Deep connection between Sanskrit and Russian languages?

Well, notice more subtleties in the article you shared.

Identifying cognates has helped linguists categorise modern languages into families that evolved from the same protolanguage. English, Swedish and Farsi are all part of the Indo-European language family that is thought to descend from proto-Indo-European, whereas Finnish and Hungarian are thought to descend from proto-Uralic.

But could most of the protolanguages on the Eurasian continent and even across the Bering Strait into Alaska be part of a superfamily that descended from a more ancient mother tongue – proto-Eurasian (see map)?

This idea has been knocking around for almost a century, says Mark Pagel at the University of Reading in the UK. “It’s kind of an obvious idea – Eurasia is this contiguous landmass, and similar proposals have been made about the protolanguages of Australia and North America.”

However, the existence of superfamilies has, until now, been extremely hard to prove. Changes in languages pile up over time, so the further back you go, the fewer cognates there are to compare. What’s more, similarities can arise purely by chance. Many researchers do not believe languages can be traced back further than about 8000 years.

“That’s the argument that there’s a limit on the time for which we can go back in historical linguistics,” says Quentin Atkinson from the University of Auckland in New Zealand.

But now Pagel, Atkinson and colleagues have smashed through that limit, travelling further back in time than linguists have ever done before. They say that not only do their results suggest that the Eurasian superfamily exists, but that they have also been able to mathematically deduce its evolution.

The key to the breakthrough was the team’s discovery in 2007 that the form of frequently used words evolves at a much slower pace than less common words. These conserved words, the team reasoned, were more likely to retain traces of their ancestry than words that evolved rapidly.

They then used this idea to predict which words in a database of Eurasian protolanguages were cognates, removing words that looked and sounded similar but were not high-frequency words. This eliminated fluke similarities.

The team then ran a list of these cognates – such as those meaning “I”, “mother”, “hand” and “fire” – through a statistical model that deduced the relationship between the words based on how quickly they changed with time. This gave a tree of the Eurasian superfamily whose common ancestor can be traced back 15,000 years.

“We found it remarkable that we got this 15,000-year result because it coincides beautifully with the retreat of the ice sheets after the last glacial maximum,” says Pagel. “One realistic scenario is that the tree represents the expansion of human populations as the climate improved and more people could be supported.”

Luisa Miceli, a historical linguist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, agrees that the result proves that the languages are closely connected, but she suggests they might be neighbours rather than siblings – with the words borrowed from one another rather than being true cognates.

However, she says the interesting questions about what factors were associated with the spread of these languages do not depend on whether they were part of a true superfamily or simply sets of languages that were in contact.
Click to expand...

I think it would depend on how many equivalences/cognates you have, whether the theory is worth pursuing or not. Some relationships seem tenuous to me. Read Babel, by Abraham Abhesera (mentioned earlier in the thread) for more possible explanations of why these equivalences exist. Noy saying that there couldn't be a common ancestor, of course, just that it may be more complex than it is made out to be.
 
Chu said:
Well, notice more subtleties in the article you shared.

I think it would depend on how many equivalences/cognates you have, whether the theory is worth pursuing or not. Some relationships seem tenuous to me. Read Babel, by Abraham Abhesera (mentioned earlier in the thread) for more possible explanations of why these equivalences exist. Noy saying that there couldn't be a common ancestor, of course, just that it may be more complex than it is made out to be.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of linguistic papers hinting to common ancestry of IE and Ugric branch. Not just common words, but adjective endings seem to be shared by IE and Ugric languages. Just have to browse through those papers and find references. There are some scholars that consider Hungarian, early Latin (via Etruscan), Old Greek (via Phoenician and Hittite influences) or even Sanskrit cognates providing lots of examples with common words. Sumerian and Hungarian connection is so stark that sometimes my jaw dropped when I studied it, with words like Ur (Lord), Nap (sun), Sumerian Izten (God) vs Hungarian Isten and the list is a few thousand words long. Hungarian and Sumerian share 51 of 54 grammatical rules and it goes beyond just being cognates, but one descending from the other. Even the oldest Sumerian artifacts carry same Scythian carved script before cuneiform was developed, which boggles the mind. Same script was found on artifacts in Ethiopia, which Russian scientists dated to 14K years ago. Have a look here. Bosnian pyramid catacombs are littered with inscriptions with the same carved script and their age is estimated by archeologists to be at least 10K (nobody knows for sure). A stick found in Transylvania carrying the same script was carbon dated to 7000 years before present and is actually older than Sumerian writing. For me it points to a common language spoken after the end of the last Ice Age across not just Europe, but also in North African and Middle East which used the carved script later used by Scythians, Huns and Magyars, but also by proto-Slavs and even Nordic tribes with in their runes. If you are interested to dig deeper into this, I can look through my research papers and start finding those clues.
 
