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 in India as well as Europe.
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, would have given origin to tongues as English or Polish.
Languages to come from the same source have similar basic 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 and gets compared for language grouping. Groups can work better than “language families”, as those derive tongues one from another.
If to have Russian, Polish, English, or German for kindred, it would be by marriage. English has four verb ■→Aspects, the Simple, Progressive, Perfect, and Perfect Progressive. By grammatical standards as well, German, Russian, and Polish would have only the Simple or, some people would say, there are no Aspects.
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.
Evolutionary frameworks allow that languages 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 to derive languages one from another.
Oldest does not mean wisest
Except a few ancient Greek philosophers, and that selectively, I am not enthusiastic about ancient content. Quotient has always been more of an individual matter (also with intelligent people meeting up), and ancient living conditions or health standards were not better than today.
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. It began around 1500, and there was much rivalry.
It has been doubted if Sanskrit ever got to be spoken as a natural language, that is, as speech acquired in childhood. Ancient Indian teachers probably made it of ■→Prakrits, to go apart from lower castes also in spoken and written behavior. In simple words, Sanskrit is a sort of ancient ■→Esperanto, only the purpose was to keep the general public unable to read, speak, or write in it.
It would have been in regard to elite dowry and heirloom that Sanskrit introduced “children of men”, ■→nrpraja. To deny a child, a woman shouts “nrpraja”, 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.
The air of superiority takes vapor from criticism on western languages as “inexact”. An ■→influence in Wikipedia betrays, the phrase verb tense is “a very inexact application”, because Sanskrit tells more distinctions than simply tense. It can be organized into four “systems” as well as gerunds and infinitives (are these tenses?), along with creatures (?) as intensives & frequentatives, desideratives & causatives, and benedictives, based on different stem forms “derived from verbal roots”.
Eskimos have plenty of words for snow, but they have snowfall. Let us compare Sanskrit and a flexional language as Polish. Sanskrit “sophisticated complexity” looks simply a flexion. “Our First Sanskrit Word” online turns out to be,
I go, Polish Idę.
The lesson says, “For one, the English version takes two words, but the Sanskrit needs just one. gacchāmi exists as a single word!”
To follow, English would have linguistic redundancy, a bad thing.
The lesson offers “another verb” to compare, gacchāmaḥ. It means We go, in Polish Idziemy. A yet “another verb” would be the dual, The two of us go, in Polish Dwoje z nas idzie. “Actually, these verbs are all complete Sanskrit sentences”, concludes the lesson, having been about conjugation for one verb, to go.
The Sanskrit word list here looks disgraceful. The spelling would not tell between being alive, being able to move about, being of an opinion, or having a reason to do something.
Maybe ancient Indian troops, to obey the elite, were to receive such teachings. Sacetanrpraja also denoted viviparous, in Sanskrit.
The Latin alphabet looks a work of genius. A child may begin to tell between Latin characters at ages 2 or 3. Benjamin Franklin wrote he did not really remember any time in life he could not read, as he learned on his own and began early. It is believable.
It would be enough to present the Common Sense by Thomas Paine or USA Declaration of Independence in Sanskrit, to see the power of persuasion slashed to a negligible percent: many people would not have been able to read them. Therefore, English remains indispensable.
Western cultures have made progress in democracy and living standards also owing to an alphabet that allows reading at a glimpse. This here is not a picture for such ability.
Aristotle remains my preference for ancient reckoning, and I have begun work on my crunch for Greek. This here is ■→my crunch for American English.
To have knowledge about our objects of thought, we study regularities about them. A regularity of natural and specific occurrence is a principle. Simple English Aristotle→
Different enough from authors of the Sanskrit construct, I believe there had to be in Greek common sense good enough to reckon with people who moved about and thought in physical space of temporal mark. It is a cognitively interesting perspective to me.
Language learning naturally does not require weapons.
Evidence and dating
■→Proto-languages are man-made constructs for the sake of theoretical “families”, whereas natural languages do 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.
Decent linguistic work requires evidence. The ■→Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique, yet it covered only ■→Ancient Egyptian ■→glypics and ■→demotics, along with some ■→Ancient Greek. It did not have etymologies.
The best source for comparative linguistic evidence in human history so far, the Rosetta Stone allows translation, but not word derivation. There never was even a stone like the Rosetta, for the “Proto-Indo-European”. More, the Rosetta ■→granodiorite cannot be ■→carbon-dated. Researchers have followed the dates as inscribed in the stone.
Not only oldest Sanskrit pieces are stone too. There is no philological method to affirm on originality beyond evidence. Writings were copied or forged, in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and later, hand style, pen and other craft.
The Chinese ■→ Hidden Character Stone most probably got made in the 20th century. Scientists have been able to tell the age of the rock, but not the time of the markings. It remains unlikely for the Chinese Communist Party to have come from the 270 million years ago, Permian period.
Sanskrit might have been influenced
■→Marco Polo was not even probably the first visitor to the Far East. Let us think there is language A. Some people come around and adopt some grammar for verbs from A. 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.
Of course, I do not mean exactly anything as a Polish Gacie masz? Idziemy…
Esperanto (■→Google Translate): Havas pantalonon? Ni iru.
The world may never have seen her original handwriting, if her skill was taken for supernatural. Feel welcome to Poems by Emily Dickinson prepared for print by Teresa Pelka: thematic stanzas, notes on the Greek and Latin inspiration, the correlative with Webster 1828, and the Aristotelian motif, Things perpetual — these are not in time, but in eternity.
Knowledge gains with good translation
■→Public Domain Translation
© & CC FROM AMERICAN ENGLISH TO POLISH
Świat może i nigdy nie widział jej oryginalnego pisma, jeśli jej umiejętność została wzięta za nadnaturalną. Zapraszam do Wierszy Emilii Dickinson w przekładzie Teresy Pelka: zwrotka tematyczna, notki o inspiracji greką i łaciną, korelacie z Websterem 1828 oraz wątku arystotelesowskim, Rzecz perpetualna — ta nie zasadza się na czasie, ale na wieczności.
268 stron, $21.91