Slavic origin of European languages - nice, short film

[Kasia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29j7efQEr3s

based on infos from http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/

 

[Deleted member 4320]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29j7efQEr3s

based on infos from http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/

I noticed that you like those patriotic and folk climates :) What do you think about the idea of the cosmopolitanism? Many Poles were cosmopolitan in the past and are nowadays.

 

[Michal]

Hi,
There is even deeper and more revolutionary :) hypothesis by Jacques R. Pauwels: Sahara hypothesis. ... actually I do not know if it is his.
Link to the book description:
_http://www.battlebridge.com/other.html

Taken from the linked site:
Beneath the Dust of Time is an unconventional combination of history and the etymology of names. It was inspired and guided by two new paradigms. The first is the "Sahara hypothesis" which postulates a historical migration from North Africa to Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia thousands of years ago, when the end of the last Ice Age led to the emergence of the Sahara Desert in North Africa and to a retreat of the glaciers in Europe. The second is a radically new view of the history of the languages conventionally classified as Indo-European and Semitic.

Almost all studies of ancient history ignore the origins of the names of the peoples and places that determined its course. This book is different. It aims to explain the origin and meaning of the names of peoples (e.g. Greeks, Germans), countries (e.g. Spain), continents (Europe, Africa), seas (Baltic), mountains (Alps, Pyrenees), rivers (Nile, Rhine, Danube), and cities (Rome, Babylon). These names are generally extremely old, and many can be traced back to migrants who had fled from their desertifying homeland in North Africa and who spoke non-Indo-European languages such as Etruscan.

"Pauwels has written a book for the general public, but historians, geographers, and linguists will also benefit from reading it (...). [He] is a scholar who knows how to tell an intriguing story. Too few of his colleagues possess that talent."
Wim de Neuter, Uitpers Webzine.

 

[Michal]

Hi, I watched it and watched one more _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDVaVlw9m4 which shows Sanskrit vs. Croatian/Serbian.
For sure I am not able to say anything myself about origins of any language but at least all similarities presented are indeed very interesting. If I had more time I wish to read something about comparison of words between languages. Is there something like percentage of similarity or degree of similarity in words? Interesting it is... but I have work to do :). Greetings.

 

[axj]

I'm not sure if you can call something that goes that far back Slavic, since Slavic people emerged much more recently. It's also likely that their predecessors were influenced by even older languages and traditions, so that the origins of languages may be much harder to pin-point.

 

[Arwenn]

Yeah, I find this topic interesting too. Here are a few threads with excerpts from sessions with the Cs:

Questions about Languages
Borean
Kantek

Shijing has posted and researched this quite a bit, here is a post from the Borean thread:

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

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

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.

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.

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.

From what I've read Slavic could have its roots in Nostratic as well. Here is an article about it:

Linguists Debating Deepest Roots of Language
By GEORGE JOHNSON
Published: June 27, 1995

IN their archeological digs through the strata of human language, linguists have long been fascinated by the seeming similarities between the English words "fist," "finger" and "five." The motif is repeated by the Dutch, who say "vuist," "vinger" and "vijf," and the Germans, who say "faust," "finger" and "funf." Traces of the pattern can even be found as far away as the Slavic languages like Russian. Conceivably, sometime in the distant past, before these languages split from the mother tongue, there was a close connection among the words for a hand and its fingers and the number five. But did the mathematical abstraction come from the word for fist, or, as some linguists have proposed, was it the other way around? The answer could provide a window into the development of the ancient mind.

In a paper now being prepared for publication in a book next year, Dr. Alexis Manaster Ramer, a linguist at Wayne State University in Detroit, argues that the mystery may now be solved: fist came before five. But more important than his conclusion is the method by which it was derived.

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.
Most language experts remain highly skeptical of the Nostratic hypothesis, which enjoyed so much publicity in the late 1980's and early 1990's that it is sometimes described as the linguists' version of cold fusion. "It would be terrific if it's true, but we don't want to jump to conclusions," said Dr. Brian Joseph, a linguist at Ohio State University in Columbus. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Joe Salmons of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., are editing the book, "Nostratic: Evidence and Status" (John Benjamins), in which the analysis of the five-fist connection will appear.