Sumerian artifact with the Scythian script can be viewed here and there is also a seal with a few Scythian carved characters here and here is another example of the early Sumerian script with Scythian symbols, all from this Youtbe video:

 
Last edited:
Chu said:
That would be great if not too much trouble, but no rush, only if you already have something at hand. I think other members might be interested as well.
Click to expand...

Ok, over the weekend I will look through my research papers concerning the connection of IE and Ugric languages.
 
Before I go farther I searched the forum and found a similar thread to this one and an interesting post about Nostratic language with a reference to connection between IE and Ugric/Uralic languages:

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.

It is widely accepted that English, Dutch, German and Russian are each branches of the vast Indo-European language family, which includes the Germanic, Slavic, Romance, Celtic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian and other languages -- all descendants of more ancient languages like Greek, Latin and Sanskrit. Digging down another level, linguists have reconstructed the even earlier tongue from which all these languages are descended. They call it proto-Indo-European, or PIE for short. But in a move sure to be hotly disputed by mainstream linguists, Dr. Manaster Ramer contends that to find the root of the fist-five connection one must look beyond the Indo-European family and examine two separate language groups: Uralic, which includes Finnish, Estonian and Hungarian, and Altaic, said to include Turkish and Mongolian languages. All three families, he contends, contain echoes of a lost ancient language called Nostratic.

If Dr. Manaster Ramer is right, his discovery will provide ammunition for a small group of linguists who make the controversial claim that Indo-European, Uralic, Altaic and other language families like Afro-Asiatic, which includes Arabic and Hebrew, the Kartvelian languages of the South Caucasus and the Dravidian languages concentrated in southern India, all are descendants of Nostratic, which was spoken more than 12,000 years ago.

cassiopaea.org

Slavic origin of European languages - nice, short film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29j7efQEr3s based on infos from http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/
cassiopaea.org cassiopaea.org
 
Today I read this particular sessions and that really confused me:

Session 11/2/94
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.

and session 3/8/95:

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.

So, here is my problem. We know that Kantekians were transported to Earth some odd 60K years ago. They must have had their native language and so did the local Atlantean population. So, right away we have 2 nostratic languages, one native to Earth, the other native to Kantek. Aryans were originally of Kantekian stock, so must have spoken the language of Kantekians. Mind you, Aryans appear in genetic tree around 26K years ago. There is a huge gap between 60K years ago and 26K years ago, namely 34K years. During this time the original Kantekian language must have evloved, mixed with local dialects of Atlantean and by the time Aryans appeared on the scene (26K years ago or so) that Aryan language was most probably only distantly related to the original Kantekian.

So, we have to start with 2 separate language families: Atlantean and Kantekian/Aryan. Let's now try to assign some languages to those 2 groups. Atlantean Sanskrit family is relatively easy, apart from Sanskrit it includes Iranian and Slavic languages (since they are clearly related till this day). Aryan family includes all Germanic languages (including Celtic). So, now the problem is that according to the current IE language tree both Germanic and Sanskrit-related languages belong to 1 broad branch, when in fact if we take what the C's said literally they originated from different roots and planets. Unless Kantekians and Atlanteans had the same proto-language or at least their respective languages were somehow related. It seems the current IE tree could be wrong.

And what about Uralic and Italic (Romance) languages and Greek? To which family they should belong?

I do not really have a clue how to reconcile this problem. Either the C's info is partial or the current IE tree is wrong.

Any thoughts welcome...
 
Alright, I browsed through some research papers I have, but the best one I found which covers a lot of connections is this one:


Hungarian, Sumerian and Indo-European.
THIRD ADDENDUM TO ‘ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF HUNGARIAN’ (EDH)
BY PROF. DR. ALFRÉD TÓTH

Information about the author:

ALFRÉD TÓTH was born in 1965 in St. Gallen (Switzerland), his native tongue is Hungarian. Received two PhD's (1989 Mathematics,
University of Zurich; 1992 Philosophy, University of Stuttgart) and an MA (General and Comparative Linguistics, Finno-Ugristics and Romanistics, University of Zurich 1991). Mr. Tóth is since 2001 Professor of Mathematics (Algebraic Topology) in Tucson, Arizona. He is member of many mathematical, semiotic, cybernetic and linguistic societies and scientific board member of eight international journals. Lives in Tucson and Szombathely where his family comes from.

