| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: Vamos a hablar claro |
 |
|
There are two words in Serbian with the meaning "begin to talk, speak
out". One is pro-go-voriti and the other is pro-z-boriti (Cz. pro-ho-
vořit talk out, talk over). The Slavic prefix pro- is equal to the
English pro- as is found in words pro-trude (Serb. pro-turiti /bulge
out/, pro-terati /push through/; Lat. prodeo -ire /to advance, go
forward; to project/; Serb. pro-dirati /get through, penetrate/) or
pro-gress, pro-nate*... In Serbian, prefixes pro- and pre- are
shortened forms of the adverb preko (beyond, across, over) and the
verbs preći (go over, across) and proći (go through, go across). The
Serbian verb pre-govarati (negotiate; Russ. вести переговоры) clearly
shows that no negotiation is possible if there is nobody on the other
side (Serb. preko /across, over, vis-à-vis/).
The similar situation we have in case of the Serbian verbs pro-davati/
prodati (to sell) and pre-davati/predati (give over, give a lecture;
cf. Serb. predanje /tradition/, pridika /lecture/; Ger. predigen /to
preach/, where the giving (davati; dati; preko /over/; also,
predavati; predati /to give over/; preko /over/ + davanje /giving/,
Lat. datus) is a pattern, which is used in "creation" of many "cross-
over" words in Serbo-Slavic. Now, we can see that the Serbian words
pridika (lecture, preach; Serb. predanje /tradition/) and pritka/
prečka (shaft, beam, cross-beam) are not accidentally close to each
other in phonetic sense (Cf. English bridge <=> preach).
At this place, it would be interesting to compare Latin converto (to
turn round) and Serbian obrtati (to turn round, convert; from ko-br-
tljaj => ko-vrtljaj /turn, revolution/; i.e. kobrtljaj => obrtaj /
orbit/). Beside obrtati/obrnuti (to turn around; convert), there are
the Serbian verbs obraćati se (to speak to, speak out, converse),
obraćenik (a convert), obrtnik (craftsmen; related to the Serbian verb
vršiti, Eng. work, work-man). As we can see, Serbian obraćanje
(appeal) is "born" from the same source as Serbian pričanje (talking;
Serb. opričati /to tell the story/ <= obraćati (appeal) <= obrnuti (to
turn around, to go to the other side). Finally, what to say about the
Serbian verb preobratiti (to turn, convert) or the noun preobraženje
(conversion; transfiguration, transformation; Serb. obraz* cheek)?
Now it becomes clear that Latin converto is akin to Serbian obrt (from
hobrt => kovrt; all from ko-blo-v-rndia => kolo-v-rndija; cf. Serb. za-
vrteti to spin; kolo-vrat vortex, spinning-wheel). It seems logical
that Serbian kovrtljaj => obrtaj (orbit, revolution) is a
metathesized kolovrat (from Gon-Bel-Gon + Gon-Bel-Hor-Gon; i.e. kolo /
wheel, round, dance/ + obrnuti /turn over, reverse, rotate/). Serbian
okolina (surrounding, environment; from h/oko-b-lo) could be equated
to Greek κύκλος (cycle).
The above analysis is helping us to understand the relation among
Serbian oblak (cloud), Latin nebula (Serb. nebo sky)and and English
cloud (Ger. Wolke cloud). Namely, all these words are derived from the
same Gon-Bel-Gon basis (gnoblak => oblak; gnebula => nebula; ko(b)lut
=> kolut (pulley; circle; Russ. колач cake, cooky; колесо cart-wheel)
and all are related to Greek γλουτός/gloutos (buttocks). Greek
gloutos (buttocks) is also derived from the same Gon-Bel-Gon basis as
Serbian dupe (buttocks; Russ. дупля hollow; Serb. duplja hollow) and
šupak (asshole, anus) and this is a strong evidence that English
hollow/hole is akin to Serbian kolo (wheel, circle), šupljina (hollow)
and duplja (cavity).
As we could see, the ancient (primeval) Gon-Bel-Gon basis had been
used vastly, for the naming of different "round" objects (Serb. oblo
round), beggining with oblak (cloud), zemlja (earth), nebo (sky) etc.
It entails that the first "thinking men" understood the whole world in
a form of circle/s and it seems they knew that space is "curved" and
deprived of "straightness" in all its segments. On one side there was
h/oblina (roundness) and on the other was - šupljina (hollow; also
Serb. udubljenje, duplja /cavity/). Even the planet Earth was
understood as a big round object (Serb-Slavic zemlja, gemela, hum,
homolje, gomila; Lat. cumulus => humus) with a big hollow/circle in
its inside - Eng. hell (hole, pit); Serb. raj (heaven; from krug /
circle/ => kraj /area/ => raj).
