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 reportedly learned Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and basic Chinese, says ■Wikipedia to sum up, 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 that come from the same source have similarity in their basic vocabularies. Reasonably good language knowledge has words as woman, man, child, and house. Let us compare these in English, Latin, Greek, Russian, Polish, German, French, and Sanskrit.
Man
Latin: ■vir; Greek: ■andros; Russian: ■muzshtschina; Polish: ■mężczyzna; German: ■Mann; French: ■homme; Sanskrit: ■naro.
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.
Woman
Latin: ■femina; Greek: ■gyne; Russian: ■zshenshtschina; Polish: ■kobieta; German: ■Weib; French: ■femme; Sanskrit: ■nari.
Child
Latin: ■putillus; Greek: ■pais; Russian: ■riebienok; Polish: ■dziecko; German: ■Kind; French: ■enfant; Sanskrit: ■sutah.
House
Latin: ■domus; Greek: ■do; Russian: ■dom; Polish: ■dom; German: ■Haus; French: ■maison; Sanskrit: ■vasati.
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 why it gets compared for language grouping. Groups can work better than “language families”, because “families” derive tongues one from another.
Peoples lived relatively separate in those earliest of times, and there were not many internationally itinerant teachers. Languages progressed on their own.
If to have Russian, Polish, English, or German for kindred, it would have been by white marriage. English has four verb ■Aspects, the Simple, Progressive, Perfect, and Perfect Progressive. Some grammar theories say, German, Russian, and Polish have only the Simple. Other theories tell, there are no Aspects.
The languages have all the means necessary to express the information the Aspect brings, only not with verbs. If you imagined a dimension of light where colors take shapes, the pool of light and color would be for all the languages the same. Only the particular shapes would differ.
The problem with deriving all from one is, they would be light and colors, and not one original language.
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. Evidently, the males came in contact and to terms, long ago.
Evolutionary frameworks allow that languages emerged on Earth in result of human cognitive progress. People shared knowledge, and similarities as domus and dom, or house and Haus evidence urban progress and communication.
Evolution shows in notionality (■sense 4). Compare book bleed. In English, blood is originally a bodily matter that should not go outside a certain boundary. In Polish krew is primarily a flowing liquid (■sense 6), as in bodily circulation.
From this brief description it is obvious already that the notions do not come from one source, whereas both Polish and English would belong under the label “European”, with regard to the PIE.
Supporters of the “Proto-Indo-European family” would have gone into making the ■Proto-Indo-European religion. There is no PIE root for planet Earth and life.
Earth
Latin: ■terra or ■tellus; Greek: ■Gaia or ■Aia; Russian: ■Ziemlia; Polish: ■Ziemia; German: ■Erde; French: ■Terre; Sanskrit: ■vasudha.
Life
Latin: ■vita; Greek: ■bios; Russian: ■zshizn; Polish: ■życie; German: ■Leben; French: ■vie; Sanskrit: ■asavah.
The Proto-Indo-European etymology for life does not look serious. It is *leyp-, to stick or glue, just as in the Polish lep, where “lep na muchy” would be a flytrap.
Many PIE etymologies are not really speech, because there are no actual articulatory patterns for them. ■Bread that “comes” from boiling or brewing would “sound” as *bʰerw- or *bʰrewh₁-. To ■bake it, you *bʰeh₃g-bʰrewh₁.
As all natural languages are learned, we might think about saying bHeHg bHrewH, or reckon if this would be the time to clean mirrors and polish window panes.
Why the PIE?
All ■proto-languages are man-made constructs, whereas natural languages do not provide any rationale for probabilistic speech patterns. Speech or writing can be about something probable, but then you may just use modal verbs.
Decent linguistic work requires evidence. The ■Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique, yet it covered only ■Ancient Egyptian ■glyphics and ■demotics, along with some ■Ancient Greek. It did not have etymologies. The best source for comparative linguistics 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.
The matter with stone is the same everywhere. The Chinese ■Hidden Character Stone likely got made in the 20th century.
By the looks of the matter, there was a pie rather than the PIE really, in the times of Mr. Jones. ■The Company rule in India meant much rivalry.
False superiority
Sanskrit was purposely created for talk about Hindu sciences and religion.
The ■sáṃ kṛta connotes “well prepared, pure and perfect”, says Wikipedia. The ■pra kṛta is for language “original, natural, normal”, says a quote from ■Monier Monier Williams.
