"Borean"

New linguistics studies ( i.e., www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art203e.pdf ) suggest that Indo-European comes from an early mixing of "Uralic" and other tongues. There is a suggestion that this early form of Uralic, called by some "Nostratic" / "Eurasian," was some Central Asian Ur-language and later mixed with the surrounding "native" languages to produce things like "Proto-Indo-European" and even early ancestors of Afro-Asiatic, Bantu, Sino-Tibetan, and Native American language. This Ur-language in its most expansive model has also been called "Borean" (Northern).

My question is simply: Is there any particular living language that is CLOSEST / closer to this "Borean" / Nostratic / Eurasian tongue ?

CircledSquare said:

My question is simply: Is there any particular living language that is CLOSEST / closer to this "Borean" / Nostratic / Eurasian tongue ?

Click to expand...

These are a couple of early transcript excerpts that bear on your question:

11/2/94 said:

Q: (L) What is the origin of the Sanskrit language?
A: Atlantis.

Q: (L) When the Aryans were brought here, were they brought to Atlantis?
A: No. The Aryans were different from the Atlanteans.

Q: (L) Is there any language in existence today that is descended from the Aryan language? Or, that has remained more similar in development from Indo-European?
A: Yes. All Germanic.

Q: (L) Is Celtic considered to be one of these?
A: Yes.

Click to expand...

3/8/95 said:

Q: (L) What is the world’s oldest language, at least of those known to today’s world?
A: Sanskrit.

Q: (L) What is the origin of Sanskrit?
A: Atlantean roots.

Click to expand...

You might also want to take a look at this paper:

https://www.academia.edu/10261406/The_Origins_of_Proto-Indo-European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_December_2015_

The Caucasian languages are quite interesting, in that they resemble certain Native American languages in various parts of their grammar -- phonological, morpho-syntactic, and lexical; they've been compared particularly to Athabaskan, but also to certain other language families of the North American west coast. Since the speakers of Caucasian languages are caucasoid, it gives the impression that they shifted from an earlier language to some variety of what we now think of as Native American language(s) at some point in the remote past (I would guess prior to the transition into the Holocene).

As the hypothesis goes, a group of people speaking something similar to Uralic later migrated into the general area of the Caucasus and interacted with the indigenous population rather intimately for some period of time. This resulted in a set of 'mixed' language groups -- Indo-European and Kartvelian both had Uralic-type superstrata imposed on a Caucasian substratum, and the opposite occurred in Northwest Caucasian. Northeast Caucasian and Uralic may represent the most pure forms of the two original language varieties.

Shijing,

You are so on point! Very happy to see someone else has arrived at this "wall" beyond which we don't seem to be able make much progress as of this juncture. Part of what seems implied by all of this is that, if the Cs are to be believed (which I believe they 98% are!), Sanskrit/Atlantean, as well as "Germanic"/"Celtic," are versions of the Kantekkian arrivees?? How else would this explain the fact that "Sanskrit" as Atlantean is "different" from "Germanic," when in fact as, as strongly seems the case anyway, Germanic and "Hindi" are related? And so what this would make the Northeast Caucasian branch (the locals?)?

CircledSquare said:

Part of what seems implied by all of this is that, if the Cs are to be believed (which I believe they 98% are!), Sanskrit/Atlantean, as well as "Germanic"/"Celtic," are versions of the Kantekkian arrivees?? How else would this explain the fact that "Sanskrit" as Atlantean is "different" from "Germanic," when in fact as, as strongly seems the case anyway, Germanic and "Hindi" are related?

Click to expand...

That's the best I can infer as well. According to the Cassiopaean lore, after the evacuation to Earth, the natives of Kantek were initially relocated to the area of what is now the Caucasus, but later expanded, appropriating certain Atlantean territories in the north from two indigenous groups, the Atlanteans proper (what we now think of as Native Americans) and Panthars (Australoids). Presumably, when it was stated that Sanskrit originated in Atlantis, what is being referred to is this later period when the Kantekkians had already become what might be considered 'Neo-Atlanteans' in a political and territorial sense.