It is interesting to mention that Serbian šupljina (cavity, hollow;
cf. Greek σπηλιά; Serb. špilja cave) is essentially related to the
other Serbian words: oblak (cloud), kaplja (drop), kapljanje
(dribble), oborina (precipitation, downfall). We will explain it
later, and, at this moment, the Serbian word oborina (precipitation)
seems to be of crucial importance, especially for the understanding of
the ancient secondary Br-Gon ("opposite driving") basis. If we
consider this word more carefully we will see that it is an
agglutinated form of the two separated words: h/oblo (round) + kren-/
kret- (movement, motion; cf. Serb. kretanje /moving, walking/). In
fact, oborina is h/oblo(h)rina; i.e. it is oblo (round) + kren-
(motion), equal to the other Serbian words from the same agglutinated
(oblo-krug- /round-circle/; oblo kretanje "round circulation") form as
obaranje (turning down, overthrow), borenje (fighting; cf. Latin
belligero -are to wage war).
Let us now go back to Slavic govor (speech) and compare it with the
Spanish word hablar (to speak, talk). According to the opinion of the
modern etymology, it is considered that Spanish hablar came from Latin
fabulare. First, Latin fabulor (to talk) seems to be related to bablus/
balbutio (stammering; speak obscurely) and English babble, blab (Serb.
blebetati; Cz. blb, blblati, blábolit /babble/; Greek barbaros; see
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/0230b46012c24071?hl=en&).
Nevertheless, we can hardly say that Spanish habla- is derived from
babla- (b => v/f => h sound mutation; balbucear, bobear).
Spanish barbullar (babble away) is probably related to Serbian
brbljanje (babble; Gr. βάρβᾰρος "those who prattle"?). The words lke
babble, Serb. blebetanje (babble), Lat. babulus (babbler, fool) and
Gr. λαλαγέω (to prattle, babble) might be of an imitative origin,
similar to the English word 'bleat' (Serb. blejati, Lat. balatus, Gr.
βληχή), but if we compare the Sanskrit words lapana (speaking,
talking) and lapi/ta (chatter, hum) with the Serbian lupati (throb,
palpitate, talk nonsense), we shall see that all the above-mentioned
words are derived from the reduplicated ur-syllable Bel.
Taking in a serious consideration the Latin word labrum (lip; edge ,
rim) and Serbian labrnja (lip; v. laprdati babble), the history of the
words 'hablar' (to speak) and 'govor' (speech, talking) is getting
more and more transparent. Serbian 'laprdanje' (gibberish) is akin to
Greek λαβύρινθος (labyrinth, maze) and Serbian lavirati (hesitate, go
round , prevaricate); from lavrndija <= ko-lo-vrat, ko-lo-vrndija
(spinning-wheel) - all from the H/Oblo-Obrtanje "round rotation" or
"opposite driving". As we explaind above, Serbian
'obrtanje' (rotation, turning, spin, whirl; Serb. obrtati => vrteti)
is a compound word consisting of "oblo" (round) + kretanje (movement);
i.e. oblo-kret => pokret (move) => okret (turn). It implies that the
Serbian words 'kolo-vrat' and 'kolo-vrndija' (spinning-wheel) are
compounding of h/oblo (round) + h/oblo-kret (turning, rotation,
orbit).
It would be interesting to notice that Latin 'laboro' has two
different meanings, 'to glide, flow' and 'work, toil', while 'labo'
means 'to totter , waver, be about to fall'. In first case, labor
(labi lapsus) corresponds to OHG slifan (to glide, slide) and Serbian
slivanje (pour out, confluence, flooding). On the other hand, Latin
labor (labos -oris) is an apheresis of conlabor -labi -lapsus
(collapse). It means that both words are closely related and they
maybe compared to the Serbian noun kolebanje (vacillation,
oscillation, hesitation), which originally sprang (metathesis) from
kobeljanje (rolling about, hobbling) and which originally pointed to
the movement of the clouds (Serb. oblak; from Gnoblak => Hoblak).
Finally, we are now able to understand that Spaniish hablar (to speak,
talk; communicate; chat, gab) and Serbo-Slavic govor (speach, talking)
are related to eachother, and they present a kind of constant
interpersonal communication (Serb. saobraćanje; from sa-hobl-hragne
"with-round-circulation"; i.e. from the agllutinated primal form Gon-
Bel-Hor-Gon). Serbian priča (story), as well as English preach, is
nothing but a communication (Serb. obraćati se, obraćanje /appel,
conversation, apostrophe/) and it shows that Serbian words predanje
(saga, preach Ger. predigen), obraćanje (communication; from h-ob(l)-
(h)ra-ga-gne) and govorenje (speach; from hov(l)o-(h)re-gne <= hob(l)o-
(h)re-gne <= Gon-Bel-Hor-Gon) belong to the words with the same
origin.
