if any of the perceived boundary carrying sounds appears to be in more words than you would expect if the distribution was random, then the theory is proven.

Or even simpler, get all the words related to boundary, group them by common sound, get percentage for each group with common sound. Compare with threshold percentage. If distribution is uniform, we have randomness. If we have peaks, it is deliberate. Each peak represents one sound which is strongly related to meaning of boundary.

The threshold percentage calculation:

number of all words related to boundary / number of letters = random distribution

What delta would you consider to be the proof that distribution is not random? If this is not testable what is?

So, in other words, all this is an experiment you'd like to do someday but haven't yet done? That's fine. I think people are confused because you appear to be presenting *findings*, when in reality what you're presenting is a project proposal.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 13, 2014, 12:10:49 AM
So, in other words, all this is an experiment you'd like to do someday but haven't yet done? That's fine. I think people are confused because you appear to be presenting *findings*, when in reality what you're presenting is a project proposal.

In fact, if you're willing to do a bit of programming, you could use nltk (http://www.nltk.org/) and its Wordnet API (http://nltk.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/doc/howto/wordnet.html) (see the Wordnet project's homepage (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/) for more information on Wordnet) to enumerate a large sample of words in English along with various Wordnet-based distances from the entry for "boundary," and see to what extent the probability a word has an "n" in it correlates with its distance from "boundary" in the synset graph (probably using a mixed logit regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_logit) that predicts the presence or absence of "n" in word types on the basis of their distance from "boundary"). If you're concerned about the difference between spelling and pronunciation, you could use a pronunciation dictionary like cmudict (http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict) or extract a dictionary with pronunciation variants weighted by frequency from a corpus with close phonetic transcription like the Buckeye corpus (http://buckeyecorpus.osu.edu/). And there are similar resources for considering languages other than English.

Again, I doubt you'll find the correlation you want, but my point is that it is possible to address this question in a reasonably serious way using freely available resources: you don't even have to distribute surveys! I and the other commenters here don't have time to walk you through the python coding, but I think we'd be happy to look at graphs of real data and provide feedback (and maybe some assistance, especially if the ad-hominems stop) on the analysis.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 13, 2014, 12:38:18 AM
"Clustering" is pretty well documented as a phenomenon. The word-initial gl- node is probably the most widely described in English: glisten, glimmer, glint, gleam, etc.

Jespersen famously studied all this years and years ago. I'm away from my library at the moment, but he's often quoted as saying something along the lines of "Sound symbolism makes some words more likely to survive than others."

There's little doubt that sounds have effective properties for speakers, and that speakers in turn respond to these properties in ways that influence language change. However, this is often a very lateral kind of process. We can't just let the data wash over ourselves, sniffing for things that *feel* significant. That is, as jkpate points out, datamining, and the thing about datamining is that you'll always find a positive result if you look long enough. This is why real quantitative typology always begins by measuring the baseline of the null hypothesis.

The entire field of quantitative typology
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 13, 2014, 12:45:48 AM
"Clustering" is pretty well documented as a phenomenon. The word-initial gl- node is probably the most widely described in English: glisten, glimmer, glint, gleam, etc.

Jespersen famously studied all this years and years ago. I'm away from my library at the moment, but he's often quoted as saying something along the lines of "Sound symbolism makes some words more likely to survive than others."

The following is a short description of a similar phenomenon in Swedish: Phonesthemes in Swedish (http://www.ling.gu.se/~abelin/phonest.html).

"Phonesthemes" is not a word I'm familiar with, but I would guess it has something to do with thematic distribution of phones or something?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 13, 2014, 12:51:32 AM
Phonesthemes = blend of phone+aesthetic+[-eme]?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 13, 2014, 12:56:31 AM
Phonesthemes = blend of phone+aesthetic+[-eme]?

That would actually be an excellent description, even if it wasn't the real etymology. Aesthetic, that's the really important word here.

Not so much phonosemantics as in distinct contrastive meaning for individual sounds, but phonaesthetics as in arbitrary sounds trending towards related aesthetic meanings.

Brilliant!

(EDIT)

Even as I work on my orthography I've come to use "aesthetics" to describe why some things are written as they are, so now I have two new words: phonaesthetics and orthoaesthetics :D
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 13, 2014, 01:03:28 AM
orthoaesthetics

Now that's an orthoaesthetically pleasing vowel cluster.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 13, 2014, 01:04:10 AM
Right. "Gl" works really well for those words because it feels right. But it doesn't determine the meaning or have any necessary correspondence.

"Shine" is just as good as "glimmer", but "gl" sounds right there, by chance. Likewise, "glue" and some other words may have nothing to do with that meaning and they aren't problematic.

There has been quite a bit of work on finding the right names for products. I believe "Nike" was the result of a think tank of sorts coming up with the most impressive name for shoes. There's probably quite a bit more money going into that industry.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 13, 2014, 01:09:57 AM
orthoaesthetics

Now that's an orthoaesthetically pleasing vowel cluster.

I firmly believe that there is discrimation against words like archaeology and palaeoanthropology. This needs to end.

:P
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 13, 2014, 01:52:03 AM
"Clustering" is pretty well documented as a phenomenon. The word-initial gl- node is probably the most widely described in English: glisten, glimmer, glint, gleam, etc.

Jespersen famously studied all this years and years ago. I'm away from my library at the moment, but he's often quoted as saying something along the lines of "Sound symbolism makes some words more likely to survive than others."

The following is a short description of a similar phenomenon in Swedish: Phonesthemes in Swedish (http://www.ling.gu.se/~abelin/phonest.html).

"Phonesthemes" is not a word I'm familiar with, but I would guess it has something to do with thematic distribution of phones or something?

Bingo. I've never really understood this to be an issue of aesthetics, per se, so I tend not to use this word much personally, but it's probably the most widely used term in the literature.

These associative intuitions are widespread, and very often they're influenced by the sound patterns of nearby languages. English is particularly full of etymological doublets thanks to its German+French ancestry, and this creates a ripe source material for exactly this process. Think "prohibited" versus "forbidden", for example. I don't imagine there are many English stories with beautiful maidens named Gruklok either, for that matter.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 13, 2014, 03:32:09 AM
Quote
I don't imagine there are many English stories with beautiful maidens named Gruklok either, for that matter.
:D
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 13, 2014, 08:30:16 AM
Thanks for all your suggestions how to find the words that contain N. As you have seen from the entrance exit example, the problem is how to find words that relate to boundary, and how to relate them to the original words from which they derived. I don't believe that there is a program that can do "give me all root words from which all English words that relate to boundary come from".  I think this is not as easy as running a query.

MalFet

Quote
So, in other words, all this is an experiment you'd like to do someday but haven't yet done? That's fine. I think people are confused because you appear to be presenting *findings*, when in reality what you're presenting is a project proposal.

I am presenting theory based on my initial findings. This is how things work, right? I looked at experimental data, i found the correlation, i am proposing explanation, and counter explanation. I am continuing with investigation to prove that counter explanation is wrong. You can, if you want try to prove that it isn't.


djr33

Quote
"Shine" is just as good as "glimmer", but "gl" sounds right there, by chance.

MalFet

Quote
Bingo. I've never really understood this to be an issue of aesthetics, per se, so I tend not to use this word much personally, but it's probably the most widely used term in the literature.

What you call sounds right and aesthetics, is the actual underlying meaning the sounds carry. That meaning comes from natural sounds and contexts in which those natural sounds were first observed.

Children learn to speak from context. If i bring a bottle and say bottle every time, when baby wants to say bottle it will not say snack, or lunch, it will say b....In exactly the same way, our ancestors associated sounds with context. Snake (Z(S)mija in Serbian) slithering by makes ssssssssss sound. This sound gets associated with snake and stored in our memory. When a man hears the same sound, the picture of snake pops out of our memory. It is survival mechanism. So if our ancestors wanted to give a name to this animal whose picture they see in their mind every time they hear sssssssssss what do you think, which sound would they use to name it? What would be the easiest way for our ancestors to quickly warn someone that there is a snake? If sound that snake makes ssssssssss triggers picture or idea of snake to pop into our minds, wouldn't it be logical that our ancestor would use the same sound to trigger, transmit, invoke the same reaction in the other human?

So I don't believe that these sounds are random, because this is not how language development works in kids today. Why would it have been any different in the past?

Sounds are just part of the context, meaning matrix, which is stored together and invoked together. Sounds without the context are meaningless. This is why we don't "recognize" the sounds we hear for the first time. They are meaningless to us. We could wander what they are, we might come up with contexts containing similar sounds. But once someone points them out, and links them to a proper context, all of a sudden we can "recognize" them, meaning the picture or an idea or a feeling pops up in our mind every time we hear the sound.
This association between sound and meaning matrix is eventually hardwired into our bodies through epigenetics, and propagated to our descendants. This epigenetic information hugely affects our ability to hear, think and speak, meaning to reproduce what we heard in right context.
And then many generations later, we have a situation when to us words from our language or closely related languages, doesn't matter if we understand them or not, sound "normal" while for instance sub Saharan African languages or Chinese, or Irish sound "weird". If you ask a Chinese person they would tell you the same in reverse.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 13, 2014, 10:54:23 AM
Quote
Sounds are just part of the context, meaning matrix, which is stored together and invoked together. Sounds without the context are meaningless. This is why we don't "recognize" the sounds we hear for the first time. They are meaningless to us. We could wander what they are, we might come up with contexts containing similar sounds. But once someone points them out, and links them to a proper context, all of a sudden we can "recognize" them, meaning the picture or an idea or a feeling pops up in our mind every time we hear the sound.
This association between sound and meaning matrix is eventually hardwired into our bodies through epigenetics, and propagated to our descendants. This epigenetic information hugely affects our ability to hear, think and speak, meaning to reproduce what we heard in right context.
And then many generations later, we have a situation when to us words from our language or closely related languages, doesn't matter if we understand them or not, sound "normal" while for instance sub Saharan African languages or Chinese, or Irish sound "weird". If you ask a Chinese person they would tell you the same in reverse.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Why would any of that be true?
Plus, even if so, then what does it mean to "mean" something if it is dependent on context?
So N means boundary sometimes, and other times it doesn't, depending on context? Can't that be said of basically anything?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 13, 2014, 01:07:36 PM
Quote
Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Why would any of that be true?

Read about epigenetics and how life experience affects our genes which then affect our descendants and particularly their language skills.
Read about theory of communication and complex integrated data structures and data retrieval algorithms.
Read about how kids learn. Read how animals learn.

Quote
Plus, even if so, then what does it mean to "mean" something if it is dependent on context?

Sounds have no meaning by themselves. But attached to context they acquire meaning which then gets propagated through related contexts.

N - involuntary sound produced by someone who negates, refuses, defends, protects, creates a boundary. This sound becomes associated with these contexts. When you hear someone saying the sound nnnnnnnnn i am talking about, you associate it with this kind of contexts. If you want to invoke one of the above contexts in others, you can use sound N to do it. This is where words "no, ne" come from. Then when additional contexts are made which are in meaning related to the above initial context, the sound N is most likely to be propagated through these contexts. Sound acquires its meaning from the context but by that association it becomes part of the context. Contexts is all information describing a situation: visual, audio, olfactory, emotional...It is all stored together. What this means effectively is that contexts are the the main building blocks of complex languages, not sounds alone.

Quote
So N means boundary sometimes, and other times it doesn't, depending on context?

In the original primitive family language, where the original context was created in which N was associated with boundary, negation, will preserve this context as the building block for related contexts. In other family languages it might be associated with something else. It is possible that the same sound can be associated with multiple meanings in the same language. But this is not random, and I believe that in that case you can trace the meaning back to the original context, which is associated with some natural sound.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 13, 2014, 03:15:03 PM
Thanks for all your suggestions how to find the words that contain N. As you have seen from the entrance exit example, the problem is how to find words that relate to boundary, and how to relate them to the original words from which they derived. I don't believe that there is a program that can do "give me all root words from which all English words that relate to boundary come from".  I think this is not as easy as running a query.

Why not use Wordnet like I suggested? That's a graph of words in English that encodes various relationships between the meanings of words, and would make assembling the list as easy as running a query. And, once you have the infrastructure in place, there are Wordnets for other languages that you could move to.

MalFet

Quote
So, in other words, all this is an experiment you'd like to do someday but haven't yet done? That's fine. I think people are confused because you appear to be presenting *findings*, when in reality what you're presenting is a project proposal.

I am presenting theory based on my initial findings. This is how things work, right? I looked at experimental data, i found the correlation, i am proposing explanation, and counter explanation. I am continuing with investigation to prove that counter explanation is wrong. You can, if you want try to prove that it isn't.

You have not looked at experimental data (or if you have, I just missed it: this is one advantage of writing a concise abstract!). You have looked at a bunch of anecdotes and written some creative fiction about how maybe early language got started. As the saying goes, "the plural of anecdote is not data." Data needs to be representative of the phenonemon you're looking at, and anecdotes are not.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 13, 2014, 05:31:34 PM
Haha, great saying. I hadn't heard that before. I'm sure I'll repeat it now though.

As for the content, I'll leave it at that. Still nothing convincing, a lot of disassociated thoughts, scattered sampling method and no clear set of data. Looking forward to the abstract.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 13, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
Quote
So, in other words, all this is an experiment you'd like to do someday but haven't yet done? That's fine. I think people are confused because you appear to be presenting *findings*, when in reality what you're presenting is a project proposal.

I am presenting theory based on my initial findings. This is how things work, right? I looked at experimental data, i found the correlation, i am proposing explanation, and counter explanation. I am continuing with investigation to prove that counter explanation is wrong. You can, if you want try to prove that it isn't.

But that's the rub. These *aren't* initial findings. You haven't done the analysis necessary to call them initial findings. These are an amalgam of correlations you've noticed that may or may not be statistically significant.

In other words, they're a hunch. There's nothing wrong with hunches. Hunches have been the first step in many great discoveries. But, it is no exaggeration to say that the last century of historical typology has been dedicated to demonstrating why correlation mining is scientifically invalid.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 14, 2014, 05:00:13 AM
MalFet

First i would like to thank you for joining in. The atmosphere is a lot nicer and less outright dismissive now. Now we are talking.

Quote
"Clustering" is pretty well documented as a phenomenon. The word-initial gl- node is probably the most widely described in English: glisten, glimmer, glint, gleam, etc.

This is not what i mean by clusters. I mean the clusters which arise from similar contexts. Like this:

Sun, blazing, shining, summer, sweating, splashing, swimming, sweltering, sultry, scorched, sizzling, snake, grass, flowers, soil, insects, bees,  cicadas, crickets, spiders, chirping, buzzing, birds singing, forest,  forest fires, leaves, breezy, rustling, shushing, shimmering...

All describing summer, all have s in them. S the first letter of the word for sun. Which brings summer, and all the above things. But s is also related to closeness which is connected with heat.

Or consider this cluster:

Irish word "gar" meaning close to something or someone. This word also means us, people close together. This word is a root of the word "garadh" which means worm, from people huddling close together for warmth. Also "grian", meaning sun in Irish, gives off heat.

So originally people stayed worm by exposing themselves to the sun or by huddling together. Then later they started using fire. The root gar, gr associated originally with heat by huddling, has been preserved in all the words which are related to heat:

Serbian:

grupa - group, people close together
greje, grije - emits heat.
sunce greje, grije - sun heats us up
sunce sine, sija - sun shines
grejati, grijati - to heat
grijan - heated, warm
ogrev - firewood
gori - burns
g(a)rana - branch, what burns
nagariti - put branches into the fire, feed the fire
gar - hot ashes, soot
garav - covered in soot, black
zgariste -  something burned down
ugarci - smoldering branches
zgura - slag, what is left after something is melted with heat. zgura "se gura" is pushed to the side. Serbian expression "nije zgoreg" means it is not for throwing away. 


Irish:

gor - warmth
gorach - heat up
goradh - incubation, keeping worm
gorai - place where chicks come out of eggs
gorim - warm
grios - hot ashes, burning coal, branches, but also burning and itching rash
garrail - dirty
griosach - glowing
griosagh - fire
grios(c) - broil, grill
grian - sun
garr - wooden pulp
crann (originally probably gran) meaning tree is made from garr. When crann (tree) is put into griosagh (fire) it gives us gorim (heat) and turns to grios (hot ashes) which you can use to grios(c) (cook).

For Irish grian we find this:

Quote
From Old Irish grían, from Proto-Indo-European *ghreinā, from Proto-Indo-European *gher- (“to shine, glow; grey”).

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

Do you see how cluster of audio - visual - tactile - olfactory contexts develops from the original context meaning close together? This close together contexts also gave us another cluster which contains words like gar - spear, gard - protect, gard - protected place, fortified place...But i will leave this for another day.

If you don't know the above then you come up with this etymology for word group:

Quote
From French groupe (“cluster, group”), from Italian gruppo groppo (“a knot, heap, group, bag (of money)”), itself derived from Vulgar Latin *kruppo, from Proto-Germanic *kruppaz (“lump, round mass, body, crop”), from Proto-Indo-European *grewb- (“to crumple, bend, crawl”). Cognate with German Kropf (“crop, craw, bunch”), Old English cropp, croppa (“cluster, bunch, sprout, flower, berry, ear of corn, crop”), Dutch krop (“craw”), Old Norse kroppr (“hump, bunch”). More at crop, croup.

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


Quote
But that's the rub. These *aren't* initial findings. You haven't done the analysis necessary to call them initial findings. These are an amalgam of correlations you've noticed that may or may not be statistically significant.

The above Serbian Irish cluster for heat is what i mean by clusters of contexts. You get them by analyzing context related data. I did a lot of that. 

So when you say i did not do enough analysis, you guys need to understand that i didn't wake up one day with a hangover and decided to come here and start bothering you with my ideas. I have been looking over data for years analyzing it and comparing it. I did tell you where you can find a lot of this data, and i have presented a lot of additional data here as well. I did not use graphs and tables i admit that.

When i say data i mean words, languages, cultures, histories. These are all linked. You can't successfully understand language if you don't understand the reality which it describes. These things are interlinked. This is why i believe that while statistics is a great tool to get rough idea about distribution of something, it can be completely misleading as well. Statistics is as good as the data and the data and the question you asked. Also statistics will not tell you why and how are things distributed the way they are now. To find that out you need to look at history.
Statistics will not tell you the meaning of the language. You need to know the culture, the way of life, the way of thinking.

You need to get the poetry of the language.

Languages describe realities. Words are not random collections of sounds assembled by chance. Human minds don't operate like that. You can not reduce people to numbers and expect to understand people. You can not reduce language to numbers and expect to understand language. You can statistically examine the language all you want, but you will never understand why word stop means stop, or why word go mans go. And because you can not see that from statistics, and if statistics is the only tool you use, you will naturally come to conclusion that it is all random. But it isn't. Even genetics in realizing that genetic evolution is not random, it is governed by the epigenetic changes, which are governed by life experiences. Our life experiences make us who we are, and make our language what it is.

Quote

Neo-Darwinism relies on mutation and selection, but selection of what? Epigenetics is confusing the target of selection, raising fears of neo-Lamarckism.