And this is a really cool diagram showing the putative origins of languages:

 

[Axxel]

There are two similar documents on affinity between Slavic languages and Sanskrit. Both in English.
First «From Sanskrit to Macedonskrit» 2015 (about Macedonian and Sanskrit) http://www.pollitecon.com/html/ebooks/From-Sanskrit-to-Macedonskrit.pdf
Second - India & Russia Linguistic & Cultural Affinity 1982 http://vedic.su/Vedic/tur/IndiaRussia_Rishi_OCR.pdf
The second document can be considered as a basis for the first, added with an important "local" context.
Point - what there where the author in the first document sometimes places "Macedonian", it would be more correct to understand - "Slavic".
But in principle both documents are interesting. Regarding comparison of Slavic and Sanskrit words .
In the first document the big list of comparisons of the words Macedonian - Sanskrit, in the second, respectively, Russian – Sanskrit.

 

[Kasia]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29j7efQEr3s

based on infos from http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/

I noticed that you like those patriotic and folk climates :) What do you think about the idea of the cosmopolitanism? Many Poles were cosmopolitan in the past and are nowadays.

Actually I have more Pan-slavic mentality than patriotic. Certainly there were and still are many cosmopolitans among the Poles. I have nothing against this idea. Too strong bonds with its own country can sometimes be devastating when founded on the skewed idea of patriotism.

 

[Kasia]

Hi, I watched it and watched one more _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptDVaVlw9m4 which shows Sanskrit vs. Croatian/Serbian.
For sure I am not able to say anything myself about origins of any language but at least all similarities presented are indeed very interesting. If I had more time I wish to read something about comparison of words between languages. Is there something like percentage of similarity or degree of similarity in words? Interesting it is... but I have work to do :). Greetings.

I have too little knowledge in this matter. But you can contact the guy leading the portal http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/

You can also take a look at the book by Janusz Bieszk "Słowiańscy królowie Lechii" on the Ancient Poland :) Pretty interesting.

http://nieznany.pl/pl/p/Slowianscy-krolowie-Lechii.-Polska-starozytna/8972

 

[Kasia]

I'm not sure if you can call something that goes that far back Slavic, since Slavic people emerged much more recently. It's also likely that their predecessors were influenced by even older languages and traditions, so that the origins of languages may be much harder to pin-point.

You probably citing the wrong concept supported by the Germans occupying Poland in XIX century regarding supposedly mass migration of Slavs from the southern Europe to Poland and neigbouring terrains in the east in the middle of the VI century who allegedly took the lands of so called German and Celtic tribes…

In fact Aryans-Slavs (haplogroup R1a1 Y-DNA) have been living in situ on their own lands for about 10 700 years which has been confirmed archeologically and by genetic testings conducted in Poland and abroad in 2010-2013.

More here (alas in Polish): http://nieznany.pl/pl/p/Slowianscy-krolowie-Lechii.-Polska-starozytna/8972

 

[axj]

I'm not sure if you can call something that goes that far back Slavic, since Slavic people emerged much more recently. It's also likely that their predecessors were influenced by even older languages and traditions, so that the origins of languages may be much harder to pin-point.

You probably citing the wrong concept supported by the Germans occupying Poland in XIX century regarding supposedly mass migration of Slavs from the southern Europe to Poland and neigbouring terrains in the east in the middle of the VI century who allegedly took the lands of so called German and Celtic tribes…

In fact Aryans-Slavs (haplogroup R1a1 Y-DNA) have been living in situ on their own lands for about 10 700 years which has been confirmed archeologically and by genetic testings conducted in Poland and abroad in 2010-2013.

More here (alas in Polish): http://nieznany.pl/pl/p/Slowianscy-krolowie-Lechii.-Polska-starozytna/8972

No, I am saying that the Slavic languages didn't exist until about 500 AD:

History of Proto-Slavic

The history of Proto-Slavic is the linguistic history of the Proto-Slavic language, the hypothetical ancestor of the modern-day Slavic languages, as it developed from the ancestral Proto-Balto-Slavic language (c. 1500 BC), which is the parent language of the Balto-Slavic languages (both the Slavic and Baltic languages, e.g. Latvian and Lithuanian).

The first 2,000 years or so consist of the pre-Slavic era, a long period during which none of the later dialectal differences between Slavic languages had yet happened. The last stage in which the language remained without internal differences that later characterize different Slavic languages can be dated around 500 AD and is sometimes termed Proto-Slavic proper or Early Proto-Slavic.

Following this is the Common Slavic period (c. 500–1000 AD), during which the first dialectal differences appeared but the entire Slavic-speaking area continued to function as a single language, with sound changes tending to spread throughout the entire area.