CircledSquare said:

And so what this would make the Northeast Caucasian branch (the locals?)?

Click to expand...

My best guess at present is that they are largely Kantekkian in origin (probably with some indigenous genetic admixture), but that their original language was replaced by a form of Atlantean (the Native American variety) at some point in prehistory, likely during the above-mentioned territorial struggles. This is the inverse situation that you see with several Siberian/Northeast Asian groups, who are genetically Native American (broadly speaking), but who have what appears to be a Eurasiatic (particularly Uralic) language superstratum -- these include groups like Yukaghir, Eskimo-Aleut, and possibly Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Nivkh.

CircledSquare said:

There is a suggestion that this early form of Uralic, called by some "Nostratic" / "Eurasian," was some Central Asian Ur-language and later mixed with the surrounding "native" languages to produce things like "Proto-Indo-European" and even early ancestors of Afro-Asiatic, Bantu, Sino-Tibetan, and Native American language. This Ur-language in its most expansive model has also been called "Borean" (Northern).

Click to expand...

Just wanted to mention that present models of Borean don't include Bantu -- you can take a look at the proposed member groups here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borean_languages

Re:
Just wanted to mention that present models of Borean don't include Bantu -- you can take a look at the proposed member groups here:

There is are two scholars I know of, Wim van Binsbergen and Clyde Winters, who make some compelling arguments as to why a) (mostly in the case of Wim) Bantu is a version/product of an additional mixing of "Borean" and local African languages) and b) (mostly in the case of Dr. Winters) why Dravidian is also an offshoot, at least in part, from African languages/culture.

Lastly the following puts forth a compelling, one might believe, thesis for the "Borean" idea(s)
(thanks for your great reply/replies :))

http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/AfricanOriginsoftheWordGod.pdf

So would Proto-Uralic actually be Proto-[in super quotes]Aryan??

A la, see Bantu as "Borean" / Proto-Uralic (/ some offshoot of Atlantean / recombination of whatever Atlantean + local languages made with a later RE INFLUX of "Aryan" / "Nordic" Aryans??) running deep through the continent(s) ??

Or if Bantu as "Borean" / Proto-Uralic happened to have been some offshoot of Atlantean and/or some recombination of Atlantean and local languages, and/or any particular recombination of the preceding with some later RE INFLUX of "Aryan" / "Nordic" Aryans. Versions of your "Native American" could have been more directly to straight up Sanskrit, while others were more like "Proto-Uralic"?

Is it true then that there may be various versions of Atlantean, or but still those hanging on (probably dead in North American but not in South America, as in the Amazon?)

{Would, say, pre-Panthar things = distant relatives of ...Lemurian?...}

Other questions this raises:

Does this also imply a vast "Exodus" (such as you'd expect of our common myths' narratives) whether Flood related or no, that reflects at least some of the variation and overlap of the "Atlantis" and "Aryan" languages?

Hi CircledSquare,

I don't completely understand all of the questions in your last few posts, but I'll try to respond to the ones I think I do:

CircledSquare said:

There is are two scholars I know of, Wim van Binsbergen and Clyde Winters, who make some compelling arguments as to why a) (mostly in the case of Wim) Bantu is a version/product of an additional mixing of "Borean" and local African languages) and b) (mostly in the case of Dr. Winters) why Dravidian is also an offshoot, at least in part, from African languages/culture.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the references -- I hadn't heard of either van Binsbergen or Winters before, but I'd like to look into them. From what I've been able to find so far, van Binsbergen's work looks particularly interesting. Winters (http://olmec98.net/archaeogenetics.HTM) appears at first glance to be operating with something of an agenda -- there's some interesting stuff if his papers, though, and I'll take a look at what he has to say about Dravidian when I have a chance.