Elizabeth Pennisi in Science Magazine reports that ongoing studies of epigenetic inheritance at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have evolutionists worried. Frank Johannes and his team have apparently shown that methylation marks on the DNA of plants can alter the phenotype in heritable ways that remain stable up to at least eight generations.
For some evolutionary biologists, just hearing the term epigenetics raises hackles. They balk at suggestions that something other than changes in DNAsequences -- such as the chemical addition of methyl groups to DNA or other so-called epigenetic modifications -- has a role in evolution. All of which guaranteesthat a provocative study presented at an evolutionary biology meeting here last month will get close scrutiny. It found that heritable changes in plant flowering time and other traits were the result of epigenetics alone, unaided by any sequence changes. (Emphasis added.)
Her title, "Evolution Heresy? Epigenetics Underlies Heritable Plant Traits," reflects the religious wars these findings threaten to ignite. The concern is that the environment -- not chance mutations -- can cause adaptive epigenetic changes directly. If a plant or animal acquires characteristics during its lifetime that are heritable, the specter of long-dead Lamarckism rises once again to haunt evolutionary biology.
But the experiment doesn't address the most controversial aspect of epigenetics and evolution -- whether an environmental stress can alter an organism's epigenetic markings and lead to a permanent trait change that's acted upon by natural selection -- a notion that, to some, sounds suspiciously like Lamarckism.
So it's not just a matter of displacing natural selection to act on epigenetic marks instead of, or in addition to, genetic mutations. The issue is the possibility of a built-in adaptability that allows organisms to respond to environmental changes. It calls into question whether variation (mutation) is unguided. That's an entrenched paradigm that will be hard to change:
"A lot more hard evidence is necessary before one can claim that epigenetics plays a very important role in evolution," says ecological geneticist Koen Verhoeven at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology in Wageningen. And, Richards adds, "people are really stubborn about accepting that that's possible."

You'd hope that people who are biologists would not be "stubborn," but rather would seek to follow the evidence where it leads.


What does all this new data mean? It's too early to say. If experiments continue to support epigenetic inheritance, additional research questions will arise. Do the epigenetic marks ever become encoded in the DNA sequence, or are they temporary? Are epigenetic marks subject to natural selection? What directs the methylation activity? It might prove to be a built-in adaptability that provides robustness in a changing world. If so, it would require higher orders of complex specified information than the genetic code, because it suggests foresight to handle contingencies.
However it turns out, the issue about epigenetic inheritance in evolution is sure to be interesting. What's also interesting is watching how the neo-Darwinian old guard, biology's ancien régime, responds to heresy in the ranks.

You would hope that people who are scientists of any kind would "not be "stubborn," but rather would seek to follow the evidence where it leads."
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 14, 2014, 07:21:43 AM
So when you say i did not do enough analysis, you guys need to understand that i didn't wake up one day with a hangover and decided to come here and start bothering you with my ideas. I have been looking over data for years analyzing it and comparing it. I did tell you where you can find a lot of this data, and i have presented a lot of additional data here as well. I did not use graphs and tables i admit that.

Indeed, I'm sure that you have been looking over this data for years. Meanwhile, thousands of linguists have spent the last century and a half explaining why "looking over data for years" isn't good enough. The kinds of arguments you're trying to make land squarely in some very, very well established statistical analytic territory. Until you ground your methodology in something more rigorous, there's not much more I can say, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 14, 2014, 08:31:27 AM
MalFet

I am pretty good at understanding people, but i fail to understand what exactly do you mean.

Quote
These *aren't* initial findings. You haven't done the analysis necessary to call them initial findings. These are an amalgam of correlations you've noticed that may or may not be statistically significant.

What do you think is statistical chance for the close - heat - sun - fire pattern to arise as a random pile up of letters in two distant European languages like Serbian and Irish. I am asking you for your personal opinion?

And how can you explain that deliberate action like trying to convey meaning to someone, will result in random babble of sounds devoid of any premeditated meaning. I think sometimes that i might be talking to wrong people. I was hoping to talk to linguists, and i am talking to statisticians.

How can you statistically explain why this is the symbol for one "|"? Why this is the symbol for two "||"? Why do we use 0 as a symbol for ten ||||||||||?

Or how can you understand and explain this, using statistics?

1 = one
2 = two
12 = twelve

I can understand it using my, from your point of view useless, "looking over data" and comparing the language with how people think and how people live. Can you please explain what statistical or any other method that you regard as scientific, can explain any of the above two linguistics problems.

I would like to continue talking to you, but for that i need to know that we are using the same language.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 14, 2014, 10:07:55 AM
Bottom line: your efforts are irrelevant because your arguments are not convincing and because you don't have any statistically reliable arguments to back them up. Harsh, but true. We've all said it to you in various ways. We're not opposed to reading a convincing argument from you, but for that to happen you'll need to provide one.

Just one point for now:
Quote
Sun, blazing, shining, summer, sweating, splashing, swimming, sweltering, sultry, scorched, sizzling, snake, grass, flowers, soil, insects, bees,  cicadas, crickets, spiders, chirping, buzzing, birds singing, forest,  forest fires, leaves, breezy, rustling, shushing, shimmering...

All describing summer, all have s in them. S the first letter of the word for sun. Which brings summer, and all the above things. But s is also related to closeness which is connected with heat.
Do you truly not see the sampling bias here? You've listed a lot of words that have S and have to do with summer. Great. But what about "hot", "heat", "play", "travel", "beach", "drought", "walk", "warm", and hundreds of other words also associated with summer?

You're just making lists of words and looking for correlation without balancing anything. You can literally choose any letter you'd like and any concept you'd like and create a list of words that go together. But that means there's no conclusion to be drawn-- you can do it for any letter/concept combination!



Anyway, try writing an abstract. It will clarify your position and we can give you some feedback on what would be required to support it. I'm not interested in going back and forth with the really long posts any more.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 14, 2014, 10:46:11 AM
Quote
"hot", "head", "play", "travel", "beach", "drought", "walk", "warm"

Head, play, travel, beach, walk are not related to summer at all. I am talking about time before holidays....
 
Warm, hot are not related to summer only but are related to heat.

if we look at the list i gave:

Sun, blazing, shining, summer, sweating, splashing, swimming, sweltering, sultry, scorched, sizzling, snake, grass, flowers, soil, insects, bees,  cicadas, crickets, spiders, chirping, buzzing, birds singing, forest,  forest fires, leaves, breezy, rustling, shushing, shimmering...

What i am trying to show you is that these words contain the sound of summer. Have you been out in summer in Europe? This is just an example of a cluster by context.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 14, 2014, 10:52:12 AM
"Head" was a typo. I meant heat. Fixed.

Really? Snake has more to do with summer than heat or travel?

Whatever. Make up whatever you'd like, if you're content with others not understanding or believing you.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 14, 2014, 04:50:51 PM
What do you think is statistical chance for the close - heat - sun - fire pattern to arise as a random pile up of letters in two distant European languages like Serbian and Irish. I am asking you for your personal opinion?

While statistical analysis does involve judgement calls, the level of chance is not just a matter of "personal opinion." There are well-established methods for calculating what the "chance" baseline is under various judgements about what constitutes "chance." The chi-square test I mentioned is a good one for a binary notion of "related to summer," while the logit regression is a good one for a continuous notion of "related to summer."

And how can you explain that deliberate action like trying to convey meaning to someone, will result in random babble of sounds devoid of any premeditated meaning. I think sometimes that i might be talking to wrong people. I was hoping to talk to linguists, and i am talking to statisticians.

Linguistics has been getting more quantitative recently, but that's because statistical methods are useful for getting reliable answers to some questions about language. I thought your theory involved a correlation. Statistics gives us the tools to measure and verify the existence of correlations and so should be of interest to you.

How can you statistically explain why this is the symbol for one "|"? Why this is the symbol for two "||"? Why do we use 0 as a symbol for ten ||||||||||?

Or how can you understand and explain this, using statistics?

1 = one
2 = two
12 = twelve

I can understand it using my, from your point of view useless, "looking over data" and comparing the language with how people think and how people live. Can you please explain what statistical or any other method that you regard as scientific, can explain any of the above two linguistics problems.

You think you understand it, but we don't think you understand it because your method appears to be staring at a bunch of data until a hunch develops. It doesn't matter if you have stared at the data for a very long time or you feel a strong personal commitment to the hunch: a hunch is a hunch. The core feature of science is epistemic humility, the acknowledgement that you personally might be wrong, and is what drives people to gather data in impartial and replicatable ways and perform rigorous statistical analysis. As MalFet said, hunches are not themselves results, but are good for inspiring these more difficult and reliable investigations.

Here's the bottom line: how much do you care about checking the correctness of your hunch? There are methods for doing so, but they will take work.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 14, 2014, 10:10:31 PM
MalFet

I am pretty good at understanding people, but i fail to understand what exactly do you mean.

Quote
These *aren't* initial findings. You haven't done the analysis necessary to call them initial findings. These are an amalgam of correlations you've noticed that may or may not be statistically significant.

What do you think is statistical chance for the close - heat - sun - fire pattern to arise as a random pile up of letters in two distant European languages like Serbian and Irish. I am asking you for your personal opinion?

From the Enlightenment on, the singular ambition of science has been to develop techniques for producing and evaluating knowledge independent of personal opinion. That's the punchline here. You're trying to claim that [n] sounds show up more frequently in words related to "boundaries", but you haven't involved yourself in any actual *measurement*. If I had the opposite intuition that you do, what would we do? Stand around and shout at each other until one of us got bored? That's not how science works.

And how can you explain that deliberate action like trying to convey meaning to someone, will result in random babble of sounds devoid of any premeditated meaning. I think sometimes that i might be talking to wrong people. I was hoping to talk to linguists, and i am talking to statisticians.

If you want to make scientific claims, you need to talk statistics. Statistics is the quantification and comparison of measured data. That's what science is. If, on the other hand, you want to just bathe in intuitions, there are plenty of people in fields like literary studies who would be happy to argue with you. Maybe you're more interested in the humanities than the social sciences. That's fine, but linguistics is a social science.

How can you statistically explain why this is the symbol for one "|"? Why this is the symbol for two "||"? Why do we use 0 as a symbol for ten ||||||||||?

Or how can you understand and explain this, using statistics?

1 = one
2 = two
12 = twelve

I can understand it using my, from your point of view useless, "looking over data" and comparing the language with how people think and how people live. Can you please explain what statistical or any other method that you regard as scientific, can explain any of the above two linguistics problems.

The question you're asking here is very large. Any good introductory text on comparative typology will steer you in the right direction. Jkpate has also given some good, concrete suggestions. Are you asking for a methodology to test your hypothesis?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 15, 2014, 01:49:37 AM
Ok, so I had some downtime while I was waiting for a model to fit, and thought I'd take a stab at the little Wordnet project I briefly described for some practice with NLTK (I don't often use python). I printed out the Wordnet-based similarity measures with the following script:


#!/usr/bin/python2

from nltk.corpus import wordnet as wn
from nltk.corpus import wordnet_ic

brown_ic = wordnet_ic.ic('ic-brown.dat')
boundary = wn.synset( "boundary.n.01" )

print( "synset_name,lemma,path_similarity,wup_similarity,lch_similarity,jcn_similarity,lin_similarity,res_similarity" )

for synset in list(wn.all_synsets('n')):
    for lemma in synset.lemmas:
        print( "%s,%s,%f,%f,%f,%f,%f,%f" %( synset.name, lemma.name, boundary.path_similarity( synset ),boundary.wup_similarity(
            synset ),boundary.lch_similarity( synset ), boundary.jcn_similarity( synset, brown_ic ),
            boundary.lin_similarity( synset, brown_ic ), boundary.res_similarity( synset, brown_ic )  ) )


Next, I loaded it into R with some more processing:


> synsets <- read.csv( "boundary_synsets.csv" )
> synsets$has_n <- grepl( "n[^gk]", synsets$lemma )
> synsets[ grepl( "n$", synsets$lemma ), "has_n" ] <- T
> synsets[ grepl( "^n", synsets$lemma ), "has_n" ] <- T
> synsets <- synsets[ synsets$synset_name != "boundary.n.01" , ]


The last step discards entries from the comparison boundary synset class.

Now, we want to see how the inclusion of "n" as suggested by the orthography varies as a function of the similarity measures. To do this, we are going to do a regression analysis that finds weights for similarity measures that predict, for each lemma, whether it has an "n". If we find large positive weights, then we have evidence that the probability of having "n" goes up for words that are more similar to "boundary."

There are two basic kinds of measures. path_similarity and wup_similarity are based purely on the graph structure over synset types: words that are closer together are more similar. The other measures also use corpus data (you can see the python script uses the Brown corpus) to incorporate some information about the frequencies of words in the synset types. Since they're all based on the graph structure, they're pretty highly correlated with each other and including all similarity measures would lead to a lot of instability in the parameters of a regression model. Accordingly, I'm going to pick one purely path-based measure and one measure that incorporates corpus information, and I'll pick the pair of measures that are least correlated with eachother. Our two measures are the wup measure and the jcn measure (pearson's r of about 0.12):


> cor( synsets[ , c( "path_similarity", "wup_similarity", "lch_similarity", "jcn_similarity", "lin_similarity", "res_similarity" ) ] )
                path_similarity wup_similarity lch_similarity jcn_similarity lin_similarity res_similarity
path_similarity       1.0000000      0.7097631      0.9536815     0.30902202      0.5268264     0.60494673
wup_similarity        0.7097631      1.0000000      0.7331615     0.11670811      0.5667497     0.94429379
lch_similarity        0.9536815      0.7331615      1.0000000     0.28071567      0.4972044     0.58303424
jcn_similarity        0.3090220      0.1167081      0.2807157     1.00000000      0.6623805     0.07985543
lin_similarity        0.5268264      0.5667497      0.4972044     0.66238052      1.0000000     0.56086049
res_similarity        0.6049467      0.9442938      0.5830342     0.07985543      0.5608605     1.00000000


Here's the logit regression:

> summary( glm( has_n ~ wup_similarity + jcn_similarity , synsets , family = "binomial" ) )

Call:
glm(formula = has_n ~ wup_similarity + jcn_similarity, family = "binomial",
    data = synsets)

Deviance Residuals:
    Min       1Q   Median       3Q      Max 
-1.2734  -1.1593  -0.9994   1.1878   2.6317 

Coefficients:
               Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)   
(Intercept)     0.32394    0.01290   25.11   <2e-16 ***
wup_similarity -1.16130    0.04502  -25.80   <2e-16 ***
jcn_similarity -3.31271    0.16292  -20.33   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)

    Null deviance: 202744  on 146343  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 201527  on 146341  degrees of freedom
AIC: 201533

Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 4



The best-fitting parameter estimates are negative, suggesting that nouns that are more similar to "boundary" are less likely to have "n" in them. And, according to the model assumptions, these estimates are highly significant. So here's some evidence that the opposite relationship happens to hold, at least in English. Now, this particular statistical model assumes that each entry is independent, which isn't true, in part because the measures for a lemma are computed on the basis of its synset, which is shared with other lemmas. I'm currently running a mixed logit regression and will report if anything changes (mixed logit regressions are very slow!).

Now, to enter datamining mode, I had a look through the most- and least-related words to boundary with


> tail( synsets[ order( synsets$jcn_similarity ), ] , n = 1000)

and

> head( synsets[ order( synsets$jcn_similarity ), ] , n = 1000)


There's not a clear pattern that I can see. There are a lot of "-tion" nouns that are dissimilar to "boundary," and few that are similar, but the negative correlation persists if we re-run the regression with "-tion" words excluded. So I'm not sure what's driving the correlation, and wouldn't be too confident about finding it again on a new dataset or a new language.

-- EDIT
the initial post did not count words that ended or begin with "n" as "having n"

--EDIT #2

Ok, adding random effects for shared synset did not change the overall results:


> has_n_glmer <- glmer( has_n ~ wup_similarity + jcn_similarity + ( wup_similarity + jcn_similarity | synset_name ), synsets, family="binomial" )
> summary( has_n_glmer )
Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood ['glmerMod']
 Family: binomial ( logit )
Formula: has_n ~ wup_similarity + jcn_similarity + (wup_similarity + jcn_similarity |      synset_name)
   Data: synsets

     AIC      BIC   logLik deviance
  195184   195273   -97583   195166

Random effects:
 Groups      Name           Variance Std.Dev. Corr       
 synset_name (Intercept)     1.382   1.176               
             wup_similarity  9.334   3.055    -0.35     
             jcn_similarity 15.692   3.961     0.58 -0.36
Number of obs: 146344, groups: synset_name, 82114

Fixed effects:
               Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)   
(Intercept)     0.49530    0.01772   27.96   <2e-16 ***
wup_similarity -1.85586    0.06428  -28.87   <2e-16 ***
jcn_similarity -4.79283    0.23549  -20.35   <2e-16 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Correlation of Fixed Effects:
            (Intr) wp_sml
wup_simlrty -0.851       
jcn_simlrty -0.260 -0.075
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 15, 2014, 12:08:09 PM
I wish I had taken advanced maths in college!

:(
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 16, 2014, 11:40:15 AM
jkpate

Thank you very much for attempting to help, but i have no idea what all this means.

Can you give me a list of words which according to the software you use relate to boundary. Let start from there. I don't know how the software calculates all this, and i would like to do some manual checks of it's accurateness.

Like does the list contain words like entrance, nip, snap, line nose, snow, no. If it does not then we have software that does not know what words related to boundary are, and any further calculations are based on wrong initial data set. Again, i am very grateful for your help. It would also help if you could explain how did they originally determine the word relationship when they were populating the database. That is crucial. Then what words did they use. Modern English or old English. We need to discard everything that came into English in last 300 years at least. We want only words of European origin, no Asian or African borrowings. And so on....

Quote
From the Enlightenment on, the singular ambition of science has been to develop techniques for producing and evaluating knowledge independent of personal opinion.

The original relationship between words, at the time when the word database was created was someone's personal opinion. Or did they use some magic to determine what is related to what. 


Quote
If I had the opposite intuition that you do, what would we do? Stand around and shout at each other until one of us got bored?

No, we would look at each other's examples, data, and we would cross check if our "intuition" works for examples we find for each other. So far, my intuition worked on every example you guys found. I don't expect it to work on every word, but I do expect it to work on every word from the language which associate n with no, negation.

Quote
If you want to make scientific claims, you need to talk statistics. Statistics is the quantification and comparison of measured data. That's what science is. If, on the other hand, you want to just bathe in intuitions, there are plenty of people in fields like literary studies who would be happy to argue with you. Maybe you're more interested in the humanities than the social sciences. That's fine, but linguistics is a social science.

Please answer my two questions using statistics. Also explain to me how can you use statistics to understand a meaning of a word. Like dog. Or cat. You need to use right tool for right job. If you look at contexts in which word dog appears you can statistically conclude that dog is somehow associated with furry four legged animal which says woof. But also you can just look around and listen. Result is the same. But if I ask you how come dog is called a dog, you will not be able to tell me that using statistics. Maybe I am wrong, and I am willing to admit my mistake if you show me how you can tell me why is dog call a dog with statistics? You say linguistics is social science. Then you must consider historical, archaeological, ethnographic data if you want to understand language and its meaning and development. My method is based in comparative study of all these disciplines and linguistics. Does your method include all the data from these disciplines and their relationships? What about psychology, neuroscience, genetics, theory of communication? My method includes correlating data from these disciplines as well. Does your method include this data? If your method does not include the above data, how can you claim that "linguistics is a social science", which it is? What you call hunch and intuition is result of careful study.