Here is the introduction that has a lot of interesting information:
Quote:
1. Introduction
Herewith I present the fourth and last part of my “Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian” (EDH), three parts of which with over 1000 pages have already been published in the last months. In the following, I will deal with the genetical relationship of Sumerian-Hungarian with the Indo-European (IE) languages. As it was already proved in EDH-1 to EDH-3, Sumerian survived not only in Hungarian, but in a few dozens of language families with several languages all around the world. Therefore, it is to assume that Sumerian is still present also in the IE languages. In order not to confuse more than necessary the sound-equations, I will give basically examples of Sanskrit, Old Greek, Latin
and, instead of Gothic, German and English words that are related to Sumerian-Hungarian words. Since Linus Brunner had already proved in 1969 that at least 1030 roots are common in the IE and the Semitic languages, I will also show word equations from Akkadian, Hebrew, Arabic, and other languages in order to show the genetical relationship between Sumerian, IE and Semitic, that includes, of course, the relationship of the Finno-Ugric languages (FU), too.

The Hungarian-Latin examples are taken from the book by Szabédi, who has given extensive sound-laws to prove that, according to him, the FU languages belong to the IE language family. Later attempts to prove the genetical relationship between FU and IE languages include works of Björn Collinder and Jochem Schindler, who did not, however, refer to Szabédi’s thorough study. Here, I will show, that this relationship elaborated by Szabédi is only due to the bigger relationship of FU, IE (and Semitic) with Sumerian. I would like to remember that the Sumerian-Hungarian language relationship has already been proved by Gostony (1975) and in EDH-1, chapter 5. Since Szabédi has no word list, I have given all references to his book. Because Szabédi deals amongst the IE languages only with Latin, I have given from Walde and Hofmann (1938-56), Hofmann (1950) and Kluge (2000) all Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, German and English cognates. The Semitic examples are taken from Brunner (1969). I would like to point out again, that all these reference works are based strictly on sound-laws. And like in the former chapters of EDH, I compare here not two, but always more than two languages with one another, since the intersection set of common cognates of several languages excludes change much more than the intersection set of only two languages.

End of quote

The bold section was exactly the conclusion I came to by studying the linguistic connections between IE and FU family. A lot of language clues and common words point to that direction.

The above paper then goes on to list 1000 words and their comparison.

And here is the conclusion:
QUOTE:
Sumerian-Hungarian and IE have 607 of 1042 = 58.3% of our basic word list (EDH-1, chapter 5) in common. This is the second-highest genetical relationship amongst the dozens of languages scrutinzied in EDH. The order thus presents newly as follows (cf. EDH-1, c
hapter 18):

Hungarian (100%) > Chinese (61%) > IE (58.3%) > Turkish (55%) > Tibeto-Burman (ca. 50%) > Dravidian (36%) > Munda (33%) = Etruscan (ca. 33%) > “FU” languages (31.9%) > Japanese (23%) > Mayan (11%) > Bantu (8%) > Caucasian (7%) > Austronesian (incl. Mon Khmer, Australian and Tasmanian) (3%).

Since the IE relationship with Sumerian-Hungarian is higher then Turkish – the highest of the so-called Altaic language family -, this proves that like the alleged FU language family also the concept of an “Altaic” language family can be abolished. Given the high percentage of relationship between Sumerian-Hungarian and all basic language families of the world, the traditional language families may turn out as Sprachbünde, but not longer as Sprachfamilien. Why Chinese has the strongest relationship with Sumerian-Hungarian, has to be researched, however.

[...]

No need therefore to assume a common proto-language of Sumerian, FU, IE and Semitic for at least the 20th millennium B.C. Sumerian is testified from the 6th millennium B.C. until the last centuries B.C. and is – unlike the artificial proto-languages like proto-IE, proto-FU and proto-Semitic, a real language conserved in ten-thousands of documents written in clay. In EDH, we have only compared languages from dictionaries that work with sound-laws. Starting with the Sumerian clay tablets and using these sound-laws we therefore have a maximally complete documentation of all word-forms in EDH from Sumerian until today.

END QUOTE

This last paragraph is the most curious one. He postulates no need for a common proto-language. This could be somehow related to my previous post about the C's describing 2 languages of Sanskrit (Atlantean) and Germanic as two separate languages thus negating the idea of a single proto-language, or so it seems to me.
 
