Re: Lepanto


Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
Dusan Vukotic wrote:

I did not read much of Ruhlen's work except of a few extracts I found
on Internet. It seems to me that his mass comparison is the right way
for the understanding of the evolution of human speech. I am sure that
there is no chance resemblance among the words in IE languages and I
believe that the phonological and semantic similarities are the most
important "tools" in our attempt to track down the history of word. One
part of such a job is very easy: for instant the Eng. breast, Ger.
Brust and Serb. prsa (breast; Serb. adj. prsat > breasted).

Another example is more difficult: Eng. devoid and Serb. odvojiti
(separate): what about the "void", "avoid" and "evade"; In this case
the Serbian 'odvojiti' is in a close relation with the other Serbian
word 'vodenje' (leading) and the prefixed form 'od-vodenje'
(abduction). Here we see that the Serb 'odvajanje' (separation) was
derived from the earliest form (odvajanje < odvodenje < OD-BEL-GON).
Now if we compare O.Fr. 'esvuider' (to empty out) with the Serbian verb
'izvaditi' (an old common Serbian folk expression 'izvadider!' imp.
take out!) we are seeing the striking resemblance both phonetic and
semantic, because 'izvaditi' means take/pull out or evacuate (void,
vacate).

Let us stop here and see the Serbian verb - izvuci (a synonym of
izvaditi; take out). What is most interesting here? Both of these words
(vuci and vaditi) are the derivatives of the same ancient BEL-GON
basis. We shall see it more clearly if we take a closer look at the
Serbian noun 'iz-vlacenje' (taking out, pulling out; IZ-BLA-CENJE);
i.e. 'vlacenje' (vucenje tugging).

I understand it might be very difficult to follow the above analyses
especially if the reader is not familiar with the some of the Slavic
languages. The point is that the "untying of the Babylonian tongue's
knot" is an enormously complicated task but absolutely feasible.
Following the above method we would be able to solve the problems of
the origin of different words; voda, water, void, vuci (pull), oblak
(cloud), vuk (OCS vlk wolf), vacant, vacuum etc.

Mass comparisons are one approach of paleolinguistics.
In the sciences, we must try every approach, and go all ways.
This, however, implies that many go astray. Are you strong enough
to bear the consequences of a failure? As for the Slavic words you
mention: I am not at all acquainted with the Slavic tongues, but I see
with pleasure that there are clusters of consonants in Serbian, as I
postulate them for my hypothetical Magdalenian.

Regards Franz Gnaedinger

I saw your Magdalenian hypothesis (the part that could be seen on the
Internet) and it is absolutely right. It is equally valid for teh all
IE languages.
Yes, in science (especially in this obfuscated one as the history of
words is) any possible approach should be allowed. Intuition is the
mother of the real knowledge. Let the ideas be generated with
spontaneity and without regard to previously held conceptions of
correctness or "rules"; there is no problem to sift their validity
later.
I visited your page on http://www.seshat.ch/home/lascaux2.htm
Your hypothetical Magdalenian is the absolutely correct seeing of the
IE speech evolution. And no one should be surprised that all your
findings are compatible with Serbian (and other Slavic languages),
because all IE tongues were generated from the SHUR-BEL-GON-UM
(XUR-BEL-GON-UM) wellspring.
Of course, it is my "Shurbelanum" theory, which, I hope, will be
scientifically examined and verified in the future. I come to the
similar idea, quite independently, that had been presented in the
beginning of the last century by the Russian linguist Nikolai
Yakovlevich - Mar; known as Japhetic Theory (monogenetic theory
SAL_BER_ROSH_YON; also named among the "serious" scientific circles as
"nonsensical" one).

DV

.

Relevant Pages