Proto-Slavic is descended from Proto-Balto-Slavic (the ancestor of the Balto-Slavic languages). This language in turn is descended from Proto-Indo-European, the parent language of the vast majority of European languages (including English, German, Spanish, French, etc.). Proto-Slavic gradually evolved into the various Slavic languages during the latter half of the first millennium AD, concurrent with the explosive growth of the Slavic-speaking area.

Proto-Balto-Slavic

The most favoured model, the Kurgan hypothesis, currently places the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-European people in the Pontic steppe, represented archaeologically by the 5th millennium BCE Sredny Stog culture.[1] From here, various daughter dialects dispersed radially in several waves between c. 4400 BCE and 3000 BCE.[1] The phonological changes which set Balto-Slavic apart from other Indo-European languages probably lasted from c. 3000 to 1000 BCE, a period known as common Proto-Balto-Slavic.[2]

Kortlandt (1990) links the earliest stages of Balto-Slavic development with the Middle Dnieper culture which connects the Corded Ware and Yamna cultures. Kurganists connect the latter two cultures with the so-called "Northwest (IE) group"[3] and the Iranian-speaking steppe nomads, respectively. This fits with the linguistic evidence in that Balto-Slavic appears to have had close contacts with Indo-Iranian and Proto-Germanic.

An association between Balto-Slavic and Germanic has been proposed on the basis of lexical and morphological similarities that are unique to these languages.[3] Apart from a proposed genetic relationship (PIE forming a Germano-Balto-Slavic sub-branch),[4] the similarities are likely due to continuous contacts, whereby common loan words spread through the communities in the forest zones at an early time of their linguistic development

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic

 

[Kasia]

I'm not sure if you can call something that goes that far back Slavic, since Slavic people emerged much more recently. It's also likely that their predecessors were influenced by even older languages and traditions, so that the origins of languages may be much harder to pin-point.

You probably citing the wrong concept supported by the Germans occupying Poland in XIX century regarding supposedly mass migration of Slavs from the southern Europe to Poland and neigbouring terrains in the east in the middle of the VI century who allegedly took the lands of so called German and Celtic tribes…

In fact Aryans-Slavs (haplogroup R1a1 Y-DNA) have been living in situ on their own lands for about 10 700 years which has been confirmed archeologically and by genetic testings conducted in Poland and abroad in 2010-2013.

More here (alas in Polish): http://nieznany.pl/pl/p/Slowianscy-krolowie-Lechii.-Polska-starozytna/8972

No, I am saying that the Slavic languages didn't exist until about 500 AD:

Well, in fact the Slavic languages group is one of the oldest. There are a lot of similarities between Sanskrit and the Proto-Slavic languages. Some even say that de facto in Sanskrit there are many borrowings from the Proto-Slavic languages, but it’s probably the other way round.

http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/2014/11/18/samskrta-sloveniska/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQPKXaoy4Lw

Anyway the most archaic language group among the Indo-European languages is in fact Slavic languages group. And the most archaic Slavic language is Polish language (phonics and grammar) or Slovenian (grammar).

And what’s more the Slavic language group is probably the source of Latin, Greek and German/English languages….

http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/2015/06/10/jezykoznawco-szach-mat/
http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/2015/10/04/jezykoznawco-szach-mat-czesc-druga/
http://wspanialarzeczpospolita.pl/2015/10/10/jezykoznawco-szach-mat-czesc-trzecia/


--
EDIT: quote box

 

[Joe]

Actually I have more Pan-slavic mentality than patriotic. Certainly there were and still are many cosmopolitans among the Poles. I have nothing against this idea. Too strong bonds with its own country can sometimes be devastating when founded on the skewed idea of patriotism.

Is there a significant difference, at a psychological level, between a patriotic mentality and an ethnic or racial grouping mentality? Both would appear to be an attachment to a fairly abstract and subjective construct that serves to reinforce a person's sense of identity and identification with a specific grouping of human beings (whether real or mythologized). History shows that such attachments have been used repeatedly in history, particularly in times of real or manufactured crisis, to divide ordinary human beings. Perhaps people who identify strongly in this way are missing a broader spiritual understanding of human life on earth.

If you have the opportunity, you might like to get a genetic test to give you a definitive analysis of your true 'origins'. You might be surprised, or even shocked.