Obi said:
I do not really have a clue how to reconcile this problem. Either the C's info is partial or the current IE tree is wrong.

Any thoughts welcome...
Click to expand...
It is surely difficult to entangle. Maybe the following excerpts can extend the context:

Laura said:
Q: (L) Where do the Basques come from?

A: Atlantis.

Q: (L) Is their language the Atlantean language?

A: Derivative.

Q: (L) Which came first, the Sumerians or the Egyptians.

A: Sumerians.

Q: (L) Where did the Egyptians come from?

A: Atlantis.

Q: (L) Which came first, the Sumerians or Atlanteans?

A: Atlanteans.

Q: (L) Were the Sumerians a high civilization at the same time the Atlanteans were?

A: After.

Q: (L) Did the Atlanteans go to Sumeria and afterwards go to Egypt?

A: Traveled.

Q: (L) The Atlanteans traveled to Sumeria?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Did they set up outposts in Sumeria?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Then did the main Atlanteans move to Egypt when Atlantis was destroyed?

A: Yes. And elsewhere.

Q: (L) Where else did the Atlanteans go?

A: Americas. Inca. Aztec. Maya. Hopi Tribe. Pima tribe.
Click to expand...

Laura said:
Q: Let's back up here. You said that the Celts came from Kantek. They were transported by the Lizzies... brought here, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: When the Lizzies did this, how many Celts were physically brought here?

A: Hundreds of millions.

Q: How long, in our terms, did it take to bring these Celts to this planet? Or, is this ongoing?

A: Well, in the sense that you measure it, let us say about a week.

Q: Did they transport them in ships, that is some sort of structure. That is, did they load them up, move them into 4th density, reemerge here in 3rd density, or something like that?

A: Close.

Q: And they unloaded them in the area of the Caucasus, is that correct?

A: And regions surrounding.

Q: And, that was what, 79 to 80 thousand years ago?

A: Over 80,000.

Q: As I understand it, Atlantis was already quite a developed civilization at that time, is that correct?

A: Yes, but regions change with waves of immigration, or conquest... witness your own lands.

Q: You also said once that there was a nuclear war in India and that this was what was being discussed in the Vedas when it talks about the 'blue-skinned' people who weren't really blue because they were Celts, and they were flying in aircraft, and they were engaged in this war, etc. Who were the Celts at war with?

A: The Paranthas.

Q: Now, wait a minute! Who are the Paranthas?! Do we have a new player here?

A: Not new.

Q: Do we know them by another name?

A: Choose.

Q: The Atlanteans? Were the Celts of India at war with the Atlanteans in the Atlantic?

A: Atlantis was merely a home base of an advanced civilisation of 3 races of humans occupying different sections of a huge Island empire, which, in itself, underwent 3 incarnations over a 100,000 year period as you would measure it.

Q: The 3 races were the Celts... and who were the second and third?

A: Or Kantekkians.

Q: Are the Kantekkians different from the Celts?

A: Only in the sense of long term racial and genetic blending.

Q: So, Atlantis had the Kantekkians and who else?

A: Race you would call "Native Americans," and a third, no longer existing race, somewhat resembling Australian or Guinean aborigines, only lighter in complexion.

Q: Was this third group destroyed by the other two?

A: One of the 3 cataclysms.

Q: Paranthas. Who were the Paranthas?

A: Nation of race mentioned above.

Q: So, the Paranthas were the antecedents of the Abos of Australia?

A: Yes, and compare to now existing peoples of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, and New Guinea for similarities, bearing in mind genetic mixing and dilution.

Q: Were the Vedas written by the Paranthas or written by the Celts?

A: Descendants of Parantha, as per "Divine guidance."

Q: That explains a LOT. I was just thinking about it the other day. If these people in India are related to the Celts, as philologists would have us believe due to language roots, there is no way I can understand this because they are simply NOTHING like them in any way. … Okay, I think that you said that this nuclear war happened something like 50,000 years ago. We have taken care of a couple of points; we have 3 races on Atlantis, Celts all over the place... did the Celts conquer the Atlanteans?

A: No.

Q: Did they just move in and hang out?

A: They took over the Northern section.

Q: At the same time, there were Celts in the Caucasus, along the Baltic, in Ireland, England and Europe...

A: Ireland, England, etc. was later.