CircledSquare said:

http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/AfricanOriginsoftheWordGod.pdf

Click to expand...

The main problem I see with this paper is that the author plays really fast and loose with his comparisons -- he allows a really wide degree of latitude for what counts as related words, and doesn't establish a very rigorous set of correspondences. One can compare nearly anything in this way if the rules are relaxed enough.

CircledSquare said:

So would Proto-Uralic actually be Proto-[in super quotes]Aryan??

Click to expand...

I don't think one could make that strong of a statement. A lot can happen in 80,000 years, and I doubt that there's any language (group) that wouldn't have changed a great amount during that length of time -- even in isolation, which it almost certainly wasn't. That being said, it's possible that it's the most conservative present-day descendant of the language (assuming there was only one) that was originally spoken by the original post-Kantek population. Aharon Dolgopolsky, one of the early founders of the Nostratic hypothesis, apparently leaned in this direction and was occasionally criticized for making his Proto-Nostratic reconstructions too dependent upon the Uralic evidence.

CircledSquare said:

Is it true then that there may be various versions of Atlantean, or but still those hanging on (probably dead in North American but not in South America, as in the Amazon?)

Click to expand...

Sure -- in my present understanding, all Native American languages (they're not all dead in North America, although they've generally fared worse than those in Central and South America) could be candidates. This is true for some outside of the Americas as well, such as the Karasuk languages (Yeniseian and Burushaski) of Eurasia.

CircledSquare said:

{Would, say, pre-Panthar things = distant relatives of ...Lemurian?...}

Click to expand...

Maybe -- I personally associate the Austric groups of Southeast Asia with Lemuria, but as with Atlantis, Lemuria wasn't necessarily a monoracial civilization. It may well have included Australoids (which the Panthars were associated with in the transcripts) as well.

CircledSquare said:

Does this also imply a vast "Exodus" (such as you'd expect of our common myths' narratives) whether Flood related or no, that reflects at least some of the variation and overlap of the "Atlantis" and "Aryan" languages?

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, I think a lot of population movement that led to contact and intermixture between various groups was probably driven, at least some of the time, by cataclysmic events.

Thank you -- for your answers, and for your clarity, Shijing! Indeed a time register of thousands and thousands of years complicates any one view of a commonality among the tongues.

By the way, Mr. van Binsbergen (whom I've tried to write about on this forum before [again, your clarity is appreciated -- something about entering this "space," at least as of right now, makes my writing a bit frenzied and harder to "pin down"/get right. I suppose it's because of a} this excitement of having a place to pose these questions which, at least temporarily, blunts rather than sharpens my focus and b} the difficulty of having enough knowledge to articulate them to begin with) has this notion that Central Asia is the originating point of this "Borean" and since I also wouldn't rule out "Siberia" as coextensive with this area I wouldn't rule out the notion that "Nordic"/"Aryan" (are these, according to the Cs, supposed to be the same?) races were/are the speakers of it. From here they supposedly radiated out and conquered in every direction.

So the question remains: If "Aryan" is not the same as "Atlantean," in what way are they related? Are they both "Kantekkian"?

Thanks!

(And the "Thanks" is in advance in the event the Cs can also chime in here -- or any one else -- for I don't mean to imply we didn't address this already with each other, Shijing! But, 4 real, thanks again to you, too :))

CircledSquare said:

By the way, Mr. van Binsbergen ... has this notion that Central Asia is the originating point of this "Borean" and since I also wouldn't rule out "Siberia" as coextensive with this area I wouldn't rule out the notion that "Nordic"/"Aryan" (are these, according to the Cs, supposed to be the same?) races were/are the speakers of it. From here they supposedly radiated out and conquered in every direction.

Click to expand...

Sounds interesting -- are there any online references of van Binsbergen's you can link?