The theory holds, Sanskrit was made of Prakrits, everyday local vernaculars. A language you could only have for minds and spirituality is unlikely anywhere on Earth. Latin was mundane throughout its life as the Medieval lingua franca. The “Certaldese” came in part with ■Bocaccio’s Latin.
It was Sanskrit to make religion an instrument for India elites.
12.9. In consequence of (many) sinful acts committed with his body, a man becomes (in the next birth) something inanimate, in consequence (of sins) committed by speech, a bird, or a beast, and in consequence of mental (sins he is re-born in) a low caste. — ■ManuSmriti, PDF page 262.
Another record for the code above presents the use for the Sanskrit term “children of men”, napraja. To deny her child, a woman shouts, “Napraja — Is not her offspring at all”. — ■ManuSmriti II, PDF page 410.
■prajA is observably a versatile lexical item.
To see if a culture is high-end, you look to the standard of living. India remains renowned for poverty, yet religion only seeks to fit in. You are poor because you were bad in another life; you only do not remember it. Seek comfort is non-existence or reincarnate, to forget this life. The spiritual people obviously did know that male parthenogenesis could not work.
The caste ideas would have been only useless to the people in America when they were resolving to have the USA; and well, to show the Common Sense or Declaration of Independence in Sanskrit, you’d be slashing the power of persuasion.
What if there was some currency in Eternity?
ADVERTISEMENT
About money he said,
It is way better than barter. We may expect there would be some currency in the Great After; a constitutional parity might be a close idea.
It would not be sound to say, let us look for a common root with the PIE, because it must have been a beautiful culture. Was maybe Sanskrit so exceptionally sophisticated?
An ■influence in Wikipedia betrays, if you say verb tense, it is “a very inexact application”. Sanskrit tells more distinctions. It can be organized into “systems” as well as gerunds and infinitives, along with creatures (?) as intensives & frequentatives, desideratives & causatives, and benedictives.
Eskimos have plenty of words for snow, but they have snowfall. Let us compare Sanskrit and a flexional language as Polish. “Our First Sanskrit Word” online may be,
gacchāmi
English I go, Polish Idę, one word, something very everyday to me; usual.
The lesson says, “For one, the English version takes two words, but the Sanskrit needs just one. gacchāmi exists as a single word!”
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 really been about conjugation for one verb, to go.
Sanskrit is no more sophisticated than English or Polish, and let us remember about our pool of light and colors. A Sanskrit word list may look ungraceful with regard to language semantic fields and distinctive features.
The spelling would not tell between being alive, being able to move about, being of an opinion, or having a reason to do something.
In comparison, 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, and I believe him.
Sanskrit was possibly influenced
■Marco Polo was not probably the first visitor to the Far East. The Garuda of the Hindu pantheon looks borrowed from a Greek participle.
Knossos Garuda
The Grecian charioteer of the Sun might leap and jump, but it would not soar. This is a good thing.
More, if you allow distant rumor, the “manu smriti” of the Sanskrit codes above might suggest death as of Julius Caesar, “by the hand” — from the Latin ■manus, hand, where ■smrt, death, could be Old Czech, Slovene, Bosnian, Croat, Serbian, or any language along the ■Silk Road as faring through the Caspian Sea, between China and Akroteri Greece.
Cesar would have been “a god fallen by a human hand”. He was Jupiter Julius before death, and was titled Divine Julius two years after assassination. Naive people maybe believed he was anything like the Creator.
Those along the Silk Road sure had their words for dying, and PIE ■*dʰówtus looks improbable for the source. Comparisons of broken languages might yet satisfy curiosity or musing rather than serious linguistic study. Well, you do it kind of Salvatore of Montferrat from ■The Name of the Rose, who spoke in broken languages. Things could be different only if written linguistic evidence of relevant carbon dating would emerge, a matter unlikely after all the ages.
Origin of languages cannot decide spirituality, as everyone has own faculty in mind, and this is the ability relevant to his or her soul, said philosopher Honeybee. Belief in reincarnation would not hold with him. Against the Design, it denied identity and failed with the human knowledge of the every day.
ADVERTISEMENT
It was with natural ease and swiftness that he gave written incarnations, 厌女症 for misogyny, a lady 女士, and a feast or banquet 宴会, and re-embodied the wén, 文. It is natural to give a woman a seat, he smiled.
Ancient Egyptians have been noticed all over the world. History needs revision also if Greek writing becomes confirmed at 4 thousand years before this era.