I can tell you why 0 is used to represent ten |||||||||| because i use anthropological, ethnographic, historical and archaeological data and i correlate it with linguistic data. And that data tells me that we have two hands with ten fingers which look like sticks. We group sticks by grabbing then with two hands forming a ring which looks like 0. We then tie them together using a string which also has a shape of 0. But the same position of our hands with nothing in them forms the shape 0 which means nothing, empty. The first mention of use of 0 in mathematical texts was to describe ten ||||||||||, a bunch of sticks group together by our hands or by a string. Why was 0 used and not some other symbol? Because it looks like ring, string, ten fingers, like something we use to bind things together in bunches. Did you by the way notice how many boundary N words were in last sentence....Please tell me how can you get this using statistics.


I am not being argumentative, just want to learn. Maybe there is a useful method for analyzing language meaning which i don't know about.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 16, 2014, 01:11:08 PM
djr33

Quote
Really? Snake has more to do with summer than heat or travel?

First what we associate with summer was not the same stuff primitive people associated with summer. Even their definition of summer was different from ours. For ancient Europeans, there were two parts of the year, light, worm, alive, summer and dark, cold, dead, winter. Summer lasted from beginning of May to beginning of November.

Can you travel in winter? You can. How is this then related to summer alone?
When can you see snakes? Only during the summer months. Snakes are related to summer alone.

Heat is present in summer, and is related to summer but it is also related fire, home, body. But what is the sound of heat?  Which part of "all these s words have in them the sound of summer" did you not understand? The words I listed are not the only words which are related to summer, but they are all linked to sound ssss which is the sound of summer. If you were ever in nature in Europe in summer and actually had your ears opened, you would know what I am talking about.

This is what makes these words a context related cluster. Remember we were talking about word clustering from the point of view of meaning contexts.

You also said that there are hundreds of words which define summer. Can you give me any of these hundreds of words which I have missed and which describe the sound of summer day?

Word sun, sol, suria, sunce is probably derived from the sound of summer. I am not saying that all people noticed this sound of summer and used it in their summer related words.

Look at Serbian language where summer is leto. It could be related to the flight of birds. Leteti means to fly. Proleteti means to fly over, to fly pass. Proleće - spring - the time when birds fly over head, migrate, arrive from Africa. Leto - summer - the time when birds are flying here, when they land, nest.
Why is there a difference in the natural phenomena used by different people for naming summer? Different strokes for different folks. Different priorities, different observational skills, different logic. But the fact is they both used observed natural phenomena to name summer, meaning they both used meaning contexts to develop language.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: MalFet on February 16, 2014, 06:09:17 PM
This doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, so I'll bow out here. As should be needless to say, however, if you want to make broad typological-distributional claims about cross-linguistic phones (which is not really comparable to the definition of "dog"), understanding at least the broad strokes of what jkpate is saying is going to be very important. Good luck with your work.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 16, 2014, 06:27:08 PM
Quote
....but i have no idea what all this means.
Something to work on. It's a problem that you don't know how to do what jkpate was suggesting and that you don't have an alternative reliable methodology to offer otherwise. Instead you say things like this:
Quote
Like does the list contain words like entrance, nip, snap, line nose, snow, no. If it does not then we have software that does not know what words related to boundary are, and any further calculations are based on wrong initial data set.
Really? If the data doesn't support your hypothesis then the data and analysis are wrong?


Quote
First what we associate with summer was not the same stuff primitive people associated with summer. Even their definition of summer was different from ours. For ancient Europeans, there were two parts of the year, light, worm, alive, summer and dark, cold, dead, winter. Summer lasted from beginning of May to beginning of November..
...
You're just making stuff up now.
You're telling me that snakes are more related to summer than heat?? The sun pretty much guarantees and all humans (all animals really) will associated heat and summer. What you're saying is crazy.
Travel, sure, maybe that's a new thing. Then again, the winter was impassable in many places so travel during the summer was also the case back then. *shrug*

Quote
If you were ever in nature in Europe in summer and actually had your ears opened, you would know what I am talking about.
Absurd. I've been in Europe during the summer and never heard "ssssss". You're just making things up.

Quote
You also said that there are hundreds of words which define summer. Can you give me any of these hundreds of words which I have missed and which describe the sound of summer day?
No, I can't. This is apparently all in your head, so I have no clue!
But there are lots of words related to summer. For example, "heat". Others might include "light", "tired", "dry", "dirt", "bright", and so forth.

You can do a corpus search to find words that occur near/with "summer" often. That's similar to what jkpate did above.

You NEED a methodology that isn't just "common sense" in your own head!!

Quote
Word sun, sol, suria, sunce is probably derived from the sound of summer. I am not saying that all people noticed this sound of summer and used it in their summer related words.

Look at Serbian language where summer is leto. It could be related to the flight of birds. Leteti means to fly. Proleteti means to fly over, to fly pass. Proleće - spring - the time when birds fly over head, migrate, arrive from Africa. Leto - summer - the time when birds are flying here, when they land, nest.
This is a contradiction: why doesn't the word in Serbian also start with S? You're making no predictions, just telling stories.


Is your goal just to tell stories about perceived relationships? If so, fine. But that's NOT science.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 17, 2014, 04:53:41 AM
Malfet

Quote
This doesn't really seem to be going anywhere

Remember i told you that if we want to have meaningful conversation we need to use the same language algorithm?

Guys, this is the crux of the problem:

Quote
You can do a corpus search to find words that occur near/with "summer" often. That's similar to what jkpate did above.

When i say word is related to boundary, summer...what ever, i mean that it's meaning is related to boundary, summer.... That it carries the meaning associated with boundary, summer...meaning pattern.

When you say that word is related to boundary summer you mean "found in texts near or related to word boundary, summer".

These are completely different things. The way you understand relationship can be tested with statistics, but answers completely different question, totally unrelated to the question i am asking, which is what is the meaning of the word and how it is expressed through sound and how it was created in the first place.

djr33

I asked if the list of boundary related words jpate's software uses contains words like entrance, nip, snap, line, nose, snow, no for a reason. All these words carry the meaning of a boundary, definition, separation, negation. If jpate's software does not contain these words, then this does not mean that jpate's software is bad, just that it was written to answer different questions. It answers questions about relationship through position, rather then relationship through meaning.  If jpate's software does not use meaning based database, then we have software that does not know what words related to boundary are, and any further calculations are based on wrong initial data set.

We can still use statistics though. Statistics is used to tell us distribution of the answers to a particular question. So we have to use correct question, to gather correct data.

Question is: what words carry meaning which is related to boundary, definition, negation, separation. Assembling this data set can only be done by humans, because machines are not able to understand the deep meaning of words. They can only literally translate symbol patterns to literal meanings but only if a human told them what the meaning was.

Here is an example. Take word blind.

Meaning derived from the meaning of sound blocks from which the word is constructed:

blind = bl + i + n + d = bel + je (is) + no + to (that) = white, clear + is + not + that = dark, obscured

Official etymology:

Quote
blind (adj.)

Old English blind "blind," also "dark, enveloped in darkness, obscure; unintelligent, lacking mental perception," probably from West Germanic *blinda- "blind" (cf. Dutch and German blind, Old Norse blindr, Gothic blinds "blind"), perhaps, via notion of "to make cloudy, deceive," from an extended Germanic form of the PIE root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn" (see bleach (v.)); cf. Lithuanian blendzas "blind," blesti "to become dark." The original sense, not of "sightless," but of "confused," perhaps underlies such phrases as blind alley (Chaucer's lanes blynde), which is older than the sense of "closed at one end" (1610s). In reference to doing something without seeing it first, by 1840. Of aviators flying without instruments or without clear observation, from 1919. Blindman's bluff is from 1580s.
The twilight, or rather the hour between the time when one can no longer see to read and the lighting of the candles, is commonly called blindman's holiday. [Grose, 1796]
Related: Blinded; blinding.

blind (v.)

"deprive of sight," early 13c., from Old English blendan "to blind, deprive of sight; deceive," from Proto-Germanic *blandjan (see blind (adj.)); form influenced in Middle English by the adjective. Related: Blinded; blinding.

blind (n.)

"a blind person; blind persons collectively," late Old Engish, from blind (adj.). Meaning "place of concealment" is from 1640s. Meaning "anything that obstructs sight" is from 1702.

Both are figured out from linguistic and historical data. No statistics involved. Do you call the stuff you find in etymological dictionary of English language "telling stories"? This stuff is impossible for a machine to figure out. You need to have people looking at it, as only people can analyze complex interrelated patterns.

So we can see that N in blind comes from negation, no. So blind is related to boundary through negation. It defines the boundary of sight.

Once you get all the words which carry the meaning of boundary into a list, you can then use statistics to see how many have sound N in them. Which is what i have been proposing from the start.

Look at this example. This is the analysis, based on my meaning carrying sound blocks, of words representing idea of one, separate, defined from all the languages you can easily find dictionaries for on the internet:

English - one = o + n + e = object + bound, defined, separate + is
Irish - aon = a + o + n = standing + object + bound, defined, separate
Serbian - jedan = je + da + n = is + object + bound, defined, separate
German - ein = e + i + n = is + continues, persists + bound, defined, separate
Latin - unum = u + n + u + m = in + bound, defined, separate + in + core, i am, is
Albanian - një = n + je = bound, defined, separate + is
Catalan - une = u + n + e = in + bound, defined, separate + is
Danish - en = e + n = is + bound, defined, separate
Dutch - een = e + n = is + bound, defined, separate
French - un = u + n = in + bound, defined, separate
Greek - ena = e + n + a = is +  bound, defined, separate + standing
Icelandic - einn = e + i + n = is + continues, persists + bound, defined, separate
Romanian - un = u + n = in + bound, defined, separate
Russian - odin = o + d + i + n = object + that + is + bound, defined, separate
Welsh - un = u + n = in + bound, defined, separate
Tamil - onraka, oru = o + nra + ka = object + bound, defined, separate, cut + pointing towards, ga; o + r + u = object + cut, separate + in
Berber - ižžən, ištən, yun, yiwen = ižə (you are, it is in early Medieval Serbian today jes) = es + n = is + bound, defined, separate; es + to + n = is + that + bound, defined, separate; je + u + n = is + in + bound, defined, separate;  je + we + n = is + know, see + bound, defined, separate

Every one of these languages uses a word for one, which separates, defines something, which consists of sound blocks which put together give us the meaning of one, separate, defined. How is this possible, if the sounds are random, meaningless?

Not all languages use the same logic to describe oneness. The languages in this group use different sounds from my meaning carrying sound blocks to convey oneness, separateness, definition through visibility. But because they all use the same logic, to create the same message, they all use the same sound blocks:

Corean - han = h(g)a + n = pointing towards, ga +  bound, defined, separate

Sanskrit - ekah, ekam = e + ka + ga (ma) = is + pointing towards, ga +  pointing towards, ga (me, entity, existence)
Arabic - eahada = ea + ga + da = is + pointing towards, ga + that
Armeninan - mek = m + e + k  = me, entity, existence + is + pointing towards, ga
Baskue - bat = b + a + t = matter, hard + stands + that
Bengali - eka = e + ka = is + pointing towards, ga + stands
Estonian - üks = u + k + s = in + pointing towards, ga + surface
Finnish - yksi = u + k + s + i = in + pointing towards, ga + surface + continues, persists
Georgian - ert = e + r + t = is + cut, separate + that
Gujarati - eka = e + ka = is + pointing towards, ga
Hindi  - eka = e + ka = is + pointing towards, ga
Hungarian - egy = e + g + i = is + pointing towards, ga + continues, persists
Indonesian - esa, satu = e + s + a = is + surface + stands + there
Khmer - mouy = m + o + u + y = me, entity, existence + object + in + is
Lao - nung = n + un + g = bound, defined, separate + in + pointing towards, ga
Latvian, Lithuanian - viens = vi + e + n + s = know, see + is + bound, defined, separate + surface
Malay - satu = s + a + t + u = surface + stands + there + in
Maltese - wieħed = vidjet (to see in Serbian Dinaric dialect) = vi + da + je + to = know, see + that + is + that
Maori - kotahi = k + o + ta + i = pointing towards, ga + object + that + continues, persists, is
Marathi - eka = e + ka = is + pointing towards, ga
Mongolian - neg =  bound, defined, separate + is + pointing towards, ga
Nepali  - eka = e + ka = is + pointing towards, ga
Norwegian, Swedish  - ett, en = is + that , bound, defined, separate
Punjabi - lka = l + ka = line, boundary + ga
Telugu - oka = o + ka = object + pointing towards, ga
Thai - hnung, khn = h(g) + n + un + g =  pointing towards, ga + bound, defined, separate + in + pointing towards, ga; kh + n = pointing towards, ga + bound, defined, separate
Turkish - bir, tek = b + i + r = matter, hard + continues, persists + cut, separate; t + e + k = that + is + pointing towards, ga
Vietnamese - mot = m + o + t = me, entity, existence + object + that
Yoruba - okan = o + ka + n = object + pointing towards, ga + bound, defined, separate
Zulu - eyodwa, kunye = e + yo + d + va = is + pointing towards, ga + that + know , see; k + u + n + ye = pointing towards, ga + in + bound, defined, separate + is
Chinese - yi = je + i = is + continues, persists
Javanese - siji = s+ i + j + i = surface + continuous + is +  continues, persists
Japanese - ityi, iko = i + t + yi = continues + that + is

So all the languages fit into only two logical groups when it comes to describing oneness.

Is this just a coincidence, or are we discovering something that has been hidden from us all these years in plain sight? How is it possible that every language on this list uses words for one, separate, defined which are built from sound blocks whose sum meaning means one, separate, defined?

I discovered these meaning carrying sound blocks by comparing Serbian and Irish, and yet I can used them to analyze word for one from any of the above languages? Does anyone wander how is this possible? Maybe because these sound blocks are as old as the original human language?

Jpate i am almost finished my summary. It will take me maybe one or two more days.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 17, 2014, 07:35:36 AM
Quote
Remember i told you that if we want to have meaningful conversation we need to use the same language algorithm?
If we have a meaningful conversation, it will be because you say something reasonable and convincing. You can't blame us for your inability to convince us-- either because you're wrong or because you don't have any way to defend your argument that is convincing.

Quote
When i say word is related to boundary, summer...what ever, i mean that it's meaning is related to boundary, summer.... That it carries the meaning associated with boundary, summer...meaning pattern.

When you say that word is related to boundary summer you mean "found in texts near or related to word boundary, summer".

These are completely different things. The way you understand relationship can be tested with statistics, but answers completely different question, totally unrelated to the question i am asking, which is what is the meaning of the word and how it is expressed through sound and how it was created in the first place.
Collocations reveal quite a bit about the meaning of words. They aren't substitutes for each other, but they are related meanings. That's why they often appear in the same context. For example, we might very often find the words "Chicago" and "pizza" near each other in texts, much more often than, for example, "Texas" and "potato". What we would find is that there is some statistical relationship between the use/meaning of the two words. Does "Chicago" mean "pizza"? No, certainly not. But we would know that they often come up together.

And that's fine-- you don't have to use THAT methodology. Pick another one if you have a better idea. But come up with a methodology!! Something unbiased--

Quote
Assembling this data set can only be done by humans, because machines are not able to understand the deep meaning of words.
What makes you think that humans (or machines) could possibly come up with your analysis? Surveys are very often used in linguistic research, so go ahead with that. What kind of question would you ask people to attempt to defend your claims?

For example:
What word is most related to summer?
A) Snake
B) Heat
C) Travel
D) Snow

If you actually approach this objectively, it's pretty clear you won't get the answers you expect. Therefore, what you are claiming is simply unreliable and biased.

Quote
I discovered these meaning carrying sound blocks by comparing Serbian and Irish, ...
You did not! You observed what you believe to be patterns, yet no one else sees these patterns and the very idea of it goes against most of what historical linguists have come up with for the last 300 years. It's possible you're just way ahead of everyone else, but it's much more likely you're wrong.


Quote
Jpate i am almost finished my summary. It will take me maybe one or two more days.
Again, remember: 200-500 words. We want to know what you're claiming, that's all. If you actually know what you are claiming, it should not take you too long to write this. But whenever you post it, we'll take a look.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 17, 2014, 08:35:53 AM
djr33

Quote
If we have a meaningful conversation, it will be because you say something reasonable and convincing.

You don't know what conversation means. We need to use the same language i order to have a conversation. If i say "related to boundary" and I mean has a meaning of boundary of something, and you say "related to boundary" and you mean found in the vicinity of the word boundary, then we are not speaking the same language, and will never convince each other of anything. And you could start reading people's posts from beginning to end before you start replying to them. 

Quote
Collocations reveal quite a bit about the meaning of words. They aren't substitutes for each other, but they are related meanings. That's why they often appear in the same context. For example, we might very often find the words "Chicago" and "pizza" near each other in texts, much more often than, for example, "Texas" and "potato".

They could have related meaning but most often they don't. Your examples clearly show that you don't understand concept of "meaning" if you think that "Chicago" and "pizza" are related to the same meaning. This is exactly what i thought was happening. You mistake place correlation with meaning correlation. "Chicago" and "pizza" are only related through well known context, and this is a very good example of association through context. But they don't carry the same meaning. Let me give you example of what would have related meaning:  pizza and pita. Both are flat breads. Actually pizza is mispronunciation of pita. Add here pie. Another word related in meaning with pita and pizza. Now add Chicago. Do you see the difference? If you don't, then i don't understand how you teach linguistics.

Quote
You can't blame us for your inability to convince us

Really?

Quote
What makes you think that humans (or machines) could possibly come up with your analysis? Surveys are very often used in linguistic research, so go ahead with that. What kind of question would you ask people to attempt to defend your claims?

Ok let's start with boundary words. Here is the question:

Give me list of words whose meaning is related to boundary, defining, separating, negating of something. They have to convey that meaning by themselves, without help of any other words.

For instance "nail" is boundary of finger, "finger" is boundary of hand, "hand" is boundary of arm. All three have N in them. Hand is also used for forming boundaries, on which we place things. hand = h(g)a + n + d = pointing towards, ga + bound, defined, separate + that

Quote
Old English hond, hand "hand; side; power, control, possession," from Proto-Germanic *khanduz (cf. Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch, German hand, Old Norse hönd, Gothic handus). The original Old English plural handa was superseded in Middle English by handen, later hands.