DV |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
| Tu eres un hombre muy mal. Dusanito. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 18, 4:14pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Tu eres un hombre muy mal. Dusanito.
[/quote]
Tienes toda la razn.
Soy un hombre muy malvado. ;-)
Sin embargo, quedarse tan pancho!
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[snipping long, unfocused torrent of words]
[quote]Let us now go back to Slavic govor (speech) and compare it with the
Spanish word hablar (to speak, talk). According to the opinion of the
modern etymology, it is considered that Spanish hablar came from Latin
fabulare.
[/quote]
Not opinion. Fact made quite clear by centuries of written evidence as
well as the overwhelmingly obvious Latin f > Spanish h connection.
[quote]First, Latin fabulor (to talk) seems to be related to bablus/
balbutio (stammering; speak obscurely)
[/quote]
According to whom?
[snip]
[quote]Taking in a serious consideration the Latin word labrum (lip; edge ,
rim) and Serbian labrnja (lip; v. laprdati babble), the history of the
words 'hablar' (to speak) and 'govor' (speech, talking) is getting
more and more transparent.
[/quote]
Oh, really?
[snipping material that doesn>t once mention "govor"]
[quote]Finally, we are now able to understand that Spaniish hablar (to speak,
talk; communicate; chat, gab) and Serbo-Slavic govor (speach, talking)
are related to eachother,
[/quote]
You didn>t once mention "govor" or anything that resembles it anywhere
in the material I snipped, so how are we able finally to "undertand"
this from that "analysis"?
[quote]and they present a kind of constant
interpersonal communication (Serb. saobraćanje; from sa-hobl-hragne
"with-round-circulation";
[/quote]
Oh, please.
[snipping more horbelgon crap] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:44 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 18, 8:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[snipping long, unfocused torrent of words]
[/quote]
It is rather that you are unable to focus to the matter you are
"trying" to read.
[quote]Let us now go back to Slavic govor (speech) and compare it with the
Spanish word hablar (to speak, talk). According to the opinion of the
modern etymology, it is considered that Spanish hablar came from Latin
fabulare.
Not opinion. Fact made quite clear by centuries of written evidence as
well as the overwhelmingly obvious Latin f > Spanish h connection.
[/quote]
I wouldn>t say that the Latin f to Spanish h sound change is so
"obviously evident". For instance, Latin fumus "became" humo in
Spanish. As a matter of fact, there is no one in the world (even the
biggest authorities in the field of lingua science) who is able to
explain the initial f in that Latin word. Maybe from Russian фимиам/
fimiam (incense) :-), but in this case dental turn to be fricative
(from Slavic tamjan, timjan, ORuss. тимиянъ/timyan; t => f). According
to my HSF theory dentals are developed generally from glottals or
velars and they do not belong to the primeval set of consonants. In
case of fumo and humo, we cannot say that f => h sound change is
impossible. On the contrary, but in this specific instance (fumo =>
humo) such a process seem to be hardly feasible. If Latin fumus is
related to OSlavic дымъ/dim ("authorities" are saying they are akin to
eachother), than we have the identical example of sound changes (d or
dh => f), the exact way as it happened in Russian timyan => fimiam.
OK, you would probably stay by your "authoritative" and "obviously
evident" statement that Spanish initial h evolved from f, which from
its side sprang from d or dh. To resolve this problem we must know the
history of the word 'dim' or 'fumus'.
Before we go on with this analysis, I would like to ask you to tell
me, might the Latin word domus be in any connection with dim and
fumus? If those two words appeared to be related, would you tell me
how they are related; if not, why not?
DV
[quote]First, Latin fabulor (to talk) seems to be related to bablus/
balbutio (stammering; speak obscurely)
According to whom?
[/quote]
[quote]Taking in a serious consideration the Latin word labrum (lip; edge ,
rim) and Serbian labrnja (lip; v. laprdati babble), the history of the
words 'hablar' (to speak) and 'govor' (speech, talking) is getting
more and more transparent.
Oh, really?
[snipping material that doesn>t once mention "govor"]
Finally, we are now able to understand that Spaniish hablar (to speak,
talk; communicate; chat, gab) and Serbo-Slavic govor (speach, talking)
are related to eachother,
You didn>t once mention "govor" or anything that resembles it anywhere
in the material I snipped, so how are we able finally to "undertand"
this from that "analysis"?
and they present a kind of constant
interpersonal communication (Serb. saobraćanje; from sa-hobl-hragne
"with-round-circulation";
Oh, please.