The terms "Nordic" and "Aryan" are both a bit fuzzy -- partly because "Nordic" is sometimes used to refer to one type of fourth density being, and other times to people of northern European phenotype. You might also want to check out the CassWiki entry on Kantek if you haven't yet:

http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Kantek

CircledSquare said:

So the question remains: If "Aryan" is not the same as "Atlantean," in what way are they related? Are they both "Kantekkian"?

Click to expand...

I know you're eager to have your question presented to the Cs, so I'll just make the brief comment on this that "Aryan" is generally used as a purely ethnic term, while "Atlantean" is sometimes used in this way but more often in a geopolitical sense. Again from CassWiki:

http://thecasswiki.net/index.php?title=Atlantis

Finally, I just wanted to make sure you had seen this session excerpt which is related to your initial question:

8/5/09 said:

Q: (L) Okay, we've got this first question on this printout here: If Nostratic is a valid linguistic unit, does it essentially represent the original language of the Kantekkians? Well, I guess we ought to break that down and ask it: Is Nostratic a valid linguistic unit?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay, does it essentially represent the original language of the Kantekkians?

A: Half.

Q: (L) What do you mean by "half"?

A: Half belongs to earth. There was blending at a very early stage.

Q: (L) Okay. So the next question is: The putative Nostratic speakers in East Asia include the Asians that I think were the original shamans which I've discussed in Secret History and elsewhere, Altaic speakers in particular. So if this is the case, and if Nostratic as a linguistic group can be correlated with an original population from Kantek, does that mean that both the early shamans of East Asia and the circle-people of Europe (with the pyramid people further south) have their origins on Kantek?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And does the difference in phenotype between the two groups indicate admixture of the East Asian Kantekkians with a more native group that was already on Earth?

A: Yes. And notice the ongoing dispute over the "out of Africa" versus the "out of Asia" groups. It is an improper assumption. Out of Kantek vs out of Earth is a better formulation.

Click to expand...

Good luck in getting your question(s) answered (and make sure to formulate it/them as clearly and concisely as possible)!

Hi,

Re: any particular article from Wim van Binsbergen: Indeed! There is perhaps most notably this piece, which links the far-back words with common stories:

http://www.quest-journal.net/PIP/New_Perspectives_On_Myth_2010/New_Perspectives_on_Myth_Chapter9.pdf

Re: this gnarly ol' language question: Another basic inquiry is:

Is "Sanskrit" representative of an "off-the-planet" language (or close to it)? Or is it more this "Neo-Atlantean" that already is a product of great mixing?

Additional formulations:

a) Is "Proto-Uralic" the closest thing we may model with respect to "Nostratic"/Borean? Or is "Nostratic"/Borean actually representative of whatever PRODUCED "Proto-Uralic" (i.e., "Kantekkian" and local languages mixing)? Should we still look to Sanskrit for this?

b) Is "Proto-Uralic" more or less synonymous with another version of "Atlantean" (as Sanskrit is)? Is there even a way for us to "model" a flow chart that shows us which languages/cultures mixed with which? An example would be: "Kantekkian" (perhaps synonymous with Sanskrit and/or Proto-Uralic/Nostratic/Borean) mixed with local languages as far as Eurasia, Africa and North America, to produce "Atlantean" and its relatives, and even can be recalled/reconstructed today insofar we see its glimmers through Sanskrit and/or a hypothetical "Proto-Uralic"...

FYI, lastly, Wim van Binsbergen also has some interesting notions about the wide spread of dice games and the pre-pre-Socratic "elemental cosmology" of world cultures.

Yet more ways of putting it (just in case something in my reworking through this -- this messy yet possibly ultimately simple "line of descent" and presence across vast distances of the Atlantean "super-culture" -- in particular lights up better than something from back in the thread :)):

May Atlantean represent the language of the ruling/conquering class of Kantekkians, and the presence of the "Saxon" / "Nordic" / "Ayran" tribes represent more the mixing of the ruling Atlantean class with the locals? Would this then mean that the process absorption of Kantekkian population (that also possibly were the Atlantean's slaves? cf. the Pyrramids) resulted in the "Germanic"/ Celtic /Lithuanian/ Albanian /Persian/ Etc Indo-European speakers?