But nail is boundary of toe is boundary of foot and foot is boundary of leg. You can rightly ask why does toe not have N in it? Well one explanation is that not all boundary words have to have N in them, as we have seen from words for ONE. But also, word toe could have originally had N in it and it lost it over time. This is in fact the case:

Quote
toe (n.)
Old English ta "toe" (plural tan), contraction of *tahe (Mercian tahæ), from Proto-Germanic *taihwo (cf. Old Norse ta, Old Frisian tane, Middle Dutch te, Dutch teen (perhaps originally a plural), Old High German zecha, German Zehe "toe"). Perhaps originally meaning "fingers" as well (many PIE languages still use one word to mean both fingers and toes), and thus from PIE root *deik- "to show" (see diction).
Þo stode hii I-armed fram heued to þe ton. [Robert of Gloucester, "Chronicle," c.1300]
The old plural survived regionally into Middle English as tan, ton. To be on (one's) toes "alert, eager" is recorded from 1921. To step on (someone's) toes in the figurative sense "give offense" is from late 14c. Toe-hold "support for the toe of a boot in climbing" is from 1880.

Word foot is associated with walking the most. Also we can not create boundaries with feet. So foot does not carry meaning of boundary.

Quote
Old English fot, from Proto-Germanic *fot (cf. Old Saxon fot, Old Norse fotr, Dutch voet, Old High German fuoz, German Fuß, Gothic fotus "foot"), from PIE *ped- (cf. Avestan pad-; Sanskrit pad-, accusative padam "foot;" Greek pos, Attic pous, genitive podos; Latin pes, genitive pedis "foot;" Lithuanian padas "sole," peda "footstep", Serbian put - road). Plural form feet is an instance of i-mutation. Of a bed, grave, etc., first recorded c.1300.


I said: "I discovered these meaning carrying sound blocks by comparing Serbian and Irish, ..." And then you said: "You did not! You observed what you believe to be patterns, yet no one else sees these patterns and the very idea of it goes against most of what historical linguists have come up with for the last 300 years. It's possible you're just way ahead of everyone else, but it's much more likely you're wrong."

Please explain how I can use them to analyze word for "one" from all these languages successfully? Look at the list, use logic, add meaning of sound blocks for each word. They are all consistent, there is almost no variation. How is this possible if I am wrong. As I said maybe I am  discovering something that has been hidden from us all these years in plain sight, because of the bias of all these historical linguists you swear by. Give me any other explanation for what i have just demonstrated to you. If you say it is coincidence, please show me the method you used to come to this conclusion, apart from refusing to accept the possibility that I could be right.

Quote
Again, remember: 200-500 words. We want to know what you're claiming, that's all. If you actually know what you are claiming, it should not take you too long to write this. But whenever you post it, we'll take a look.

I actually know what I am claiming. But as it is obvious that you guys don't understand basic terms and concepts like "conversation" and "meaning" in the same way I understand them, I have decided to be as precise as possible, and define all these terms in unambiguous fashion, in order to remove possibility of misunderstanding. This takes time. And thank you, for bestowing me with your attention.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on February 17, 2014, 08:40:16 AM
That awkward moment when someone doesn't understand collocation and thinks the other person said correlation.  :-X
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 17, 2014, 08:45:40 AM
no Lx, the awkward moment is when everyone who is reading this thread realizes that all of these linguists, don't know what meaning means, and are substituting meaning with correlation derived from collocation.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 17, 2014, 09:26:41 AM
dublin, you're just making stuff up then becoming frustrated with us when we don't believe you.

Quote
I actually know what I am claiming. But as it is obvious that you guys don't understand basic terms and concepts like "conversation" and "meaning" in the same way I understand them, I have decided to be as precise as possible, and define all these terms in unambiguous fashion, in order to remove possibility of misunderstanding.
As you see, there's no point in continuing this. Your arguments are not scientific or convincing. They only make sense in your head.

You can't keep redefining everything until your theory works-- that's rhetoric, not science.

Let me be very clear, because you seem to have trouble with this: write an abstract (200-500 words) that makes your claims clear and establishes how they can be tested. They should be falsifiable: if the world were a certain way, we should be able to prove them wrong. Then you can show us data that suggests that they are not wrong, because that data does not exist.




For the record, I agree with you that collocation is not the most immediate way to get at the meanings you want to analyze. But it's better than nothing, and that's all you've offered so far (aside from telling stories).
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 17, 2014, 10:06:03 AM
I have been extremely consistent in my claims from the first post. I have given you summary of my theory and the way to prove it and disprove it here:

http://linguistforum.com/historical-linguistics/the-language-of-old-europe/msg1198/#msg1198

But this is not what I am working on and which is late. What I am writing is unified theory of language which is something I am much more interested in. And that takes time.

While i was looking for the original post, i noticed a completely new post from you, which i have never seen before, and which was probably edited after I read the original. It contains some very valid questions from you. So let me try to answer some of them:

Quote
I asked for a short abstract. (We all did.) You haven't written it.

This is the question from the first post after the above post in which i did give you the short summary. Maybe you did not see my post like i didn't see your's...

Quote
Phonosemantics is vacuous if any sound can have any meaning. If you are making a claim that only some sounds have "boundary" as a meaning and not others, then this should be testable. You have not demonstrated a way to objectively test it, just your own intuition.

From my post which you did not read, or maybe did not see: "Get all the words related to boundary, group them by common sound, get percentage for each group with common sound. Compare with threshold percentage. If distribution is uniform, we have randomness. If we have peaks, it is deliberate. Each peak represents one sound which is strongly related to meaning of boundary. "

Quote
If even one word isn't about boundaries, then what are you claiming? Why is N sometimes related to boundaries and not always? What kind of theory would be a "sometimes" theory. (Imagine a "sometimes we have gravity" theory!)
[Note: I actually think, if anything, this is the right approach. But it's crucial that you work out the details and significance.]

Not all words come from the same original family language. Different people hear things differently, see word differently. As i demonstrated on words for ONE there were two types of logic used to create words for ONE.

You need to analyze every word separately, find out which language it comes from, what was the original meaning. If word comes from language which has no as negation word, then N in the words of that language carries the meaning of boundary.

Quote
How do you know? Humans are amazingly good at metaphors, so you just claiming "it's about boundaries" is basically meaningless. As a simple test, give me a word and tell me a concept it is "about". I'll make up a very convincing story. That isn't science or reliable, though. So, again, how can we rely on your analysis when it isn't something objectively testable?

How do you objectively test meaning?

Quote
Another way to consider this would be to wonder about exact opposites. The opposite of boundary might be "wide open space".

No it is not. Boundary defines things. It does not necessarily enclose them as i already shown you.

Quote
What about "savannah", "open", "plain", "plane", "nebula", "navigate", etc.? If N can predict openness and boundaries, then what is it actually predicting?

Savannah comes from an African language.

open - Originally the past participle of the verb *eupaną, *ūpaną, related to *ūp (“up”). Root has no n. Could be from e + up + na = is + up + on

plain - From Anglo-Norman pleyn, playn, Middle French plain, plein, from Latin plānus (“flat, even, level, plain”). From Proto-Indo-European *pelh (“flat”), *pelh₂-. Root has no n. But pleyn can be pl + e + i + n = flat + is + continues, persists + in, on

Nebula - From Proto-Indo-European *nébʰos (“cloud”). Cognate with Ancient Greek νέφος (nephos), Sanskrit नभस् (nábhas). The original meaning is sky. Derived from ne b = not material, hard. Boundary of material world.

Navigate - From Middle English navigate, from Latin navigo, from nāvis (“ship”) + agō (“do”), from Proto-Indo-European *nau- (boat), possibly, from Tamil நாவாய் (nāvāi). From nāvis (“ship”) + agō (“I do”). Actually from na + v + i + go = on + water + persist, continue, float + go. navi = na + v + i = on + water + persist, continue, float

I will try to answer the rest tomorrow. Too busy now. Sorry. 
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 17, 2014, 11:39:04 AM
Quote
This is the question from the first post after the above post in which i did give you the short summary. Maybe you did not see my post like i didn't see your's...
That's not an abstract. That's an outline of a (problematic) methodology.
An abstract is about content, not methodology. (Generally it is for completed research, although it can also leave some things open.) You should list:
1. What problem you are addressing.
2. Which existing theoretical claims are maintained and supported.
3. Which are rejected.
4. What new insight your answer gives.
5. Why that answer is supported.
Again, all in about 200-500 words.

Some examples can be found here:
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/model-abstracts#Adams
(And in many other places of course. Some journals include abstracts at the beginning of each article for example.)

Quote
I have been extremely consistent in my claims from the first post.
Possibly consistent, but not clear. I don't know what theories you are rejecting. For example, are you rejecting the theory that Proto-Indo-European existed (somewhere/at some time)?
Quote
I have given you summary of my theory and the way to prove it and disprove it here:
The problem with that is that the methodology is subjective because you have no objective way to measure meaning/relatedness.

Quote
From my post which you did not read, or maybe did not see: "Get all the words related to boundary, group them by common sound, get percentage for each group with common sound. Compare with threshold percentage. If distribution is uniform, we have randomness. If we have peaks, it is deliberate. Each peak represents one sound which is strongly related to meaning of boundary. "
That's fine. But:
1. You need to have a better way to "get all the words related to boundary". That's the fatal flaw in this.
2. You need to establish statistical methods that show that any grouping is unlikely to be found by chance. Completely normally distributed data is rare, so that's why statistical tests are used. Anything you find might be a coincidence. By comparing expected random variation to what you find, you will have a reliable reason to think the data is not randomly distributed if it differs significantly. However, statistical tests only work if you establish a clear hypothesis before looking at the data. If not, you're just data mining for observed correspondences-- there are always correspondences to be found. But a strong analysis involves a predetermined expected result, with the appropriate statistical test, then blind testing of that. In other words: you need to be able to blindly make predictions with your theory, not just tell a story about observations you have.

Quote
How do you objectively test meaning?
Now we're getting somewhere. This is extremely important.
There is no simple answer, of course. You're right that it's challenging. But science is challenging. "How do you determine the chemical structure of molecules?" It's a question, and you need to find an answer.
One method that may appear counterintuitive but actually works out relatively well is using corpora and looking for words that often appear near each other. That doesn't seem like it would work that well, but it does give you quite a bit of information.
A similar approach involves "semantic networks", which use various tools to gather their data (sometimes human surveys, sometimes corpora, etc.).

Language is never "objective" in the sense that gravity is objective. It's cognitive, so certainly we must use human intuition. But a researcher should not do that himself/herself. If you must use intuitions, then you must ask others, especially when what you're saying is so controversial.

Here's a possibility for a research question:
"If I ask speakers of English to identify whether or not a word is related to boundary, then they will statistically significantly more often identify words that include N, if they are presented with a list of random words from the dictionary."

You are biased by your own theory. You need something replicable-- something other people also understand and can do the way you do it. Something that, if you are correct, I can also do by myself and reach the same conclusions.

Treat humans as data processing machines. Under what circumstances would they confirm your hypothesis? What would you ask them to do?

I gave an example of a multiple choice question above:
Quote
What word is most related to summer?
A) Snake
B) Heat
C) Travel
D) Snow
I have no idea why your methodology would work, given unbiased questions like that.

It's actually very easy to run surveys like this (Amazon's Mechanical Turk can be used to get hundreds or thousands of responses in a single day if needed). Ask a few friends. See if it looks even close to what you expect. I'm doubtful. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Quote
No it is not. Boundary defines things. It does not necessarily enclose them as i already shown you.
That's an absurd thing to say. Would others agree with you? Are you talking just about words as they are in your head? Why do you claim this as a fact?
Your definition is so idiosyntractic and abstract that it isn't clear how it would or would not apply to any word. Again, see above about being objective.
Seriously, would anyone else have the same intuitions you do? If not, ask yourself why not.

Quote
Savannah comes from an African language.
open - Originally the past participle of the verb *eupaną, *ūpaną, related to *ūp (“up”). Root has no n.
plain - From Anglo-Norman pleyn, playn, Middle French plain, plein, from Latin plānus (“flat, even, level, plain”). From Proto-Indo-European *pelh (“flat”), *pelh₂-. Root has no n.

Nebula - From Proto-Indo-European *nébʰos (“cloud”). Cognate with Ancient Greek νέφος (nephos), Sanskrit नभस् (nábhas). The original meaning is sky. Derived from ne b = not material, hard. Boundary of material world.

Navigate - From Middle English navigate, from Latin navigo, from nāvis (“ship”) + agō (“do”), from Proto-Indo-European *nau- (boat), possibly, from Tamil நாவாய் (nāvāi). From nāvis (“ship”) + agō (“I do”). Actually from na + v + i + go = on + water + persist, continue, float + go. navi = na + v + i = on + water + persist, continue, float
1. Can you rely on existing etymologies for PIE? I thought you were rejecting that theory...
2. You reject etymologies for big reasons, but what about small reasons like sound change? You seem to think that you can analyze every letter in a word meaningfully, and I can guarantee that's wrong (unless you take sound change into account and even then it's a big stretch). Compare Spanish 'pes' and English 'fish'. Or the Latin root pesc- and Germanic fisk. What do you have to say about the meaning of these words?


Considering for a moment the gl- cluster, it would be possible to say something like this: at the moment gl- represents something about words like glimmer, glide, glow, etc., and in the future if it becomes (for whatever reason) kl- or l- or gw- or whatever, then it will still hold that meaning.
If the original claim works out, then this needs to interact with sound change.


Here's a much less extreme and more reasonable claim:
Possibly there are some arbitrary sound units that contribute to the meaning of a word. They vary by language and go through sound change.

Note that:
1. You cannot analyze whole words with that method. (That's still crazy.)
2. The correspondences would be indirect, based on systematic differences, not just "N looks the same in all languages".
3. You still need to find a way to objectively defend that claim.
4. It would not conflict with any existing theories because it would be part of them-- sound change as a starting point, etc.

Even if all of that is true, I don't see how important it is: so what if gl- has some meaning in English? Isn't that then just like an etymology? A kind of sound-based root, rather than morpheme based root? In fact, it might even be (mostly) morphological at some level, where gl- is sort of interpreted as a prefix.


Another question to ask yourself (and address in the abstract):
What is the minimum level of extreme/controversial ideas required to support my theory?
Make your theory as normal as possible, drawing from existing research. What smallest changes are required to support your ideas?


At the moment your ideas honestly come across like this:
"All of linguistics is wrong. Serbian and Irish are closely related languages. Because N means boundary. I said so."
(You have provided lots of details/stories, but none are more convincing than that.)
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 17, 2014, 05:32:36 PM
jkpate

Thank you very much for attempting to help, but i have no idea what all this means.

Can you give me a list of words which according to the software you use relate to boundary. Let start from there. I don't know how the software calculates all this, and i would like to do some manual checks of it's accurateness.

Like does the list contain words like entrance, nip, snap, line nose, snow, no. If it does not then we have software that does not know what words related to boundary are, and any further calculations are based on wrong initial data set. Again, i am very grateful for your help. It would also help if you could explain how did they originally determine the word relationship when they were populating the database. That is crucial. Then what words did they use. Modern English or old English. We need to discard everything that came into English in last 300 years at least. We want only words of European origin, no Asian or African borrowings. And so on....

I already gave you the python script to produce the dataset exactly. There are 146,344 "lemmas," 62,408 of which might be viewed as multiple words because they include a space (like "demarcation_line"). (if we exclude these multi-word lemmas, the corpus-based JCN-measure is negative but not significantly different from zero, while the graph-based WUP measure is still significantly negative.) There are 20 lemmas containing "line" in the 2,000 lemmas most similar to "boundary", and only 9 in the 2,000 lemmas least similar to "boundary." "snow" is in the 2,000 lemmas most similar to "boundary," but "snowboarding" is among the 2,000 lemmas least similar to "boundary." Also, the vast majority of the words are unambiguously English; the only possible exceptions I saw while processing the data were "scientific" Latin terms.

Wordnet is a labeled graph. A graph is a set of nodes and a set of edges, in this case with labels, between nodes. In Wordnet, a node is a "synset," or a group of lemmas with approximately synonymous meanings (it does distinguish between senses of words, so that "bank" the financial institution is in a different synset from "bank" the side of a river). The edges encode meaning relationships between synsets, such as "hypernymy" ("color" is a hypernym of "red") and "meronym" ("finger" is meronym of "hand"), and so forth. Page 25 of five papers on wordnet (http://wordnetcode.princeton.edu/5papers.pdf) has an example subgraph.

Quote
From the Enlightenment on, the singular ambition of science has been to develop techniques for producing and evaluating knowledge independent of personal opinion.

The original relationship between words, at the time when the word database was created was someone's personal opinion. Or did they use some magic to determine what is related to what. 

They did not use magic, but they also did not just write down their feelings. If you want to tell people your personal reaction to words, take a friend out for coffee; these are not scientific data. They devised a systematization of meaning relationships based on previous work on word meanings, and applied this system to a large number of words. If a new team were to follow the same set of rules, the resulting database would not be identical to Wordnet, but it would be largely similar. In particular, there's no reason to think that broad effects, like your proposed correlation between specific sounds and specific meanings, would change. Wordnet is a good resource for operationalizing word relatedness in a measurable way. As far as I can tell, the only way to tell if two words are "related" in the way you mean is to ask you.

The statistical procedure I used takes continuous measures of relatedness between synsets, and finds a set of weights that for each measure that predict the log-odds of having "n" for each measure. The WUP similarity metric ranges from 0.09 (least similar) to 0.93, and the coefficient for WUP in the mixed logit regression is about -1.86. This means that the variation due to WUP similarity in is : words with very high WUP similarity to boundary, other things equal, have "n" in them at about one fifth the rate of words with very low similarity. (and saying "other things equal" is justified because I picked two similarity measures that were not highly correlated).

-- Edit

apparently the latex rendering server is undergoing maintenence. That sentence should read:

This means that the variation due to WUP similarity in P(has n) / P(does not have n ) is exp(-1.86 * (0.93-0.09)) = 0.2: words with very high WUP similarity to boundary, other things equal, have "n" in them at about one fifth the rate of words with very low similarity
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 18, 2014, 06:46:57 AM
had to split this into next two posts:

djr33, i am continuing with answering some of your questions which i missed from page 9:

I said: "Group languages are invented by families. Families expand to clans, tribes, nations, races and propagate the language. They also propagate genes. This is why genes and languages are linked."

I am talking about the origin of the language. Time before books, films, easy travel. Time when communities lived pretty isolated from each other. By the way the same situation remained even in some parts of Europe until mid 20th century. For instance some isolated mountain shepherd communities in Carpathian mountains in Serbia did not know that there was a second world war happening around them. In this type of isolation there is direct link between language and genes. Look at R1a people. They lived between giant uncrossable rivers for thousands of years during the last ice age melt down. Do you think their language during that time was influenced by anyone? But once people start mixing, languages and cultures start mixing.

You say:

Quote
Shouldn't we also be able to relate family recipes and language then? Also eye color. Also religions. Also location. Also political views. Certainly all of these things are somewhat correlated-- families and communities are relevant to all of that, sometimes especially language. But none of it is particularly reliable.

We can actually relate these things, if we look at historical, ethnographic and anthropological data. They give us extremely valuable data which can help us to understand how language developed, and who brought what to it. Look at Jewish cuisine which tightly related to their religion and their language. Look at consumption of milk which is tightly related to first herders and their language which contained first words for milk for instance. Political views, as well as many other cultural attitudes, have believe or not, been found to be genetically influenced through studies of separated identical twins. This is amazing thing which completely changes our idea what culture is and how it is passed. Our culture is hardwired in our bodies through genetic and epigenetic programming. And if something like that can be programmed through genes, so can our language ability, our ability to hear and reproduce sounds.