Q: But there were in the Norse lands, as Sweden, Norway and Denmark, they were along the Baltic, and they were in the Caucasus?

A: Some above mentioned areas were ice covered.

Q: When the philologists track the language roots, they arrive at the Kurgan region, north and west of the Caucasus. Is that where the Celts went when Atlantis was destroyed?

A: Close.

Q: Were the Celts the tall blonds known as the 'Sons of Anak,' who ruled over the Sumerians as described by Sitchen?

A: "Celts" are what remains of the original prototype.

Q: Okay. Kantekkians. When did...

A: Gravity differences account for the height difference

Q: When did the Kantekkians, or Celts or whatever arrive on the Canary Islands?

A: 12,000 years ago.

Q: Did they arrive there from Atlantis directly?

A: Close.
Click to expand...


Laura said:
Q: (L) Okay. So, anybody got any questions about that? Okay, so since everyone is supposed to be carrying on with their program, I guess we can look at some of these questions that have been presented by forum members. How about that? 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...

Laura said:
Q: Cayce talks about the division in Atlantis between the "Sons of One" and the "Sons of Belial." Was this a racial division or a philosophical/ religious division?

A: It was the latter two, and before that, the former one.

Q: When it was a racial division, which group was it?

A: The Sons of Belial were the Kantekkians.

Q: Well! That is not good!

A: Subjective... you are not bodies, you are souls.
Click to expand...
 
Altair said:
It is surely difficult to entangle. Maybe the following excerpts can extend the context:
Click to expand...

Thanks, Altair! This is very helpful.

I think the following snippet shads some light:
QUOTE:
Q: (L) Okay. So, anybody got any questions about that? Okay, so since everyone is supposed to be carrying on with their program, I guess we can look at some of these questions that have been presented by forum members. How about that? 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.

END QUOTE

So, obviously, there were 2 unrelated languages, one native to Earth referred to as Atlantean and one native to Kantek. When Kantekkians landed on Earth 80K years ago, they obviously brought their own tongue, but there was a blending that occurred early on. So, after a few hundreds or even a few thousands of years the 2 languages merged and created the composite language that we may actually consider as Nostratic. So, as we approach the Younder Dryas event that ended the last Ice Age some 12,700 years ago Atlanteans on Earth (the 3 groups mentioned in the transcripts) basically spoke 1 global language that we can and should call Nostratic. Then the cataclysms destroyed the global civilization and pockets of people survived in different locations and started to live a much more isolated life due to the lack of global travel infrastructure. Fast forward 12K years and the single Nostratic language from before the end of the Ice Age evolved into a few hundred (or thousands) languages that we enjoy today. That makes sense.

Now, we know that all modern languages do share substantial amount of words as shown by the paper I shared. Both IE, FU and Altaic and even Chinese show common words with Sumerian, so the question would be if Sumerian (and Egyptian which is related) is actually a language directly descending from that Atlantean Nostratic language? And if Hungarian with its stark similar vocabulary and shared grammar is the closest approximation of the Sumerian language among modern languages?

This is the core question I would like to eventually answer.
 
Have a lot at this short video on YT:


It is a great short summary of the connection of Hungarian with Hunnic and Sumerian. Even some amazing similarity to Celtic is shown with some basic words as examples. Plus shows examples of the carved script that was inherited by Hungarians from the Huns and even from the Scythians. The same script was found among the oldest Sumerian tablets before cuneiform was developed. Enjoy!
 
Tuatha de Danaan said:
Obi, Thank you for that article. I have forgotten most of my Irish language but it was exciting to see old words coming back to me and how Magyar is closely related,. So much has been hidden.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Interesting thing is that you use forum alias Sons of the Goddess Danu and when my Hungarian son was born 15 years ago close to the Danube I decided to call him Danu and I do call him by this "nickname" till today. I had very little knowledge about things Aryan (Celtic, Scythian, Hunnic) back then and it just felt right to call him like this. By the way, Hungarian language has a nice explanation of the meaning of the name Celt. They referred to themselves as Kelt or Kelti. Compare to Hungarian Kelet and Keleti meaning East and Eastern, which reflects well Celtic origins.
 
Tuatha de Danaan said:
Obi, Thank you for that article. I have forgotten most of my Irish language but it was exciting to see old words coming back to me and how Magyar is closely related,. So much has been hidden.
Click to expand...

How about this Hungarian folk song performed in the modern style? Do you see any dance or melodic similarities to the Irish music and dancing? To me these are apparent.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom