Re: Armenian, Sumerian, Burushaski, and Turkic languages

On Jun 22, 9:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 22, 9:10 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Your CA BEL is completely arbitrary, and you operate by no
systematic rules, so in your terms your CA BEL is compatible
with anything with which you want it to be compatible:
you're not restrained by logic, rules, or evidence.

My CA BEL is not arbitrary, there are three forms,
namely CA LAB which has an onomatopoetic
component, the inverse form is CA BAL which
explains the still unexplained Latin caballus.
I gave the permutations of BAL, I gave the
explanations of CA and inverse AC, my
Magdalenian works along four laws which
I repeated time and again. What is new here
is that I finally, two years after I proposed the
three compounds for the sun horses of Lascaux,
Michael Janda, in his brillant paper on the
religion of the Indo-Europeans, provides me
with the PIE stem underlying Greek, Latin and
Sanskrit for sun: *saH2ul, which is fairly close
to my CA BEL, considering that hypothetical
CA BEL is a dozen millennia earlier than *saH2ul.
Furthermore, Michael Janda provides the forms
Abelios Afelios Haelios, which are again close
to CA BEL: cabel (c)abel abelios afelios haelios
helios. My compounds CA LAB for the winter
sun horse, CA BEL for the spring sun horse,
and CA BAL for the summer sun horse are
hypothetical, and so is the PIE stem *saH2ul.
My reconstructions rely on a thorough interpretation
of Lascaux and cave art in general, while PIE
reconstructions rely on a thorough knowledge
of recent languages. This makes my work and PIE
hypotheses. And science is about hypotheses.
The eminent theorist of the sciences Karl Popper,
asked not only for testable but also for daring
hypotheses - the more daring the better.

One, however, is based on a large corpus of evidence and a
great deal of interlocking and mutually supporting
hypothesis; the other is based on nothing but the confused
fantasies of a crank who actively resists learning anything
about language or historical linguistics.

My Magdalenian is based on the thorough
study of cave art, a knowledge of early life,
a deep understanding of language per se,
a life-long interest in evolution, on parallels
between biology and language, and on my
reconstructions of mathematical methods of
Ancient Egypt - there is a whole mathematical
cosmos below the level of Greek geometry
and mathematics, including a systematic
method for the calculation of the circle,
more than two thousand years before
Archimedes. Just the fact that there is
a simpler (more easily accessible) method
for the calculation of the circle should make
people listen, but the bias pro Greek geometry
anti Egyptian geometry is still much too strong,
as we can see with your statement that before
the Greeks nobody was able of a theoretical
insight. Pure racism, if you ask me. And then
the fact that animal and plant life was preceeded
by microbia, the fact that the eukariotic cell
originated as a lucky symbiosis of bacteria -
a great insight we owe the eminent evolutionary
biologist Lynn Margulis - confirms me in my
opinion that even our short words, such as
Latin sol, can be derivates of compounds,
in this case CA BEL 'sky warm', hypothetical
name of the spring sun horse of Lascaux,
the lovely "Chinese" horses in the axial gallery
of the maginficient cave in the Guyenne.
Lascaux is a fact, recent languages are a fact,
all in between is hypothesis and theory. You
may speak of my Magdalenian hypothesis
and of the PIE theory, that much I concede,
but if you want to call my Magdalenian
hypothesis mere fantasy you must falsify
it, for example in the case of CA BEL.
Show that it does not go along with *saH2ul,
that CA LAB does not go along with gallop,
and that CA BAL does not go along with Latin
caballus. And show me that my interpretation
of Lascaux is wrong, and that Marie.E.P.
Koenig was wrong when she identified the
horses of Lascaux with the sun, the bulls
with the moon, the opposing ibices with
midwinter, and the rhinoceros with the
goddess of life ...

Michael Janda's derivation of Greek helios, Latin
sol and Vedic surya from a common PIE stem
(notations simplified by me):

*saH2ul *saH2ueliio- Abelios Afelios Haelios

*saH2ul *sH2uol Sol

*saH2ul *sH2liio- Surya

My derivation of the same words from the Magdalenian
compound CA BEL 'sky warm', name of the spring sun
horse, represented as the pair of "Chinese" horses
(lovely and dainty horses resembling Przewalki's horse)
in the axial gallery of the Lascaux cave:

CA BEL cabel (c)abel abelios afelios haelios
haeelios helios

CA BEL cabel ca(b)el ca-el sa-el sol

CA BEL cabel ca(b)el ca-el sa-el su-elia surya

The Greek ending -ios and the Vedic ending -ya
might come from Magdalenian IAS for healing, a word
belonging to the important permutation group of SIA
for life, existence. The full name of the spring sun horse
would then have been CA BEL IAS 'sky warm healing'
- nature lies dead in winter and returns to life in "gaudy
spring," "in the spring / When proud-pied April, drest
in all his trim / Hath put a spirit of youth in every thing
/ That heavy Saturn laught and leapt with him."
(Shakespeare, Sonnets 1 and 98)

CA BEL IAS cabelias (c)abelias abelios afelios
haelios haeelios helios

CA BEL IAS cabelias ca(b)el(ias) ca-el sa-el sol

CA BEL IAS cabelias ca(b)elia(s) ca-elia su-elia
surya

Helios was a young man standing in his chariot drawn
by a quadriga of horses. Sol was a male. Surya was
the sun-maiden. What do we know about PIE *saH2ul?
Nothing, while we got plenty of information on CA BEL
or CA BEL IAS ...

My initial point was that even short words can be
derivates of compounds. This realeased a torrent
of invectives. Yet my opponents - Prof. Dr. Nathan
Sanders, professor Brian M. Scott, and Peter T.
Daniels who gave invited lectures in five continents -
could not invalidate my point. Arguments are stronger
than invectives (and killrating campaigns).

Franz Gnaedinger

.

Relevant Pages
Loading