I said: "Different families can use different logic to link context to sound. Some of them will use "N" to represent boundary, some will use "Z" and some will use "K" of what ever other sound they though was logically linked to the concept of a boundary in the environment they lived when they developed the language. These families merged, languages merged. Not all words in English come from the same "family" language."

And then you said:

Quote
Ok! Very important. So: sound-meaning correspondences are entirely arbitrary. Languages vary, so "dog" in English is just coincidentally not like "Hund" in German or "perro" in Spanish.
What you're claiming is that sounds are treated as meaningful units in speech by users of those sounds. That's more reasonable, but also harder to prove, because it's very hard to imagine clear evidence that would falsify it. (You're saying "sometimes" rather than "always", for example.)

How did you get that sound meaning correspondences are entirely arbitrary from the above i really have no idea. I said that languages were developed by families, in particular surrounding at different times. These languages are based on particular logic, which can be traced to back to the original sound (not word) language used by the original family, clan...You are right that this is hard to falsify, but just because it is hard to falsify it does not mean it is not possible to do it. Pick a language, check id the same sound to meaning logic works for the majority of  words from that language. Then look at related language. Repeat the same. I would expect that the same logic would work for the words which come from the same family language.


Quote
So then what is the point of these correspondences? Are you trying to track down individual families that they came from? There's a major time-depth issue in historical linguistics, and I'm certain you'll hit that.

I am trying to discover the old language(s) of Europe. I am fascinated by the ability of cultural and linguistic traits to survive millenniums. The fact that most people dismiss this as even a possibility, led to so many words in our languages which are "of unknown origin".

So far, I have been able to give etymologies using my sound to meaning algorithm, of words for which official etymological dictionaries have no etymology, and which correspond directly to the function of objects and gods and meaning of actions and rituals whose names i have been analyzing. I was able to do this for Sanskrit, Avestan, Latin, Old Greek, Celtic (Gaelic), Germanic, Slavic languages.

The linguistic discoveries are supported by archaeological, ethnographic, anthropological data and were most of the time result of the cross examination of all that data.

I believe that we can pretty much reconstruct the language down to last Ice age maximum 10,000 bc.

I don't understand this question 100%:

Quote
Additionally, what about multiple generations? Are you claiming that following generations of the same family (or speech community) no longer question the form of words? You said families vary in these associations. How are they maintained then? That seems like a fatal flaw in the argument.

What do you mean by questioning the form of words? Do you ever question the form of any of the words you are reading in this sentence? And if you do how do you do it and why do you do it? Family languages are invented to support conversation between members of the same family. If family A becomes clan AA and this clan becomes peoples AAA, in order for all of them to preserve the family link, they need to preserve the language. If they want to gather together for major religious ceremonies in neolithic times, as we know they did through archaeological data, they had to be able to speak the same language. The language is maintained by the group which needs to preserve itself. It is self regulating system. But fringe families of the AAA people can mix with fringe families of say BBB people. They have a need to communicate with both their people and their neighbors. So they form ABA or BBA or what aver combination of the two languages, depending on which fringe family is more influential, and we have a dialect. If this new ABA family starts spreading, you might end up with ABA peoples with their own ABA language. If ABA peoples then take over AAA people and force them, through cultural, economic, military means to adopt ABA language, we can have ABA language replacing AAA language....

Why did all major religions always insist on forcing everyone to adopt a new language, new names? So that it can change the reality of the group which is being converted. Why did all the governments did the same, standardizing languages within empires?  One language, one culture, one family.

Quote
Further, why do languages vary at all? If they all (probably) go back to the same original speech community (maybe 100,000 years ago?) then why don't we retain whatever sounds they used? Either it is consistent over time or it is not. So, which?

Languages don't go back to the same family. There were at least three speaking human sub groups before 100,000 bc: Africans, Neanderthals and Denisovans. They developed in isolation which lasted hundreds of thousands of years. During this time they acquired different genetic traits as adaptation to their surroundings. These adaptations probably included adaptations of language systems, which are directly influenced by epigenetic reprogramming triggered by experience. Mixing occurred in last 100,000 years. During that time additional genetic changes occurred as result of adaptation to changed living condition and experience. This means more changes related to language as well. This continues even today. What latest research is showing us is that our experience can influence our genes which can directly influence how we hear and how are we able to reproduce sounds. This is then passed down to our offspring. If I can hear Spanish or Slavic R but my vocal system is not able to reproduce it as sharply, we might end up with English R or French R. If I can't hear the difference between b and p it is a tossup which sound you will find in the language i speak. If the whole family is affected by this mutation, you end up with sound changes. Also originally all sounds were undifferentiated, as human ability to speak developed. There was no m,p,b,v,f there was something like mpbvf which is basically undifferentiated sound which is the root sound of the above consonant group. The whole group is produces by the same gross mouth position. The differentiated sounds are produces by tiny variation of lip position and pressure. As people developed their speech abilities, as they used speech more and more, their genes changed, enabling them to control their speech apparatus more and more precisely. This lead to sound differentiation, and  mpbvf turned first to diphthongs, like bv, mp, pf and then to individual sound m,p,b,v,f. And because these sounds are so close together, tiniest change in our ability to hear them and to pronounce them  will lead to additional sound changes which can then be propagated to the rest of the family and clan...

Quote
Yes. They words change so much that any kind of analysis like this seems absurd, even if originally there were correspondences.

I don't agree that we can not find the original correspondences. It is hard, we might not find all of them for all the family languages, but if i find most of them for R1a language, i will be happy. For me this is fun. Is linguistics fun for you?

I wish i saw this earlier, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

Quote
What is a "meaning"?
This may be an incredibly important point to discuss.

Meaning is the idea that a symbol on it's own conveys without help of any other word within the specific language. Symbols can be simple like color or sound, or complex like symbol or object (circle, cross, head) or word, or even more complex like picture (traffic sign) or sentence.

I believe that in spoken languages sound, and sound blocks, carry meaning. Sound block is a vocalized consonant like ta, go...These sound blocks were used in conjunction with actions to convey messages. The sounds eventually merged together to form words which replaced this audio visual language with audio language. Each one of these words has it's own meaning. This meaning can change through time, because word becomes a symbol with which people can associate new meanings. So to find the original etymological meaning you need to go to the oldest known form of the word. This is all we have to work with. But it is not as bad as you think. A lot of words go way back and have survived pretty unchanged, maybe not in English but in languages from which they came to English. 

You say:

Quote
Semantics: the study of inherent meanings of words or sentences
Pragmatics: the study of the meaning of language in context

"It's cold in here."
Semantic meaning: It's cold.
Pragmatic meaning: Close the window.

Roughly, semantic meaning is inherent while pragmatic meaning is contextual.

You need to go one level lower than that and look at word cold on it's own. The meaning of the sentence "it is cold" is the sum of meanings of "it" "is" "cold". Without cold having it's own meaning, the sentence would be meaningless. "it is ljhlkjow" means nothing to you or me now. We can agree that ljhlkjow means the same as cold. And we can continue using the word ljhlkjow in our own language. If you try to use it with your mother, she will rightly ask you: "what is wrong with using word cold? we all know it, we all understand it. you sound like a weirdo when you use ljhlkjow insted of cold. do you want to sound like a weirdo?" This is how languages are preserved. Through preservation of the meaning of words. If enough weirdos start using ljhlkjow instead of cold, new dialect will emerge. But you know as well as I do, that most people will just continue using cold. But if instead of cold we decide using caold, or colt, we have more chance of developing our own dialect, as the new words "sound like" the old and preserve more or less, the main meaning contained in sounds.

Quote
Semantic meaning of yellow light: in a short time this will be red.
Potential pragmatic meanings of yellow light: slow down (if you have time); speed up (if you don't have time or are in a hurry); watch out! (if your breaks are failing); the cars will stop soon (if you're a pedestrian trying to cross); take the picture now! (if you're a photographer wanting pictures of yellow lights).

Symbol has no meaning outside of the language. Yellow color is just a yellow color with no meaning unless it is assigned meaning in particular language. In traffic light language it means one thing. In language of emotions it means another. In language of bees it means something completely different. In language of sunflowers it means again something else.

Look at this: podrig in Irish is Patrick, while in Serbian it means burp. But bud (bod) in both Serbian and Irish mean something hard sticking out like a penis, and are both ancient words for penis.
Podrig sound combination comes from two different languages. Bud (bod) comes from the same language.

Quote
In the case of language, there is a huge difference between N sometimes being related to boundaries (well, of course it is, as in the word itself) and being predictably related to them.

I agree. But i believe that i can predict that N in languages where No is used as negation word  conveys meaning of boundary. Boundary defines things. It does not necessarily enclose them as i have already shown to you. Boundary line of any kind can be opened or closed. It is still a boundary which defines something.

Here is definition of the meaning of the word boundary. Tell me how is this different from what i said:


Quote
: something (such as a river, a fence, or an imaginary line) that shows where an area ends and another area begins

: a point or limit that indicates where two things become different

boundaries : unofficial rules about what should not be done : limits that define acceptable behavior


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boundary

I said: "6. Words and sentences are linked to situations, context. This is how people learn language. And this is why you can not analyze the spoken language in isolation. You always need to link it to the context of which it is an integral part."

And you replied:

Quote
Incorrect. See above. There are two different (and equally valid) kinds of analysis.
To say that "N means boundary" you must establish some sort of conventional meaning for N. It's not just about context.

All meaning is linked to context. Every sound that you can recognize is linked to a context in which you heard it the most. Take the sound of bees. If you are about to pick a flower, and you hear bsssss you will know that it is a bee. But if you hear uaiuaiuaiuai you will have no idea what to make of it. Even worse would be if you saw a bee flying and heard no sound. You would conclude that you are gone def. Of if you heard bsssssss coming from a dog instead of the sound of barking. Of if you saw a bee flying and heard uaiuaiuaiuai. You would start questioning your sanity.

Hunter gathers use sounds to identify world around them. This is why i was interested in the sound of summer, as most Indoeuropean names for Sun are S words. Why? I believe that this is because of the sound of summer, sound of your heat which has no sound. You can ask then what about Irish, and grian? Maybe the Irish language developed in the environment where sun did not mean heat originally. Or where sun stopped meaning heat. Like during last Ice age maximum. We still have close - heat - sun - fire association but the root is close, getting warm by huddling. Maybe S words for sun developed in hot places, like north Africa, or Balkans, or Black sea basin, which were worm during last glacial maximum. Or maybe we have newer languages compared to irish?

Regardless, once word is formed it becomes a symbol in it's own right which can have new meaning attached to it through different contexts. But you can still find the original meaning by analyzing the sound blocks from which the word was made.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 18, 2014, 06:47:12 AM
Quote
The fact that I don't know something doesn't mean you're right.

Exactly. Just because you don't know something it does not mean that that something is crazy. And just because you know something it does not mean that that something is valid. It just means that we know different things. Maybe we can cooperate.

I said: "You were asking me for a null hypothesis. This is it: I presume that all the "N" words that I found so far linked to the meaning of boundary in English are all coincidences."

Quote
Why can't they be coincidences?

Because for something to be a coincidence from the statistical point of view it has to have high probability to happen as a random event. If you have 30 sounds in a bag, to your disposal, and you need to create 100 words. What is the chance that you will randomly pick the same sound for all 100 words. For one it is 1/30. For hundred it is
(1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*...100 times. Do you see how improbable that is? Now calculate probability of the same two sounds being always picked. But if you deliberately pick the same sound, based on the meaning of the sound, then we have a completely different story. We don't have independent events and probability rises dramatically. If the event is me being able to construct the meaning of a word from its sound blocks. The probability of that event is 1/2. I either do it or not. If I do it, again and again, on hundreds of random words from multiple languages, what is the probability of that happening randomly?

I said: "I believe that if I analyze all of the "N" words in English, and large majority of them is linked to the meaning of boundary then i have proven that this is not a coincidence." Your question was:

Quote
How do you determine "is linked"? Do you mean that you can make up something then report it to us as a fact? You need a methodology.

No, i use etymological dictionaries, which were written by people who believe in the same things you do and i do, and i find the meaning of the original words. If they are defining something by negation of something else, exclusion from something else, position at the end of something else, surrounded, separated by something else or being the thing that is used to separate, define then the word is relate to boundary. Like words "line", "finger", "one" or "thing"

Quote
For example, you could do a survey asking 100 people whether certain words are related to boundaries.

We could. But as I said, we need to look at the original words, with their original meanings. You said open is not related to boundary, because for you boundary and barrier are the same. And they are not. We can have a boundary which is a barrier (fence), boundary which is not a barrier (line), and barrier which is not a boundary (tree). 


I said: "To add to that If I find the same correlation in related European languages, then we certainly have a pattern which is deliberate rather then coincidental." To which you replied:

Quote
No, no, no! Don't use related languages to test for lack of coincidence. Use other languages like Swahili, Japanese and Navajo.

I did that with the analysis of the words meaning "one". Correlation is complete. All words split into two groups, which consistently use the same sound blocks to build the meaning of oneness.

Quote
Plus, if it's self-evident, great. Why? Common sense is not acceptable (that's not science), so you surely must mean it is easy to reliable detect. How would you train a computer program to detect words related to boundaries?

So you say that common sense is not acceptable, but you suggest that we use random people  for a survey???

Use etymological dictionaries and find the meaning of the original words. If they are defining something by negation of something else, exclusion from something else, position at the end of something else, surrounded, separated by something else or being the thing that is used to separate, define then the word is relate to boundary. The main point is that they convey this message of boundary by themselves. As I said before N is not the only sound that is related to boundary. R can convey meaning of boundary through cutting, S through surface. I did not complete this investigation, far from it. There are some sounds for which I am pretty sure what meaning they convey, and others for which I am not. But I am by now convinced that they all do convey some consistent basic meaning.

Quote
I don't know what theories you are rejecting. For example, are you rejecting the theory that Proto-Indo-European existed (somewhere/at some time)?

No I don't. I did say that already. Proto Indo European language is R1a language. Pre Indoeuropean languages are R1a, R1b, E1b, I, J...languages. Mix of R1a language, with all these other languages gave us all Indoeuropean languages which are mix of Pre Indo European languages. This is why we can still find ancient words and sound block patterns.

Can we establish one thing. Do you trust etymological work of all the people who built etymological dictionaries? How did they do their work? By statistics or by eyeballing and data mining? They surely compared and verified each other's findings by more eyeballing and data mining. There are still disagreements on a lot of etymologies. But you do accept their work as valid and scientific? Or you don't. If you do, what is the difference between what they do and what I do to determine meaning of words? If one of you guys wants to determine the etymology of a word for instance "hephaistos" how would you go about doing it? What statistical method could you use to achieve this? I don't think there is one, but please, I am willing to learn.

So once we establish which words have what meaning, we can try sound block hypothesis to see if it works. And we can do probability calculation to see how likely it is that if the hypothesis works n out of m times, that it works by coincidence.

Quote
Treat humans as data processing machines. Under what circumstances would they confirm your hypothesis? What would you ask them to do?

I would need to only use humans who understand the meaning of the question. How do you confirm that? By checking if their understanding of the question matches the etymological dictionary understanding of the question.

Question: what is boundary?

if answer is something like: "something (such as a river, a fence, or an imaginary line) that shows where an area ends and another area begins. a point or limit that indicates where two things become different. rules about what should not be done : limits that define acceptable behavior"

Then we have understanding of the question and then we ask them which of these words relates to boundary, which of these words have meaning which is built around the meaning of boundary.

Example: navis - boat in Latin.  na + v + i = na + vo + ide = on + water + persists, continues, goes. Roman navy was built by Dalmatian Illyrians from the Balkans. Word boat probably comes from them, and the roots are still present in Serbian. na - on, voda - water, ide - goes.

Quote
What word is most related to summer?
A) Snake
B) Heat
C) Travel
D) Snow

If this is the question most people will say heat. But if question is which of these things possesses sound of summer, or which of these things is only linked to summer, you will have different answer.

Quote
Can you rely on existing etymologies for PIE? I thought you were rejecting that theory...

I never said I reject PIE theory. I reject some of it's conclusions, but as I said before, most of it is spot on. I reject the conclusion that there was only one language from which all indoeuropean languages developed. There were many pre indoeuropean languages, but the main was R1a language, whose most direct, least diluted, descendants are Slavic languages. I reject the conclusion that the pre indoeuropean languages have disappeared. They are still here, as part of indoeuropean languages. I also think that mixing started earlier than the 3rd millennium bc, and that some languages groups, like R1a and I and J could have been mixed in Central Europe even before.


Quote
One method that may appear counterintuitive but actually works out relatively well is using corpora and looking for words that often appear near each other. That doesn't seem like it would work that well, but it does give you quite a bit of information. A similar approach involves "semantic networks", which use various tools to gather their data (sometimes human surveys, sometimes corpora, etc.).

These are great tools but you can not use them for getting the meaning of a word. Here is an example:

word Beograd. What is the meaning of this word? If you look at words related to it you could, depending on the sample, which is by definition biased, find these words related to it by location:

capital, Serbia, city, big, dirty, polluted, white, friendly, Slobodan Milosevic, NATO, bombing, river, border, party....

What can you conclude from this? What is the meaning of the word Beograd? Meaning is White city, but you will not be able to extract that from the above set. And If we add word Belgrade, Biograd, Belgrad, Beligrad, which all etymologically mean the same, you will end up with statistical chaos, because Biograd is town on the sea, and Belgrade is the English name of Beograd in Serbia but also a town in Montana USA....

Do you see what I mean, when I say that you can not use location based relational statistics to get the meaning of a word?

This thing might sound crazy. But it works, so far. All I can do is continue with trying to prove that it doesn't in large majority of cases. But if it does work in large majority of cases, like say 70%, 80%, 90% of cases, what then? If it is proven that it works but we can't exactly establish why, what then? I saw program on BBC last night about research in the effects of placebos on people. Conclusion is placebos work as well as real medicines. Actually the test for effectiveness of real medicines in now if they work as well as placebos. But because we don't know why they work, we are not allowed to use them. Do you see how idiotic this is?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 18, 2014, 12:12:01 PM
Quote
I am talking about the origin of the language. Time before books, films, easy travel. Time when communities lived pretty isolated from each other. By the way the same situation remained even in some parts of Europe until mid 20th century. For instance some isolated mountain shepherd communities in Carpathian mountains in Serbia did not know that there was a second world war happening around them. In this type of isolation there is direct link between language and genes. Look at R1a people. They lived between giant uncrossable rivers for thousands of years during the last ice age melt down. Do you think their language during that time was influenced by anyone? But once people start mixing, languages and cultures start mixing.
People have been mixing for as long as there were separate groups. There has been some recent discussion on here (and on the internet in general) about Neanderthal DNA showing up in modern humans.
You're right that there was less travel and so forth, but people did move around a lot, especially over thousands of years.
If you want to maintain your claims here, you should do some research on today's tribal groups living more or less as humans have for many thousands of years. For example, Australian and the (so-called) Khoisan languages offer a perspective on what life might have been like back then. As I understand it, intermarriage is actually a common and important part of those cultures, though certainly not exactly like in Europe or America today.