[snipping more horbelgon crap][/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 18, 10:14pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Tu eres un hombre muy mal. Dusanito.
[/quote]
Craoibhi...@gmail.com = tvoyu mat suka blyad ebannik pidorski govnoed.
kak tebe dam cherez... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sericinus hunter
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
knoxwilliam@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 10:14 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Tu eres un hombre muy mal. Dusanito.
Craoibhi...@gmail.com = tvoyu mat suka blyad ebannik pidorski govnoed.
kak tebe dam cherez...
[/quote]
Gentlemen, watch your language.
, ޣ, ? . |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 8:05 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[snipping long, unfocused torrent of words]
It is rather that you are unable to focus to the matter you are
"trying" to read.
Let us now go back to Slavic govor (speech) and compare it with the
Spanish word hablar (to speak, talk). According to the opinion of the
modern etymology, it is considered that Spanish hablar came from Latin
fabulare.
Not opinion. Fact made quite clear by centuries of written evidence as
well as the overwhelmingly obvious Latin f > Spanish h connection.
I wouldn>t say that the Latin f to Spanish h sound change is so
"obviously evident".
[/quote]
I swear, you seem to think there are no texts in modern languages from
before the 20th century. This change is readily seen occurring over the
course of the written record. Even if we didn>t have literature from the
entire time during which Spanish evolved into Spanish, it>s plenty
obvious, even transparent:
faba > haba (bean)
fata > hada (fairy)
femina > hembra (female; the -min- > -mbre is normal, as
in nomina > nombre (name),
hominem > hombre (man),
lumina > lumbre (light, fire),
culminem > cumbre (top, summit) )
faminem > hambre (hunger)
ficum > higo (fig)
fenum > heno (hay)
fartus > harto (full, sated, fed up)
ferrum > hierro (iron)
facere > hacer (to make)
focaris > hogar (hearth)
falconem > halcón (falcon)
farina > harina (flour)
foetere > heder (to stink)
ferire > herir (to injure)
fervere > hervir (to boil)
faeces > heces (feces)
fellem > hiel (bile)
ficatum > hígado (liver)
filium > hijo (son)
folia > hoja (leaf)
filo > hilo (string)
fenuculum > hinojo (fennel)
fungus > hongo (fungus, mushroom)
formica > hormiga (ant)
fornum > horno (oven)
fuscum > hosco (surly)
fovea > hoya (hole, pit)
foraneum > huraño (timid)
furicare > hurgar (to rake, to rummage)
furtum > hurto (theft)
fusum > huso (spindle)
furonem > hurón (ferret)
findere > hender (to split)
fundere > hundir (to sink)
fugire > huir (to flee)
If you can>t tell that this is a rather more elaborate, focused, and
exhaustive demonstration than your rambling chains of digressions and
misdirections in which even you get lost, then you are wholly
incompetent to address the subject matter on which you presume to expound.
[quote]For instance, Latin fumus "became" humo in
Spanish. As a matter of fact, there is no one in the world (even the
biggest authorities in the field of lingua science) who is able to
explain the initial f in that Latin word.
[/quote]
Whether that is or isn>t true has no bearing on the fact that there was
a massive change from Latin <f> to Spanish <h>.
[quote]Maybe from Russian фимиам/
fimiam (incense) :-),
[/quote]
Which would be fascinating since Latin predates Russian by centuries. I
warned you about assuming time travel in formulating your theories.
[quote]but in this case dental turn to be fricative
(from Slavic tamjan, timjan, ORuss. тимиянъ/timyan; t => f).
[/quote]
And now you>re completely off the topic to which you were responding.
[quote]According
to my HSF theory dentals are developed generally from glottals or
velars and they do not belong to the primeval set of consonants. In
case of fumo and humo, we cannot say that f => h sound change is
impossible. On the contrary,
[/quote]
On the contrary, it is not only possible, but absolutely true.
[quote]but in this specific instance (fumo =
humo) such a process seem to be hardly feasible.
[/quote]
And yet it>s absolutely true, which goes to show how irrational your
arguments are.
[quote]If Latin fumus is
related to OSlavic дымъ/dim ("authorities" are saying they are akin to
eachother), than we have the identical example of sound changes (d or
dh => f), the exact way as it happened in Russian timyan => fimiam.
OK, you would probably stay by your "authoritative" and "obviously
evident" statement that Spanish initial h evolved from f, which from
its side sprang from d or dh. To resolve this problem we must know the
history of the word 'dim' or 'fumus'.
