William Jones wrote a book, ■→The Sanscrit Language, to tell that ■→Greek and ■→Latin had common roots with ■→Sanskrit, and there must have been a Proto-Indo-European language from which to derive human speech.
Mr. Jones learned Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and basic Chinese, says ■→Wikipedia to sum up that he knew 13 languages thoroughly, and another 28 reasonably well; in total, some 41 languages.
His Proto-Indo-European, PIE as a cookie in short, was to have given origin to European tongues as English or Polish.
Coming from the same source, the languages would have a PIE root vocabulary. Reasonably good knowledge of a language has words as woman, man, child, and house. Let us compare these words in English, Latin, Greek, Russian, Polish, German, French, and Sanskrit.
I do not know Sanskrit. I can only compare resources. The morpheme ■→–man, quoted by supporters of the PIE, yet refers to thinking and not to gender, whereas it is common lore that masculinity is not strictly synonymous with pensiveness.
Vir or andros, child or riebienok, woman or kobieta ― the words do not resemble one another, and they are the basic vocabulary that hardly ever changes. This is the vocabulary to compare for language grouping. Groups can work better than “families”, as “language families” derive tongues one from another.
Polish and Russian could make a group. We may compare the words muzshtschina and mężczyzna. There is not much point deriving Polish from Russian or Russian from Polish, however. We can compare ■→riebienok and ■→dziecko, or ■→zshenshtschina and ■→kobieta.
The Proto-Indo-European theory yet would insist to derive, and even create theoretical word shapes, as if there might have been some ancient wizard tongue.
Paeans continue to get written about Sanskrit, on how sophisticated and exact it was. The air must be that praising Sanskrit is what smart people do. In truth, there has been doubt if Sanskrit ever got to be spoken as a natural language, that is, acquired in childhood. It looks as ancient Indian teachers made it of ■→Prakrits to go apart from lower castes also in language.
It would have been with regard to elite heirloom and property that Sanskrit introduced “children of men”, ■→nrpraja. To deny a child, a woman shouts “napraja”, in ■→Manu Smriti. We could not say, let us look for a common root with the PIE, because it must have been a beautiful culture.
As ideas to read and write, Greek or Latin alphabets look works of genius in comparison with the ancient East. Western cultures have made better progression in living standards, and a momentous proportion of it was ability to read at a glimpse.
The Spoken Sanskrit word list here is disgraceful in similarity for Sanskrit spelling, and in lack of discernment for word sense: ability to move about (animate) does not mean unanimously the rationale, unless the matter would have been about lower caste ancient Indian troops. Sacetanapraja was also to denote viviparous, in Sanskrit. Western cultures have made the better way owing to democratic ideas of equality as well.
|सचेतस्||adj.||sacetas||having the same mind|
Oldest does not mean wisest
■→Proto-languages are constructs purposed at a theoretical “family”, whereas natural language does not provide any rationale for probabilistic forms of speech. Machine or otherwise built, a code is not a natural language, and word shapes are not forgotten cousins.
Taking the Russian and Polish words for children, to have a “precedent” for both dziecko and riebienok, we would have to make up a “proto-word”. Even if we created a shape as *dieriebko, the form would not evidence that such a word ever existed, and honestly, it is unlikely.
I do not share in the enthusiasm or fascination with speculative content. Quotient always has been a matter by a human individual (also when intelligent people meet up), and neither people nor languages were wiser in ancient times.
Evolutionary frameworks are more plausible: languages would have emerged on Earth in result of human cognitive progress. People shared knowledge, and similarities as domus or dom, as well as house or Haus evidence urban progress and contacts; they are not used in language grouping.
Sanskrit might have been influenced
Languages do not develop in isolation, and Marco Polo was not probably the first visitor to the Far East. Let us think there is language A. Some people come around and adopt grammar for verbs from A, even in a considerable extent. They do not refer to language A for everything, however. They already have a language, B.
The people who talk B make progress; they begin to come up with new words, and language A begins to adopt from language B: if we find a phrase or word in Sanskrit today, it does not mean the wording has been there since the beginning of time.
If to have Russian, Polish, English, or German for kindred, it would be by marriage. English has four verb Aspects. ■→German vernacular regiolects purportedly do have forms that correspond with the Progressive, but they are condemned by standard. Russian or Polish would have only the Simple, if to insist on Aspect recognition. Cognitive variables by other Aspects in English would be provided for with speech parts other than the verb, in these languages.
English: I’m reading.
Polish: Teraz czytam.
Everyday and natural language lets the context work:
English: What are you doing? ~ Reading.
Whoever to ask, who knows Polish, if czytam here means the Simple Aspect and it is to say the person usually or always reads, he or she will naturally deny. The matter will be yet the same, if to ask whether the sense would be rarely or hardly ever. The cognitive reality is in Polish the same as in a person to say in English, I’m reading. The difference is in language forms.
Evidence and dating
Decent linguistic work requires evidence. The ■→Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique; still, it covered only the ■→Ancient Egyptian ― the ■→glyphs and the ■→demotic ― along with ■→Ancient Greek. It did not have etymologies.
In short, the best source for comparative linguistic evidence in human history so far, the Rosetta Stone allowed translation, but not word derivation. There never was even a stone like the Rosetta, for “Indo-European” languages.
Rosetta ■→granodiorite material would not allow carbon dating. Researchers have relied on dates inscribed in the stone. Where possible, linguistic evidence should be ■→carbon-dated. There is no philological method to affirm on originality beyond evidence. Writings were copied in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and later, hand style and pen craft.
There is no C14 or stone evidence for the Proto-Indo-European. A few researchers have claimed evidence, but their data are questioned for poor quality (■→Wikipedia, PIE history of research). Supporters of the “Proto-Indo-European family” have yet gone into making the ■→Proto-Indo-European religion. There is no PIE root for planet Earth and life.
It seems there was a pie rather than the the PIE, in the times of Mr. Jones, and that pie was the Company rule in India. The British colonial rule in India began around 1500, and there was much rivalry.
Space 1999 would accurately show Proto-Sanskrit reading…