Quote
How did you get that sound meaning correspondences are entirely arbitrary from the above i really have no idea. I said that languages were developed by families, in particular surrounding at different times. These languages are based on particular logic, which can be traced to back to the original sound (not word) language used by the original family, clan...You are right that this is hard to falsify, but just because it is hard to falsify it does not mean it is not possible to do it. Pick a language, check id the same sound to meaning logic works for the majority of  words from that language. Then look at related language. Repeat the same. I would expect that the same logic would work for the words which come from the same family language.
Do you understand what the word "arbitrary" means? It means that it follows a convention that in itself is not motivated/predictable. It does NOT mean it is random.
For example, consider a stoplight. Red means stop. Green means go. That's consistent and not random. But it is arbitrary. It's perfectly imaginable that in some alternate universe the opposite is true.
Therefore, if "dog" in English means "perro" in Spanish, then any sound correspondences must be arbitrary. That doesn't mean "meaningless" or "random", but it means language-specific. This is just like "gl" in English-- it probably doesn't carry the same meaning in Japanese or Zulu.

Quote
I am trying to discover the old language(s) of Europe. I am fascinated by the ability of cultural and linguistic traits to survive millenniums. The fact that most people dismiss this as even a possibility, led to so many words in our languages which are "of unknown origin".
You are NOT the first to try to do this. It's very interesting. There has been quite a bit of research on "Proto-World" even. The problem is that the time depth makes this extremely unreliable.
I teach a unit on this in my language history class. There's a video that you might find useful, called "Roots of Language". Unfortunately I haven't found any links to it on youtube or previews, etc. There's certainly a lot you can find on the internet, though.
These are very interesting ideas, but there's a reason we don't know anything for certain: a time depth of over 10,000 years is either impossible or just extremely difficult given what information we have available today. There are so many changes and so much borrowing during that time, it is no longer possibly to rely on the comparative method.
I personally believe it's possible to keep pushing back our knowledge just a bit to see farther into the past, but I don't think it's easy or that something as, honestly, superficial as your analysis will do the trick. You need to have a lot of layers of sound changes and borrowings accounted for.

Quote
I believe that we can pretty much reconstruct the language down to last Ice age maximum 10,000 bc.
Which language?

Quote
What do you mean by questioning the form of words? Do you ever question the form of any of the words you are reading in this sentence?
That's exactly what I mean. Sound symbolism only works if speakers actively maintain it over generations. If not, they're just using normal non-phonosemantic language! (Whatever the origins might be...)

Quote
Languages don't go back to the same family. There were at least three speaking human sub groups before 100,000 bc: Africans, Neanderthals and Denisovans.
That's very controversial. There is evidence to suggest that Neanderthals and possibly others had some form of language, but it's by no means certain.
When I say "human" I'm referring to the ancestors of modern humans, or as you call them "Africans". (Didn't all of those subgroups come out of Africa at some point though??)

Quote
I don't agree that we can not find the original correspondences. It is hard, we might not find all of them for all the family languages, but if i find most of them for R1a language, i will be happy. For me this is fun. Is linguistics fun for you?
It's fun for me. Do what you'd like. I still find it incredibly unlikely. You're directly analyzing the modern pronunciations of words that have gone through numerous major sound changes over about 10,000 years. That's a terrible method...
That's like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle after putting the whole thing through a blender to make the pieces smaller!
Certainly it MAY be possible to reconstruct earlier languages, but if so you will need a more complex methodology than just looking at spelling in the modern languages :P

Quote
I believe that in spoken languages sound, and sound blocks, carry meaning. Sound block is a vocalized consonant like ta, go...These sound blocks were used in conjunction with actions to convey messages. The sounds eventually merged together to form words which replaced this audio visual language with audio language. Each one of these words has it's own meaning. This meaning can change through time, because word becomes a symbol with which people can associate new meanings. So to find the original etymological meaning you need to go to the oldest known form of the word. This is all we have to work with. But it is not as bad as you think.
So how is this any different than etymology in the first place?
Sounds reasonable to me, if you just mean that there were originally sounds that then became part of a language and normal morphological processes followed. This does NOT mean that you can look at modern English and separate out each letter as an independent meaning!!
Quote
A lot of words go way back and have survived pretty unchanged, maybe not in English but in languages from which they came to English.
I don't know what you mean by "a lot of words", but I'd say on average, very much not. A few rare sounds might survive, but whole words? Almost never.

Quote
You need to go one level lower than that and look at word cold on it's own. The meaning of the sentence "it is cold" is the sum of meanings of "it" "is" "cold". Without cold having it's own meaning, the sentence would be meaningless. "it is ljhlkjow" means nothing to you or me now. We can agree that ljhlkjow means the same as cold. And we can continue using the word ljhlkjow in our own language. If you try to use it with your mother, she will rightly ask you: "what is wrong with using word cold? we all know it, we all understand it. you sound like a weirdo when you use ljhlkjow insted of cold. do you want to sound like a weirdo?" This is how languages are preserved. Through preservation of the meaning of words. If enough weirdos start using ljhlkjow instead of cold, new dialect will emerge. But you know as well as I do, that most people will just continue using cold. But if instead of cold we decide using caold, or colt, we have more chance of developing our own dialect, as the new words "sound like" the old and preserve more or less, the main meaning contained in sounds.
You COMPLETELY missed the point of what I was trying to say. Irrelevantly, yes, you're correct. I was explaining the distinction between semantics and pragmatics. That's what was important there.

Quote
Symbol has no meaning outside of the language. Yellow color is just a yellow color with no meaning unless it is assigned meaning in particular language. In traffic light language it means one thing. In language of emotions it means another. In language of bees it means something completely different. In language of sunflowers it means again something else.

Look at this: podrig in Irish is Patrick, while in Serbian it means burp. But bud (bod) in both Serbian and Irish mean something hard sticking out like a penis, and are both ancient words for penis.
Podrig sound combination comes from two different languages. Bud (bod) comes from the same language.
What's your point? Words have meanings and sometimes they are similar in different languages and other times different? Sure. That's precisely what arbitrary means!!

Quote
All meaning is linked to context. Every sound that you can recognize is linked to a context in which you heard it the most. Take the sound of bees. If you are about to pick a flower, and you hear bsssss you will know that it is a bee. But if you hear uaiuaiuaiuai you will have no idea what to make of it. Even worse would be if you saw a bee flying and heard no sound. You would conclude that you are gone def. Of if you heard bsssssss coming from a dog instead of the sound of barking. Of if you saw a bee flying and heard uaiuaiuaiuai. You would start questioning your sanity.
Language doesn't work like that. The original usage may be iconic, but soon after it becomes arbitrary/conventionalized. This is Linguistics 101.
Completely context-dependent meaning is not language. Language is conventional/cultural/arbitrary. That's what defines human language!!
At least in modern languages, onomatopoeia accounts for only a very small proportion of the words we come across daily.

Quote
Regardless, once word is formed it becomes a symbol in it's own right which can have new meaning attached to it through different contexts.
Yes.
Quote
But you can still find the original meaning by analyzing the sound blocks from which the word was made.
No.
You must first find the sound blocks then find the meaning, but that ends up being circular.
Additionally, again, the sound blocks are not present in modern languages. The sounds we observe in modern languages are very distorted from whatever original sounds there were (assuming your hypothesis is correct in the first place).

Quote
Because for something to be a coincidence from the statistical point of view it has to have high probability to happen as a random event. ...
Yes, I know that. But you must actually set up a statistical test to see whether these could be by chance. You need to determine what that would look like, and you need to use reliable data as input. Again, focus on objectivity and replicability.

Quote
No, i use etymological dictionaries, which were written by people who believe in the same things you do and i do, and i find the meaning of the original words. If they are defining something by negation of something else, exclusion from something else, position at the end of something else, surrounded, separated by something else or being the thing that is used to separate, define then the word is relate to boundary. Like words "line", "finger", "one" or "thing"
Is there anyone else who finds these same correlations? Replicability makes a crazy theory into an accepted one.

Quote
We could. But as I said, we need to look at the original words, with their original meanings. You said open is not related to boundary, because for you boundary and barrier are the same. And they are not. We can have a boundary which is a barrier (fence), boundary which is not a barrier (line), and barrier which is not a boundary (tree). 
So you say.

Quote
So you say that common sense is not acceptable, but you suggest that we use random people  for a survey???
Yes! Native speakers are by definition experts, and a random sample is statistically desirable.
An experiment may involve common sense from the participants. But you need to show that this is a reliable result, not just something in your head. That's what I keep saying.

Quote
No I don't. I did say that already. Proto Indo European language is R1a language. Pre Indoeuropean languages are R1a, R1b, E1b, I, J...languages. Mix of R1a language, with all these other languages gave us all Indoeuropean languages which are mix of Pre Indo European languages. This is why we can still find ancient words and sound block patterns.
Lots of conjecture. Again, write an abstract and tell us exactly what you mean here. How is the idea that Irish and Serbian and very closely related going to be consistent with Proto-Indo-European?

Quote
Can we establish one thing. Do you trust etymological work of all the people who built etymological dictionaries? How did they do their work? By statistics or by eyeballing and data mining? They surely compared and verified each other's findings by more eyeballing and data mining. There are still disagreements on a lot of etymologies. But you do accept their work as valid and scientific? Or you don't. If you do, what is the difference between what they do and what I do to determine meaning of words? If one of you guys wants to determine the etymology of a word for instance "hephaistos" how would you go about doing it? What statistical method could you use to achieve this? I don't think there is one, but please, I am willing to learn.
Peer review. Trial and error. On average, these sources are reliable, and the great thing is that you can check the details yourself as needed. Nothing is certain in historical linguistics, but that doesn't mean everything is wrong. On average, there has been a lot of good work.

Quote
So once we establish which words have what meaning, we can try sound block hypothesis to see if it works. And we can do probability calculation to see how likely it is that if the hypothesis works n out of m times, that it works by coincidence.
You're still missing the huge step of time depth and sound changes.

Quote
Example: navis - boat in Latin.  na + v + i = na + vo + ide = on + water + persists, continues, goes. Roman navy was built by Dalmatian Illyrians from the Balkans. Word boat probably comes from them, and the roots are still present in Serbian. na - on, voda - water, ide - goes.
There's a much simpler explanation:
Latin navis "ship," from PIE *nau- "boat"
Obviously the -is ending is just inflectional, like thousands of other nouns in Latin. Note also that "v" in that is pronounced [w], so this is an example of sound change getting in the way of your claims.
Certainly it is more reasonable to take the etymology from PIE than it is to assume it's from Serbian, right? Just based on time depth...

So again, you're just making things up. I don't know what to do with that. You're welcome to your opinions, but that really is all they are.

Quote
If this is the question most people will say heat. But if question is which of these things possesses sound of summer, or which of these things is only linked to summer, you will have different answer.
Seems like sort of a weird question to me, but ok, sure. Go for it. What do people say?
Asking a leading question like that may cause some suspicion, but regardless I'm not convinced even that will work. I think people might still say heat because of sizzling and so forth.

Feel free to actually do some research and let us know what the survey results are though!

Quote
I never said I reject PIE theory. I reject some of it's conclusions, but as I said before, most of it is spot on. I reject the conclusion that there was only one language from which all indoeuropean languages developed. There were many pre indoeuropean languages, but the main was R1a language, whose most direct, least diluted, descendants are Slavic languages. I reject the conclusion that the pre indoeuropean languages have disappeared. They are still here, as part of indoeuropean languages. I also think that mixing started earlier than the 3rd millennium bc, and that some languages groups, like R1a and I and J could have been mixed in Central Europe even before.
So you DO reject PIE as it is. You're contradicting yourself.

Quote
Do you see what I mean, when I say that you can not use location based relational statistics to get the meaning of a word?
No. You're just rejecting it by suggesting absurd uses. Any tool can be used incorrectly. This is still a reasonable tool, among others.



Still waiting for an abstract.....
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 19, 2014, 05:46:17 AM
djr33

Quote
Do you understand what the word "arbitrary" means? It means that it follows a convention that in itself is not motivated/predictable. It does NOT mean it is random.

Quote
arbitrary ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/Submit adjective

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision" antonyms:   rational, reasoned

Quote
For example, consider a stoplight. Red means stop. Green means go. That's consistent and not random. But it is arbitrary. It's perfectly imaginable that in some alternate universe the opposite is true.

Quote
This color scheme derives from a system used by the railroad industry since the 1830s. At this time, railroad companies developed a lighted means to let train engineers know when to stop or go, with different lighted colors representing different actions.  They chose red as the color for stop, it is thought, because red has for centuries been used to indicate danger. For the other colors, they chose white as the color for go and green as the color for caution.

The choice of a white light for go turned out to cause a lot of problems. For instance, an incident in 1914 where a red lens fell out of its holder leaving the white light behind it exposed. This ended with a train running a “stop” signal and crashing into another train. Thus, the railroad decided to change it so the green light meant go and a caution “yellow” was chosen, primarily because the color is so distinct from the other two colors used.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/the-origin-of-the-green-yellow-and-red-color-scheme-for-traffic-lights/

So nothing random there. It was a premeditated decision, based on thinking and planning, making a mistake, then realizing mistake, correcting the mistake. This is how humans learn and this is how humans invent things. This is what makes humans different from monkeys.

Quote
Therefore, if "dog" in English means "perro" in Spanish, then any sound correspondences must be arbitrary. That doesn't mean "meaningless" or "random", but it means language-specific. This is just like "gl" in English-- it probably doesn't carry the same meaning in Japanese or Zulu.

As you can see you can't use word arbitrary if you don't imply random original choice. And as I have shown you, the probability of randomly choosing the same sound in 100 words with related meaning is close to 0. Different genetic human groups, with different ability to hear and repeat sounds also have different logical ability. Latest neuroscience research shows that these things are directly linked. Sounds could be linked to such old and such deeply rooted contexts, that they carry the same meaning in most languages. Example are words for one, which you completely ignored because they prove my hypothesis that sounds carry consistent meanings. With words things are different. They are complex meaning matrices. We don't know what people tried to convey when they created word dog. What characteristics of dogness did they choose to describe. Originally there were only wolves, and as I have shown you, names for wolves in R1a European languages are onomatopoeic. This is normal, because this is where wolves lived and where they were first domesticated into dogs:

Quote
The origin of the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) began with the domestication of the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) several tens of thousands of years ago.[1][2][3] Genetic and archaeological evidence shows that humans domesticated wolves on more than one occasion, with the present lineage of C. l. familiaris arising at the latest 15,000 years ago as evidenced by the Bonn-Oberkassel site and possibly as early as 33,000 years ago as evidenced by the mtDNA testing on a paleolithic dog's remains from the Razboinichya Cave (Altai Mountains).

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

The people who lived with wolves, continued to call their domesticated wolves wolves minus howling. This is why we have

Serbian - Vuk,Volk - wolf; Cu - dog
Irish - Voulcu - wolf, cu - dog
Germanic - wolfaz - Hund - dog

Words like Slavic pas, Spanish Perro, English dog are later developments, and are describing maybe different characteristic of a dog species, usage of dogs, or something completely different.

Let me give you an example of how sound block meanings are preserved in different languages:

Word snow

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

Serbian - sneg = s + ne + ga = with, surface, soil + no + point, see
English - snow = s + no + vi = with, surface, soil + no + see, know (Arian ved, vid - to know to see)
Proto-Indo-European - *snóygʷʰos = s + no + je + go + s = with, surface, soil + no + is + point, see
Spanish - nieve = ni + je + ve = no + is + see
Proto-Italic - *sniks = s + ni + ka(ga) + s = with, surface, soil + no + point, see
Czech - sníh = s + ni + h(g)a =  with, surface, soil + no + point, see

All these Words come from R1a language, and were invented by people who wanted to convey the same message: we can't see soil, surface any more.

Quote
You are NOT the first to try to do this. It's very interesting. There has been quite a bit of research on "Proto-World" even. The problem is that the time depth makes this extremely unreliable. These are very interesting ideas, but there's a reason we don't know anything for certain: a time depth of over 10,000 years is either impossible or just extremely difficult given what information we have available today. There are so many changes and so much borrowing during that time, it is no longer possibly to rely on the comparative method.
I personally believe it's possible to keep pushing back our knowledge just a bit to see farther into the past, but I don't think it's easy or that something as, honestly, superficial as your analysis will do the trick. You need to have a lot of layers of sound changes and borrowings accounted for.

First, since when did difficult stop people from trying? If it did we would be still hanging off trees. Second, why is my analysis superficial?

Superficial - appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely. Did we do the examination which proved that my analysis is wrong? No we didn't. I have given you null hypothesis. Neither you nor me nor anyone else here have proven the null hypothesis. Therefore, according to you my hypothesis is still not invalidated.

One question about this whole invalidation stuff.

Hypothesis: Penicillin kills bacteria.
Null hypothesis: Penicillin does not kill bacteria.

According to you any hypothesis is worthless until there is a null hypothesis that can invalidate it. And once null hypothesis is proven, the original hypothesis becomes invalidated and therefore wrong, useless.

Penicillin null hypothesis has been proven by scientific research. Penicillin does not kill all bacteria, and even bacteria it once killed can develop resistance to it. But we still use penicillin. Shouldn't we have discarded penicillin as worthless, useless because null hypothesis was proven and original hypothesis was invalidated?

Actually no. Because penicillin still works in some cases. It kills some bacteria. For other bacteria, we have found other antibiotics which kill them. If the job is "kill bacteria", we use all the available tools. People use what works.

But this is not what you think should happen? Or did I not understood you correctly?

If we have the same situation in physics for instance, should we discard the original hypothesis as wrong just because null hypothesis has been proven? Does that invalidate the original hypothesis. According to you this is exactly what should happen. But according to modern physics, this is not what happens. We use what works. If Newton laws were found not to work in macro and micro world, does does that mean we are not using them any more in our middle world? No. We say, Newton laws work in these cases, but not in these, and we continue to use them. They work for what we need them. But according to you Newton's laws are worthless, they have been invalidated, because null hypothesis has been proven. It is exactly with your favorite example of scientific certainty, which does not work in the same way everywhere and under all conditions, and in micro world it does not work at all. But we still use gravity based calculations because they do the job even though the null hypothesis has been proven and our understanding of gravity has been proven wrong. Obviously what you think is the way science works is not how science actually works. Science exists so it can help us find, define and understand new things, undefined things, unknown things. Science works on the boundary of what is accepted, and a lot of times way outside of that boundary. This is how science expands our knowledge. Scientists are not afraid to look at new things no one looked at before. Or to try things others tried and failed. This is the job of scientists. Are you a scientist? What was the last new thing you investigated and what is the last hypothesis you proposed?

So based on the way science works, my hypothesis of meaning carrying sound blocks works as it is doing the expected. It produces the meaning of words from sound blocks in a consistent way. Does it mean it will work for every word? I don't know. We need to do a lot more research to find that out. Does it mean that if we find words for which the hypothesis doesn't work it is immediately invalidated? No it doesn't. It means that we found exceptions to the rule. Maybe we have to redefine the rule, put boundaries for it. Find out what makes the rule work for some case and not for other. We might discover something new by doing that. But that is how scientists would think, which is not how you think.