How "original" is Sanskrit compared to other forms of "Atlantean"?

Is "Aryan" / "Nordic" language coextensive with "Indo-European" more in its, say, Germanic or Celtic form, or more in its, say, Lithuanian form ?

If, then, Indo-European exists as a result of "Proto-Uralic"/Borean/(Atlantean? / Sanskrit? / Kantekkian?), do the differences between the various Indo-European languages have as much to do with the presence of, say, what they mixed with -- Basque or Pict, or Berber or Hebrew or other types of "local" languages that are purported to have been in Europe (before even Etruscan existed) -- as, say, with the fact that they had "naturally" evolved from the more traditionally-identified language change (phonetic and semantic drift, environment, storytelling (creating names), commerce, etc.) reasons?

Is it also reasonable to assert then that languages ranging from Arabic/Berber/Hebrew, Tibetan/Chinese, Basque, Georgian, Sumerian, Bantu, Indo-European and Native American languages all represent a range of mixing with this Atlantean? Which may also be called "Proto-Uralic"?

Or if "Proto-Uralic" is itself a more distant relative of the more "original" Sanskrit/Atlantean that more earlier conquered/spread, is it still basically a variant of it?

And maybe the most straight forward question: did Sanskrit eventually settle and survive in and around India, while actually elsewhere? Big thanks. Cheers!

Although I have but rudimentary knowledge of deep linguistics (indo-european and figments of.nostratic is as far as I got), this topic is very interesting to me. However, I wonder about the applied.value of all this theorycrafting. If I might ask - this is a very personal question - how many languages do you speak? I am currently fluent in French, English, Spanish, have a working knowledge of German (probably around a late B1 level, Common European Framework for languages) and am currently studying classical sanskrit, mostly.from Perry's Sanskrit Primer.

In other.words, what is the applied value of.studying deep linguistics, vs studying any of those ancient languages such as Sanskrit, or some of the others you quoted,.such as Karasuk, Bantu, Celtic, Uralic, Athabaskan? I know.from experience that studying sanskrit by itself is a sadhana (spiritual discipline) which induces an epistemological reworking of one's perspective, of the way one maps, interacts with and conceives one's worldview. Can a theoretical based study of roots and interrelations of ur-languages approach the usefulness of actually learning an ur-language itself?

UnitedGnosis, you make great points. Re:

Can a theoretical based study of roots and interrelations of ur-languages approach the usefulness of actually learning an ur-language itself?

To risk stating the obvious, it can be argued that basic monosyllabic combinations of phonemes is the starting point for the "making" of any language. Actually, it has been pointed out that languages like Sanskrit and other forms of Indo-European are actually indeed "created," and that the combination of basic sounds/forms thence under particular morphological rules (and in the case of Sanskrit - but perhaps not as uniquely as we might think - according a particular metaphysics and ideological-experiential framework) make this language what it is. Perhaps, then, this "Atlantean," is present in the natural records kept by the roots and words in languages as far flung as Native American and Bantu. This would be because a) "Atlantis," as Shijing notes, was a far reaching empire and b) there were incidents of mass-exodus after a cataclysm... Both of these would also mean "Atlantean" (perhaps synonymous with Sanskrit) mixed with surrounding "local" languages (which themselves may or may not have been already influenced by - or been a product of previous mixing with - Atlantean)

But to answer your question, "roots" are important, and perhaps "theory" is actually also present in the "beginning" of a language anyway, as a way of structuring the combination and recombination of these roots. Some languages that seem more unique in the world perhaps have a more flexible stance to recreating this combinatorial power of language.

Which of course also brings up things like Kabbalah and whether or not our use of language reflects the "language" like nature of Creation, etc.