 

[Kasia]

Actually I have more Pan-slavic mentality than patriotic. Certainly there were and still are many cosmopolitans among the Poles. I have nothing against this idea. Too strong bonds with its own country can sometimes be devastating when founded on the skewed idea of patriotism.

Is there a significant difference, at a psychological level, between a patriotic mentality and an ethnic or racial grouping mentality? Both would appear to be an attachment to a fairly abstract and subjective construct that serves to reinforce a person's sense of identity and identification with a specific grouping of human beings (whether real or mythologized). History shows that such attachments have been used repeatedly in history, particularly in times of real or manufactured crisis, to divide ordinary human beings. Perhaps people who identify strongly in this way are missing a broader spiritual understanding of human life on earth.

If you have the opportunity, you might like to get a genetic test to give you a definitive analysis of your true 'origins'. You might be surprised, or even shocked.

Well, I actually don’t need to get a genetic test to check my true „origins” cause I’m not interested in it. I suppose it’s a real complex mixture considering the way I look, blood type etc… First of all I’m a human being. However in this life for some reason I was born in Poland where I live at the moment so it’s kind of normal in my opinion to try to get to know this place, its history and its culture a bit closer. Is something wrong about it? I don’t think so.

I’ve been asked by lux who also lives in Poland and probably is also the Pole if I like “patriotic climate”. I don’t. Taking into account ONLY the fact of being born in this life for some reason in this particular part of the world - the same as you were born in Ireland and you don't change it – plus the fact of living here at the moment, I have rather as I’ve already written more Pan-Slavic mentality than strictly patriotic which of course doesn’t mean that I find other nations worse, less interesting or less important. It has nothing to do with an ethnic or racial grouping mentality. What an idea! Too strong bonds or a skewed person’s identity with the country of origin, with the region, with race, with ethnicity etc. can be devastating – it’s obvious, but it doesn't mean that you can just discard the cultural influences and pretend to be somebody else...In this live I have a bit Slavic nature as you have some Irish charm. Which is a beautiful aspect of this world I guess. The most important thing is to use it correctly and not to forget that we are first of all human beings.

At the psychological and broader at the spiritual level I’m first of all human being. And from the astrological point of you I’m a pure cosmopolitan by the way...

 

[Joe]

Actually I have more Pan-slavic mentality than patriotic. Certainly there were and still are many cosmopolitans among the Poles. I have nothing against this idea. Too strong bonds with its own country can sometimes be devastating when founded on the skewed idea of patriotism.

Is there a significant difference, at a psychological level, between a patriotic mentality and an ethnic or racial grouping mentality? Both would appear to be an attachment to a fairly abstract and subjective construct that serves to reinforce a person's sense of identity and identification with a specific grouping of human beings (whether real or mythologized). History shows that such attachments have been used repeatedly in history, particularly in times of real or manufactured crisis, to divide ordinary human beings. Perhaps people who identify strongly in this way are missing a broader spiritual understanding of human life on earth.

If you have the opportunity, you might like to get a genetic test to give you a definitive analysis of your true 'origins'. You might be surprised, or even shocked.

Well, I actually don’t need to get a genetic test to check my true „origins” cause I’m not interested in it. I suppose it’s a real complex mixture considering the way I look, blood type etc… First of all I’m a human being. However in this life for some reason I was born in Poland where I live at the moment so it’s kind of normal in my opinion to try to get to know this place, its history and its culture a bit closer. Is something wrong about it? I don’t think so.

I’ve been asked by lux who also lives in Poland and probably is also the Pole if I like “patriotic climate”. I don’t. Taking into account ONLY the fact of being born in this life for some reason in this particular part of the world - the same as you were born in Ireland and you don't change it – plus the fact of living here at the moment, I have rather as I’ve already written more Pan-Slavic mentality than strictly patriotic which of course doesn’t mean that I find other nations worse, less interesting or less important. It has nothing to do with an ethnic or racial grouping mentality. What an idea! Too strong bonds or a skewed person’s identity with the country of origin, with the region, with race, with ethnicity etc. can be devastating – it’s obvious, but it doesn't mean that you can just discard the cultural influences and pretend to be somebody else...In this live I have a bit Slavic nature as you have some Irish charm. Which is a beautiful aspect of this world I guess. The most important thing is to use it correctly and not to forget that we are first of all human beings.

At the psychological and broader at the spiritual level I’m first of all human being. And from the astrological point of you I’m a pure cosmopolitan by the way...

Okidoki, thanks for clarifying. :D