When I said that I believe that we can pretty much reconstruct the language down to last Ice age maximum 10,000 bc, you asked: "Which language"?

Any of the existing languages which existed at that time. I am particularly interested in old European languages, R1a and I,J,G...We can quickly start seeing how words group based on logic which was used to assemble words from sounds. We then relate that to existing representative languages from each genetic family: East Slavic for R1a, Gaelic, Basque for R1b, Central European languages (south, west Slavic, Germanic, Norse) for I...We see if there is correlation, logical grouping. It is not precise, but it is the best we have.

Quote
That's exactly what I mean. Sound symbolism only works if speakers actively maintain it over generations. If not, they're just using normal non-phonosemantic language! (Whatever the origins might be...)

This does not mean that the meaning is gone. If you compare multiple languages, if you look at how word changed, the original meaning starts to emerge. Not always, but enough times to give us something to work with.

When I said:

Quote
Languages don't go back to the same family. There were at least three speaking human sub groups before 100,000 bc: Africans, Neanderthals and Denisovans.

You replied:

Quote
That's very controversial. There is evidence to suggest that Neanderthals and possibly others had some form of language, but it's by no means certain.

When I say "human" I'm referring to the ancestors of modern humans, or as you call them "Africans". (Didn't all of those subgroups come out of Africa at some point though??)

Welcome to real science. Once things become certain, they are given to teachers...

Quote
When I say "human" I'm referring to the ancestors of modern humans, or as you call them "Africans". (Didn't all of those subgroups come out of Africa at some point though??)

We don't know for sure. Latest archaeological data from Georgia, are forcing us to completely rethink our understanding of human development. Even if people originally developed in Africa, the sub groups I am talking about lived separately for so long, that they became genetically different. By the way there is firm proof that Africans, Neanderthals and Denisovans mixed. There is even Neanderthal DNA found in east African tribal people. I would expect that languages of east Africa share some traits with languages of Europe. Also Central African languages. Because R1b genetic influence, i would expect these languages to share traits with other R1b languages, like gaelic and basque.

I said:

Quote
I don't agree that we can not find the original correspondences. It is hard, we might not find all of them for all the family languages, but if i find most of them for R1a language, i will be happy.

You said:

Quote
I still find it incredibly unlikely. You're directly analyzing the modern pronunciations of words that have gone through numerous major sound changes over about 10,000 years. That's a terrible method...Certainly it MAY be possible to reconstruct earlier languages, but if so you will need a more complex methodology than just looking at spelling in the modern languages

I am not only looking at spelling or even pronunciation of modern languages. I look at words from modern languages, then i compare them with their etymologies and older versions of the words. Then I compare them with words from other languages from cultures where similar anthropological cultural, ethnological features were found. You find sound block meanings at the cross between all this. It is extremely complex work.
But once you find the meaning (or set of related meanings) of a sound block, you test it against modern languages. How can we do that? Because sound blocks are still there. Some have changed within the same undifferentiated group, like g - k, some were lost, new were added. But all these changes are done in such way as to preserve the original meaning of the word. If the meaning changes it changes to related meaning. gay - gentle, gey - homosexual. This has to happen if you want to preserve language as a tool for conversation.
Of course you can completely change the meaning of words, but that is an exception, not the rule.

I said:

Quote
I believe that in spoken languages sound, and sound blocks, carry meaning.

You replied:

Quote
So how is this any different than etymology in the first place?
Sounds reasonable to me, if you just mean that there were originally sounds that then became part of a language and normal morphological processes followed.

Let me try to explain using an example we already looked at:

I said:

Quote
navis - boat in Latin.  na + v + i = na + vo + ide = on + water + persists, continues, goes. Roman navy was built by Dalmatian Illyrians from the Balkans. Word boat probably comes from them, and the roots are still present in Serbian. na - on, voda - water, ide - goes.

To which you replied:

Quote
There's a much simpler explanation:
Latin navis "ship," from PIE *nau- "boat"
Obviously the -is ending is just inflectional, like thousands of other nouns in Latin. Note also that "v" in that is pronounced [w], so this is an example of sound change getting in the way of your claims.
Certainly it is more reasonable to take the etymology from PIE than it is to assume it's from Serbian, right? Just based on time depth...

This shows that you don't understand what you are talking abut. You are just quoting things.

First time depth. Illyrians lived in the Balkans in the exact same area where you find South Slavs today. They lived there in the second millennium bc. And built boats. This is at least 500 years before Rome was founded. Illyrians lived in Italy as well. Illyrians built and manned Roman navy.

Serbian language is built on top of all the languages of all the people who lived in the Balkans and whose mix produced Modern Serbian. So Illyrian sound roots could be (and as you can see are) present in Serbian language.

There's a much simpler explanation: Latin navis "ship," from PIE *nau- "boat"...This just shows the extent of your intellectual laziness. If you have bothered, and did some more reading you would have found this:

From Proto-Indo-European *néh₂us, cognate with Ancient Greek ναῦς (naus, “ship”) and Sanskrit नाव (nāva, “ship”). Usually described as derivation from *(s)neh₂- (“to swim”).
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov argue that it's borrowing from Semitic *ʾunw(at)- (“jar, vessel; boat”).

Armenian: Old Armenian: նաւ (naw), նաւազ (nawaz, “skipper”)
Celtic: Old Irish: nau
Germanic: Old Norse: nór
Hellenic: Ancient Greek: ναῦς (naus)
Indo-Iranian: Indo-Aryan: Sanskrit: नौ (nau), नाव (nāva)
Iranian: Avestan: (nauuāza-, “skipper”)
Khotanese: (no)
Mazanderani: نو (no)
Old Persian: (nāva, nom./acc. pl.)
Middle Persian: *nʾw (nāw)
Manichaean Middle Persian: nʾwʾz (nāwāz, “skipper”)
Persian: ناو (nâv)
Ossetian: Digor: науӕ (nawæ)
Iron: нау (naw)
Parthian: nʾwʾz (nāwāz, “skipper”)
Italic: Latin: nāvis
Illyrian: Nauna, Nauportus (toponyms)

First, using your time depth order these languages according to their age. You see that in the oldest records it is naV, naUV which later became naua, nau, no. So V was lost because people could not pronounce it properly and eventually dropped it. But the meaning was preserved. 

Na - on
U - in
V - water, white, clear, transparent, not hard, not material
I - continue, persist, action, movement

Proto-Indo-European *néh₂us = n(a) + (j)e + (g)h + u(v) + s = on + is + water, in +  surface = thing you get into to stay on the surface or water. But this is reconstructed word, not real word. Look at real words:

Ancient Greek ναῦς (naus, “ship”) = na + u(v) + s = on + water, in + surface
Sanskrit नाव (nāva, “ship”) = na + va = on + water
Semitic *ʾunw(at)- (“jar, vessel; boat”) = u + n(a) + v = in + water + on
Old Armenian: նաւ (naw) = na + v = on + water
Old Persian: (nāva, nom./acc. pl.) = na + va = on + water
Avestan: (nauuāza-, “skipper”) = na + u + ua (v) + s = on + in + water + surface

The problem is that you don't believe in eyeballing (looking), and data mining (reading, learning). These are dirty words for you modern linguists. So you are walking around blind repeating stuff you managed to memorize during your studies. You are accusing me of ad hominem argumentation style. For those who don't speak the lingo, ad hominem means:

Quote
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

Now I don't believe that you not wanting to see, hear or think is "irrelevant fact" about you. I believe that if you want to be a linguist, you have to be able to see, hear and think. You not being able to see the above makes me believe that you are either unable to see, hear or think, or that you don't want to. I am feeling more and more like I am tacking with a tape recorder, not a human being.

So do you see the difference between Etymology as you see it, and Etymology as I see it.

Current understanding of etymology: Proto-Indo-European *néh₂us

The question no one is asking is why *néh₂us and not babarat? I did ask that question and  the result of my investigation is my sound block hypothesis. And here it is used to answer the above "why" question:

*néh₂us = n(a) + (j)e + (g)h + u(v) + s = on + is + water, in +  surface = thing you get into to stay on the surface or water.

To your shouting (capital letters, exclamation marks...):

Quote
This does NOT mean that you can look at modern English and separate out each letter as an independent meaning!!

I can say: actually I can, successfully.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on February 19, 2014, 06:07:40 AM
Quote
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/03/the-origin-of-the-green-yellow-and-red-color-scheme-for-traffic-lights/

So nothing random there. It was a premeditated decision, based on thinking and planning, making a mistake, then realizing mistake, correcting the mistake. This is how humans learn and this is how humans invent things. This is what makes humans different from monkeys.
Having a lens falling out of a light, turning the one that was red (white light + red filter lens) confusing people is absolutely no counterargument whatsoever to the point that was being made. If the bulb instead of the filter had been red, then that issue would not have happened and there would be no problem. It's still arbitrary.

Quote
So based on the way science works, my hypothesis of meaning carrying sound blocks works as it is doing the expected. It produces the meaning of words from sound blocks in a consistent way. Does it mean it will work for every word? I don't know. We need to do a lot more research to find that out
You just seem to lack the fundamentals of what scientific analysis requires. You're allowing your original data that gave you the idea to support the conclusion that you drew from that data! That's what even school children are taught is a big no, no. You're completely right that you need to do a lot more research. You don't know it's going to work for every word, but you haven't even tried.

Here's how you have to think of it. You need to write down a set of instructions, and have an imaginary bucket of words to investigate. You need to be able to give someone the instructions on how to analyse the words, all the hypotheses, and then give them the bucket. If you can draw the conclusions and argue the same case for an unseen set of data (in a replicable way) then you have an argument that will cause people to stop ignoring the babbling and it will actually compel them to allow for the possibility and investigate what you're questioning.

There's no method, there's no abstract. You have some words that have given you a conclusion and you're firing it back to us as if it is evidence of the original claim. That is the definition of a circular argument. Anyone, anyone, who works in science or with the scientific method can see that a mile away.

I could take the well-understood phono-semantic feature of English of word-initial sn- clusters having a high correspondence with things relating to the nose, and then form a conclusion this is the case for every language. Sneeze, snore, sniff, snivel, snigger, snooze, snuffle, sneer, snob, snout would be some good examples, and then to argue my case that this is the truth, I would quote those same things. It might seem logical to you, but it's fundamentally flawed when it comes to making generalised claims.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on February 19, 2014, 06:09:55 AM
Quote
Latest neuroscience research shows that these things are directly linked.
I must insist you produce this evidence that supports your claim that:

"Different genetic human groups, with different ability to hear and repeat sounds also have different logical ability."
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on February 19, 2014, 06:14:38 AM
Quote
As you can see you can't use word arbitrary if you don't imply random original choice. And as I have shown you, the probability of randomly choosing the same sound in 100 words with related meaning is close to 0
Aha. You think you've shown us something. You think you've actually shown that in 100 words a possibility of 0 can be drawn. You ACTUALLY think you've shown us this? Without any experiment? With carefully cherry-picked data?

This is why this discussion isn't going anywhere. We're talking at different levels. You're not the first person to come to a forum like this with an extraordinary claim and we end up going in circles. At the end of the day it comes down to the person with the extraordinary claim not understanding how to put together credible data. I might have more of an attention span if I hadn't seen this scenario repeat itself so many times before. Asking for an abstract-style description is really not hard when the idea is well thought out. We've been asking for pages and nothing has arrived. It's just dodging questions and trying to throw facts in the faces of people trying to get to the sound logical basis of the argument. It might manage to distract people for a little while, but you can't throw unrelated facts to a point where people accept that the core basis of a theory starts to make sense.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 19, 2014, 07:20:27 AM
Lx

Quote
They chose red as the color for stop, it is thought, because red has for centuries been used to indicate danger.

Premeditated.

Quote
they chose white as the color for go and green as the color for caution.

Premeditated.

Quote
The choice of a white light for go turned out to cause a lot of problems. For instance, an incident in 1914 where a red lens fell out of its holder leaving the white light behind it exposed. This ended with a train running a “stop” signal and crashing into another train. Thus, the railroad decided to change it so the green light meant go and a caution “yellow” was chosen, primarily because the color is so distinct from the other two colors used.

Premeditated corrective action.

What is random about this?

Quote
You just seem to lack the fundamentals of what scientific analysis requires. You're allowing your original data that gave you the idea to support the conclusion that you drew from that data! That's what even school children are taught is a big no, no. You're completely right that you need to do a lot more research. You don't know it's going to work for every word, but you haven't even tried.

You have no Idea what my original data was. I tried to explain it to you guys many times, you are unwilling or unable to read it. The data I used to arrive to my sound block hypothesis, was based on interdisciplinary data including linguistic, historical, anthropological, ethnographic, archaeological, genetic...The word corpus I used was originally only Serbian (South Slavic languages) and Irish. Then I added Sanskrit. I only started looking at Latin and Greek when I started looking into the ancient European Gods and what happened to them when Greeks and Romans got their hands on them. The extent of my language analysis of Greek and Latin was narrowly concentrated on religion and religious beliefs and words used to describe them. I did not even look at English until I started writing here. So the fact that my hypothesis works on English, German, Spanish, Latin, just proves that the hypothesis is valid.

You can believe me or not. It's your choice.

Quote
Here's how you have to think of it. You need to write down a set of instructions, and have an imaginary bucket of words to investigate. You need to be able to give someone the instructions on how to analyse the words, all the hypotheses, and then give them the bucket. If you can draw the conclusions and argue the same case for an unseen set of data (in a replicable way) then you have an argument that will cause people to stop ignoring the babbling and it will actually compel them to allow for the possibility and investigate what you're questioning.

I did that already in my last two posts. Plainly, use sound blocks I already used in my analysis. Find 100 random words from this thread, or any random page on the internet, which are built around these sound blocks. Find root words using etymological dictionary. Give the list of modern words and root words to someone with the list of sound blocks and their meanings. See if sum meaning of the original words is close to the meaning of the original word and of the modern word.

As I said already my sound analysis is not complete. I did not get to the root meaning of all the sounds. But the ones i used here to analyze words I am pretty sure about.

Quote
There's no method, there's no abstract. You have some words that have given you a conclusion and you're firing it back to us as if it is evidence of the original claim. That is the definition of a circular argument. Anyone, anyone, who works in science or with the scientific method can see that a mile away.

You have no idea what scientific method is, and what science is. I have given you the method, go and use it if you want. And as I said you are wrong about what data I used to get to my hypothesis.


Quote
I could take the well-understood phono-semantic feature of English of word-initial sn- clusters having a high correspondence with things relating to the nose, and then form a conclusion this is the case for every language. Sneeze, snore, sniff, snivel, snigger, snooze, snuffle, sneer, snob, snout would be some good examples, and then to argue my case that this is the truth, I would quote those same things.

You could do that, but you would not be right. And that would not be what I would claim either, because as I said many times, but you have failed to notice, different languages would be created by people who hear sounds differently, reproduce sounds differently and have different data to meaning processing logic. So languages are expected to be different. Did you read anything I said about Epigenetics?

One big difference between you an me is that you don't know why all these words have S and N in them. Do you want to know? This is from page 8 of this discussion. Again i am telling you that I did not look at English at all until I came to this forum. I said in my original post that I arrived to my conclusions comparing Irish and Serbian:

Quote
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?


Quote
I must insist you produce this evidence that supports your claim that: "Different genetic human groups, with different ability to hear and repeat sounds also have different logical ability."

Read about the studies that deal with how hearing impediments affect our ability to speak and our intelligence. You have google, do some data mining and eyeballing...

I said: "As you can see you can't use word arbitrary if you don't imply random original choice. And as I have shown you, the probability of randomly choosing the same sound in 100 words with related meaning is close to 0"

And you said:

Quote
Aha. You think you've shown us something. You think you've actually shown that in 100 words a possibility of 0 can be drawn. You ACTUALLY think you've shown us this? Without any experiment?

You see if you actually read what I write, you would have seen this:

Quote
For something to be a coincidence from the statistical point of view it has to have high probability to happen as a random event. If you have 30 sounds in a bag, to your disposal, and you need to create 100 words. What is the chance that you will randomly pick the same sound for all 100 words. For one it is 1/30.
For hundred it is (1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*...100 times. Do you see how improbable that is? Now calculate probability of the same two sounds being always picked. But if you deliberately pick the same sound, based on the meaning of the sound, then we have a completely different story. We don't have independent events and probability rises dramatically.
If the event is me being able to construct the meaning of a word from its sound blocks. The probability of that event is 1/2. I either do it or not. If I do it, again and again, on hundreds of random words from multiple languages, what is the probability of that happening randomly?

This is plain probability theory. If you say that people choosing sounds for words is not the same like picking sound cards from a bag, you need to answer why is it not the same? Maybe because it is in some way predetermined by our genes? Or our experiences which are stored using epigenetic switching? If it is the same, and our minds are just mindless random sound generators, which sounds completely mad by the way, then the probability of choosing the same sound in 100 boundary related words is the probability of the same outcome of 100 random unrelated events. But if the events are related, like for instance we realize that people understand that N means boundary, and we continue using N every time we want to build a word related to boundary, then....We are not mindless machines or monkeys. War and Peace will never be written by monkeys with typewriters or computers.  But you guys are trying to treat the most human of all human things as random set of symbols to which we attach random meaning and then happily continue to use that symbol for thousands of years.

Quote
This is why this discussion isn't going anywhere. We're talking at different levels.


What exactly do you mean by this? Do you see yourself as superior in any way to me? Show me, using arguments, where I am wrong. Let others judge you. I gave you plenty of opportunity to take apart any of my arguments by proving that the examples I gave are wrong. Take all words that mean "one" and explain the correlation between the sounds and meaning in all these words in your own way. Show us all how your argument is superior to mine. And don't use "cherry picked data" as an excuse not to do it, because that just shows how week your own hypothesis is, if you have one, when it doesn't work on any of my "cherry picked" examples. Or maybe not every theory works on everything?

Quote
At the end of the day it comes down to the person with the extraordinary claim not understanding how to put together credible data.

What is credible data to people who believe that you can use statistics to arrive to etymology of words and deplore eyeballing and data mining and cherry picking? And yet all etymological dictionaries were written by people who used eyeballing and data mining and cherry picking as their methods. The whole idea of PIE was derived from that data. I asked already but got only mumble mumble answer:

Quote
Can we establish one thing. Do you trust etymological work of all the people who built etymological dictionaries? How did they do their work? By statistics or by eyeballing and data mining? They surely compared and verified each other's findings by more eyeballing and data mining. There are still disagreements on a lot of etymologies. But you do accept their work as valid and scientific? Or you don't. If you do, what is the difference between what they do and what I do to determine meaning of words? If one of you guys wants to determine the etymology of a word for instance "hephaistos" how would you go about doing it? What statistical method could you use to achieve this? I don't think there is one, but please, I am willing to learn.

Quote
Asking for an abstract-style description is really not hard when the idea is well thought out. We've been asking for pages and nothing has arrived.

Actually I have written the summary already, in short and concise way. It easy to do it because the idea is very simple. I could not be bothered to repeat my self again, so here is a link to my post in which I have given my summary. Read it.

http://linguistforum.com/historical-linguistics/the-language-of-old-europe/msg1198/#msg1198

I have expanded on it in great detail through answers to your questions. Read them too. Ask additional questions.

This is not what I am working on and which is late. What I am writing is unified theory of language which is something I am much more interested in. And that takes time.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: lx on February 19, 2014, 07:25:53 AM
Quote
Actually I have written the summary already, in short and concise way. It easy to do it because the idea is very simple. I could not be bothered to repeat my self again, so here is a link to my post in which I have given my summary. Read it.
Done.
Let me quote jkpate in the post that followed that one:
Quote
Also, since you haven't actually done these tests, why do you expect people to believe you?
I'm happy to believe you think you've got the answer. Send your hypotheses to some linguistics journals. Let us know what they say. Failing that, try sending the idea to one credible linguist and promise to quote the honest response he/she gives you.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 19, 2014, 10:33:26 AM
Lx

Quote
Done.

Great. So now you can all stop asking for summary again and again.

Quote
Also, since you haven't actually done these tests, why do you expect people to believe you?

Hopefully now I will have time to do these tests.

Quote
I'm happy to believe you think you've got the answer.

This is not what I expect from you. I expected this from all of you (I will repeat it):

Quote
Show me, using arguments, where I am wrong. Let others judge you. I gave you plenty of opportunity to take apart any of my arguments by proving that the examples I gave are wrong. Take all words that mean "one" and explain the correlation between the sounds and meaning in all these words in your own way. Show us all how your argument is superior to mine. And don't use "cherry picked data" as an excuse not to do it, because that just shows how week your own hypothesis is, if you have one, when it doesn't work on any of my "cherry picked" examples.

I did not expect this:

Quote
Send your hypotheses to some linguistics journals. Let us know what they say. Failing that, try sending the idea to one credible linguist and promise to quote the honest response he/she gives you.

Are you not credible linguists? I am wasting my time here then? What is the point of having this discussion board at all?
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 19, 2014, 10:44:13 AM
Quote
Are you not credible linguists? I am wasting my time here then? What is the point of having this discussion board at all?
We've told you that we don't believe you, that your arguments are not convincing, that your methodology is flawed, and that your theories are almost certainly incorrect. This has not discouraged you.
What lx was trying to say is: can you find even one credible person (here or elsewhere) who agrees with you?

Let's say you emailed Noam Chomsky and he took the time to respond (or anyone else). What do you think he would say?

Having an unpopular opinion is fine. Having a theory that absolutely no one believes is probably a sign that something is off.


Are you wasting your time here? Probably, because you aren't arguing convincingly or any closer to convincing us than when you showed up (in fact, I'm a lot less likely to be convinced now because you clearly have no concept of how to, for  example, gather data and run experiments before making claims!).


One way to spend your time here more productively would be to discuss less controversial topics, especially those that either 1) you truly have the data and results to back up at this time, or 2) you want to have us inform you of something you don't know.
For example, it might be helpful for you and interesting for us to discuss the etymologies of a few words that interest you.

But, no, we're not getting anywhere with you just going on and on without any supporting evidence. Even assuming you are correct, there's no point in trying to convince us by continuing like this. Work out a more convincing argument if you'd like.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 19, 2014, 12:53:02 PM
Quote
One way to spend your time here more productively would be to discuss less controversial topics...like if you want to have us inform you of something you don't know.
For example, it might be helpful for you and interesting for us to discuss the etymologies of a few words that interest you.

You are the most arrogant person with the least reason to be so. You are the last person that I would ask for any clarification on linguistic matters.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 19, 2014, 01:14:14 PM
Good luck!
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 19, 2014, 03:07:29 PM
Can we move this to the "out of the box" now? The further this goes on the less it resembles anything "historical" or "linguistic".
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 19, 2014, 06:23:57 PM
Yes, sounds correct to me.

dublin, this is now your thread to post whatever you'd like on the topic. The purpose of this subforum is to allow discussion of any topic, no matter how controversial. It really should have been here in the first place-- it's a discussion about a new and controversial idea that isn't accepted in the linguistic community at all. This is where discussions like that (whether useful or crazy) go on this forum.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: jkpate on February 20, 2014, 12:59:05 AM
Quote
Why can't they be coincidences?

Because for something to be a coincidence from the statistical point of view it has to have high probability to happen as a random event. If you have 30 sounds in a bag, to your disposal, and you need to create 100 words. What is the chance that you will randomly pick the same sound for all 100 words. For one it is 1/30. For hundred it is
(1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*(1/30)*...100 times. Do you see how improbable that is? Now calculate probability of the same two sounds being always picked. But if you deliberately pick the same sound, based on the meaning of the sound, then we have a completely different story. We don't have independent events and probability rises dramatically. If the event is me being able to construct the meaning of a word from its sound blocks. The probability of that event is 1/2. I either do it or not. If I do it, again and again, on hundreds of random words from multiple languages, what is the probability of that happening randomly?

This is a great example! You are of course correct that randomly selecting the same sound 100 times in a row from a group of 30 sounds uniformly at random is small: (1/30)^100. However, by the pigeonhole principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle), the probability of never repeating a sound is actually zero. Specifically, there will be 70 total repetitions in this 100-word sequence if all 30 sounds are used at least once, and, under a uniform, independent model, we expect to see each sound appear 100/30 = 3.333... times. An (equivalent mathematically) alternative way to state this is to say that each sound has a 1/30 chance of repeating, and a 29/30 chance of not repeating. The probability of each number of appearances is then given by a binomial distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution), which we can plot in R:


> plot( 0:20, dbinom(0:20, 100, 1/30) ,  xlab = "number of occurrences in the sequence", ylab="P(sequences with x occurrences)" )

(http://jkpate.net/binomial_100.png)

(I'm cutting off the long tail of very low-probability sequences). However,  you are not considering only 100 words. You say you've been relying on your intuitions about language, so the words you have been considering are the words that you know. Since you speak two languages fluently, we can (conservatively) estimate your vocabulary at 20,000 words. Here is the distribution over numbers of repetitions (with the long tail of low-probability sequences again cut off):


> plot( 0:1000, dbinom(0:1000, 20000, 1/30) ,  xlab = "number of occurrences in the sequence", ylab="P(sequences with x occurrences)" )

(http://jkpate.net/binomial_20000.png)

The peak is over 600! And very low numbers of repetitions are also low-probability. Now, this is assuming that all of the words you know are related to "boundary," but, given your flexibility in saying words are related, a few hundred examples are not at all surprising or convincing that your correspondence between particular sounds and particular meanings is real. Simply looking at more words will not be convincing, because the number of opportunities for coincidences rises as you look for words. Methodologies do exist for addressing this: you could randomly sample words related to boundary by asking people with a survey, like djr33 has suggested, or use a corpus that is representative of languages, like I did.

At this point, I don't expect to convince you, but hopefully this discussion (and the R code) is interesting to other readers.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 20, 2014, 05:39:58 AM
Hi all

djr33, freknu, lx keep repeating this:

Quote
We've told you that we don't believe you, that your arguments are not convincing, that your methodology is flawed, and that your theories are almost certainly incorrect.

This has been stated again and again without any counter argument.

Then Lx said this yesterday:

Quote
I'm happy to believe you think you've got the answer. Send your hypotheses to some linguistics journals. Let us know what they say. Failing that, try sending the idea to one credible linguist and promise to quote the honest response he/she gives you.

And djr33 then agreed and added:

Quote
What lx was trying to say is: can you find even one credible person (here or elsewhere) who agrees with you? Having an unpopular opinion is fine. Having a theory that absolutely no one believes is probably a sign that something is off.

Again and again you use word believe in. This is what I have been saying from the beginning. You are not scientists, you are teachers, whose only argument is belief in what they learned at school.

And now you have proven that you actually have no thoughts of your own what so ever, and that all you know is to fallow the opinions of credible linguists. What would happen if Chomsky or some other "credible linguist" accepted my theory? Would you then change your "beliefs" and start believing in my theory? Just like that? Is this the extent of your scientific methods?

You are the exact opposite from what scientist should be.

Considering that none of you have distanced yourself from what lx and djr33 have said, I can only conclude that you are all believers and not scientists.

Jkpate

Quote
You say you've been relying on your intuitions about language

This is not what I said. I said that I noticed the consistent appearance of certain sounds in certain types of words with related meaning. I noticed that while analyzing Serbian and Irish. I was using long term stable languages which are distant geographically and historically.
I deliberately avoided English because it is a mixed language which underwent huge changes in last 1000 years.

Quote
the probability of never repeating a sound is actually zero

This is off course true and obvious. But we are not talking about picking endless number of random groups of sounds out of 30 sounds. There is no endless number of words. Also we are talking about only words with particular meaning. So the number of repetitions of the experiment is even smaller.
There are only 284 different word roots in English language starting with N. I extracted the information from the freely available spell checker software world lists.

If say 200 of them are related to boundary, what is the probability that that was an a coincidence, meaning collection of random sound picks which all ended up in making words which start with N and have meaning related to boundary?

I think you are asking wrong questions.

Quote
Now, this is assuming that all of the words you know are related to "boundary," but, given your flexibility in saying words are related, a few hundred examples are not at all surprising or convincing that your correspondence between particular sounds and particular meanings is real. Simply looking at more words will not be convincing, because the number of opportunities for coincidences rises as you look for words.

What you are saying here basically is that even if statistics prove that I am right, you will not accept the results? What is the point of doing all this statistics stuff then? It is only useful if it proves you right and me wrong? What kind of science is this?

I have repeatedly said that I mean when I say boundary related. I explained it not once in detail. I gave you the algorithm to select boundary related words. But you are refusing to accept any of this, because you want to use "my flexibility in saying words are related to boundary" as a wriggle out route in case, as you have seen yourself, statistics proves me right.

But this is not surprising because I deal with believers not scientists. You might fancy yourselves as scientists, you might think that because you use statistics that that makes you a scientist. But your could not be further from being scientists.

Use one of the examples that I have given you, and explain what you see using any other existing theory that you believe in. If the only counter theory that you can come up with is coincidence, they you are the same as people who explain the universe by saying that it was god's will.

I thought that at least in our ability to think, premeditate and act based on our thoughts made us independent from destiny of randomness by god's will, but you obviously don't think so.

jkpate you said:

Quote
Methodologies do exist for addressing this: you could randomly sample words related to boundary by asking people with a survey, like djr33 has suggested, or use a corpus that is representative of languages, like I did.

First there is nothing random about asking people what words relate to boundary. You are talking about people who have their cognitive processes shaped by their common cultural experience. So their answers are not random, they are the opposite from random. You don't understand this because you don't understand how our brains are shaped by our experiences and particularly by our language. The survey has the same randomness coefficient as asking people who all support Man United to give you the list of best football players. 

Of course you can't ask Turkish people to tell you what English words are related to boundary. And this makes the whole argument about random sampling of words through surveys useless.

You could do what I suggested:

Use sound blocks I already used in my analysis. Find 100 random words from this thread, or any random page on the internet, which are built around these sound blocks. Find root words using etymological dictionary. Give the list of modern words and root words to someone with the list of sound blocks and their meanings. See if sum meaning of the original words is close to the meaning of the original word and of the modern word.

You can do this with a computer, you don't need people. But you need to understand what boundary actually is first. I explained that many times, gave you definition from dictionaries, so I will not repeat it again.

As for your wordnet software, It is based on word synonyms and what I am talking about is based on sound block synonyms.  So I can't use it. But thanks for your help, at least you tried.

Here is an example of what I am talking about: in (inside something), on (on something), no (negation of something), un (opposite of something) are all sound blocks which express boundary meaning. If you find them in any word, that word is a boundary word.

And by the way I will contact few reputable and respectable linguists. And let's see what happen. Maybe djr33 will start believing in me and my gospel one day...
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 20, 2014, 06:58:47 AM
I need to explain this in more detail:

Quote
Here is an example of what I am talking about: in (inside something), on (on something), no (negation of something), un (opposite of something) are all sound blocks which express boundary meaning. If you find them in any word, that word is a boundary word.

If you find the above sound blocks in words they become linked to boundary by definition of being linked to boundary word like no. This means that we have to remove them from the lists of words which we are going to analyze. Unbelievable and noncompliance are boundary words but they are not interesting ones. They are obviously deliberately made using negation to create a boundary between what is and what isn't like believable, unbelievable. The same goes  for words expressing continuous action using "ing" and nouns made from verbs using "ion". What is left is words which are not obviously linked to boundary but have N in them. These are the ones you analyze with etymological dictionaries and see what original meaning they had.

They become our test words.

Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 20, 2014, 11:37:01 AM
Quote
Considering that none of you have distanced yourself from what lx and djr33 have said, I can only conclude that you are all believers and not scientists.
No. I'd consider myself a skeptic. I tentatively accept the best theory out there as a working hypothesis, but I question it all the time. Your theory is much less credible and therefore a step in the wrong direction. It's not that I'm closed-minded.

Quote
And by the way I will contact few reputable and respectable linguists. And let's see what happen. Maybe djr33 will start believing in me and my gospel one day...
Great. Let us know if you convince anyone. And, if you are actually being honest about this, also track how many people don't accept your claims.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 21, 2014, 04:26:17 PM
jkpate, I have finished the abstract I have promised you. I know it is a week late, but better ever than never. You can see why it took so long to complete it. I have opened separate thread for it:

http://linguistforum.com/wild-ideas/unified-language-theory/

djr33, I don't want to waste any more time replying to your "i don't like your theory" comments. I know you don't like it, we all do. So go and do something you like. Or produce counter theory that can explain what i have shown you without using words like "it's a coincidence or god's will". Even chaos is not coincidental or random. We know have chaos theory that explains why that is, and how even chaos is governed by rules. But in linguistics it seems that wherever you scratch there is an exception based on a coincidence caused by randomness...

It is the job of scientists to discover laws governing seeming coincidences.

It is the job of priests to keep repeating "it is god's will".
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 21, 2014, 04:27:57 PM
Quote
jkpate, I have finished the abstract I have promised you. I know it is a week late, but better ever than never. You can see why it took so long to complete it. I have opened separate thread for it:
The idea was a clear 300-500 word abstract, as would be found in many publications or as a submission for a conference. What you wrote is MUCH longer than that. At the moment I don't have time to read it; maybe later.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: freknu on February 21, 2014, 04:48:48 PM
Spray and pray :/
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on February 22, 2014, 09:53:39 AM
freknu, don't worry. You will not be stained by knowledge. It doesn't stick to smooth brains.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: Daniel on February 22, 2014, 12:00:52 PM
Please don't actually get to the level of just throwing out insults. There's a clear problem with your approach here: you make it (intentionally?) difficult for us to read and reply to your posts. Posting four full length posts is just nonsense, when we asked for an abstract. This is going nowhere if you can't cooperate with something basic like that and instead just start making personal insults.
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: IronMike on February 27, 2014, 01:33:53 PM
The first set of words start with "g" and are used only for living beings, people and animals.

....

These are all characteristics of living beings. This connects sound "g" with meaning "alive".
 

газета starts with a "g" sound but it's not alive. 
Title: Re: The language of old Europe
Post by: dublin on March 25, 2014, 06:33:02 AM
Hi guys. Sorry I have been busy doing other things. Here is the abstract you have been so eagerly awaiting.

Unified language theory

I am here going to explain my understanding of what language is, how it works, how it is created, how it evolves and how it disappears.

I believe that the existence of languages is intrinsically connected with the existence of life. I also believe that the creation, sharing, propagation, evolution, replacement, preservation of languages are all governed by the same small set of simple naturally occurring mechanisms and systems in all living organisms.

Abstract

Language is an algorithm created by a system perceiving the world around itself in order to extract the meaning from perceived sensory input data and create a reality. The systems involved in creation and use of languages are:

1. Sensory system which provides data in a shape of multidimensional change patterns. This is data creation system.
2. Cognitive system which interprets data patterns and stores "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs in memory. This is data translation and storing system.
3. Control feedback loop which compares multiple consecutive "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs and adjusts the translation algorithm until the comparison results start falling within a pre-set tolerance boundary, by enforcing the adjustment of the translation algorithm. The resulting stable unchanging translation algorithm which produces consistent results is a language. This is language creation and stabilization system.
Language quality and complexity depends on the quality and complexity of all three systems involved in the language creation. Languages are built from simple "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs which are assembled into complex "sensory pattern - meaning" matrices.
 
The most important system responsible for creation of languages is the control feedback loop.

This is a naturally occurring phenomenon in living systems and is responsible for creation and preservation of stable, biological systems thus making them "living" systems. Multiple control feedback loos exist in all living systems from viruses and bacteria to complex multi organism colonies. They regulate systems and keep them stable. But control feedback loop can only operate on the "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs, the language. This means that control feedback loop cannot exist without a language. This makes a language also a naturally occurring phenomenon, and probably the most important naturally occurring phenomenon in living systems. Without natural ability of living systems to create and use languages there would be no life. For biological systems to survive, they need to be able to make sense of the world around them, and of themselves, and for that purpose they create and use languages. That sense of the world around us is called "the reality". So we can say that without languages there would be no reality and no self.

In order for multiple living organisms to engage in information exchange, they need to be able to:

1. Create some kind of output which can be perceived by the other organism as a sensory input. Ability to create output which can be perceived as sensory input enables us to communicate with each other.
2. Translate the perceived sensory input coming from the other organism into meaning. Ability to translate the perceived sensory input coming from the other organism into meaning enables us to understand each other.
3. Imitate the sensory input to create the output which the other organism understands. Ability to imitate the sensory input coming from another organism enables us to converse. This ability is directly dependant on the quality of the input receiving (sensory) systems, output producing systems and their coordination. It is the different quality of these systems in different members of the same species, which causes the creation of different dialects and for instance sound changes in human spoken languages.
4. Synchronize language algorithms in order to ensure that both organisms produce identical "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs, meaning that they understand each other. This is achieved through the entanglement of the control feedback loops of both organisms. This process is called language synchronization and results in the creation of a common group language. Language synchronization starts by synchronizing the understanding of the simplest well known "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs. This is why the simplest natural sound blocks with their associated other sensory data, are the building blocks of human vocal languages for instance. These are the simplest well known "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs which can be used to synchronize our understanding of more complex "sensory pattern - meaning" key value pairs and complex "sensory pattern - meaning" matrices. Ability to synchronize individual languages enables us to form groups.

Because language is based on the perceived world, change in the perceived world can trigger the change in the language used to create new reality out of the changes in perceived world. Change in the environment, location, circumstances, population can all trigger individual language changes which will trigger group language synchronization changes. These changes are again controlled by the control feedback loop of each organism and the entangled control feedback loop of the group. All these control feedback loops work together to preserve a stable reality. If changes are small, control feedback loops will migrate the languages from a state which is not stable any more to another stable state. This process will result in language evolution. If the changes are severe population changes, this process can result in language replacement. The same control feedback loops will preserve the language if the perceived world does not change.

Details:

http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.ie/p/un.html