[/quote]
Where "fumus" came from is absolutely irrelevant to what happened after
"fumus".
[quote]Before we go on with this analysis, I would like to ask you to tell
me, might the Latin word domus be in any connection with dim and
fumus? If those two words appeared to be related, would you tell me
how they are related; if not, why not?
[/quote]
I have no idea off-hand, and it>s irrelevant to the fact that Latin <f>
became Spanish <h> and I don>t care to follow you on this tangent.
[quote]First, Latin fabulor (to talk) seems to be related to bablus/
balbutio (stammering; speak obscurely)
According to whom?
Taking in a serious consideration the Latin word labrum (lip; edge ,
rim) and Serbian labrnja (lip; v. laprdati babble), the history of the
words 'hablar' (to speak) and 'govor' (speech, talking) is getting
more and more transparent.
Oh, really?
[snipping material that doesn>t once mention "govor"]
Finally, we are now able to understand that Spaniish hablar (to speak,
talk; communicate; chat, gab) and Serbo-Slavic govor (speach, talking)
are related to eachother,
You didn>t once mention "govor" or anything that resembles it anywhere
in the material I snipped, so how are we able finally to "undertand"
this from that "analysis"?
[/quote]
No response to this? Wow. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Harlan Messinger wrote:
[quote]femina > hembra (female; the -min- > -mbre is normal, as
in nomina > nombre (name),
hominem > hombre (man),
lumina > lumbre (light, fire),
culminem > cumbre (top, summit) )
[/quote]
I don>t know why I had "nomina", "lumina". "Nominem", "luminem". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 19, 7:03 am, knoxwill...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]On Jul 18, 10:14 pm, Craoibhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Tu eres un hombre muy mal. Dusanito.
Craoibhi...@gmail.com = tvoyu mat suka blyad ebannik pidorski govnoed.
kak tebe dam cherez...
[/quote]
Are you some sort of blatnoi, Sir? The way you deign to use the noble
Russian language certainly hints so.
I regret to say that even you tend to give the impression of being a
very bad man, Sir. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 19, 8:27 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]I swear, you seem to think there are no texts in modern languages from
before the 20th century. This change is readily seen occurring over the
course of the written record. Even if we didn>t have literature from the
entire time during which Spanish evolved into Spanish, it>s plenty
obvious, even transparent:
faba > haba (bean)
fata > hada (fairy)
[/quote]
Of course, there is a big problem to understand what really has
happened here. As we all know, Spanish is the language that has been
evolved from Latin. And if we observe from that point of view, it
seems indisputable that the sound change we are talking about (f => h)
couldn>t have occurred otherwise but in one direction - Latin to
Spanish. Nevertheless, there are a few questions that need to be
answered here.
For instance, Latin filium and Spanish hijo (son) are probably related
to Greek υιός/huios (son). Knowing that in other IE languages (Slavic
and Germanic) the noun son is related to the sun (shine, sinuti), we
may conclude that Greek huios (son; cf. Gasc. hilh) is derived from
the Greek word for the sun - helios. On the other hand, there is a
Cretan word for the sun - ἀβέλιος/abelios (as well as Laconian βέλα/
bela and even Pamphylian βαβέλιος/babelios; Syrian Baal, Celtic
Abellio) - which might tell us that Greek helios is in fact a
shortened (by apheresis) variant of Ab-(h)-elios).
There are the Venetian words fiolo and fio (son) and this fio might be
compared to Spanish hijo, and it looks as if both variants are equally
possible (fio, hijo; cf. Romanian fiu /son/). Italian figlio (son) and
Portuguese filho are pointing directly to the Bel-Gon ur-basis. As you
see, it is hard to be sure which "scenario" is more reliable - fio
(Bel-Gon belios) <=> hio (Gon-Bel helios).
It is quite different in case of the words like fumus and humo,
because these words are derived from Go(n)-Bel-Gon basis and we should
know that habitat, hamlet, Slavic dom (home) and selo (village; na-
seobina), including Lat. fumus and Slav. dim (smoke) are the words
with the same ancestral beckground. I have been discussing this
specific "gonbelgonic" issue many times on this forum, and I believe
there is no need for explaining such things again and again. Old
Russian сѣмиıа/semiya (family, husband, wife) is from the same
"arsenal" as English home (Goth. haims home; sibja relationship, clan,
family; AS híwan family; OHG hiwo husband, hiwa wife is the same word
as Serbian osoba /person/, or the reflexive pronoun sebe /oneself/;
Russ. себя/sibya).
Compare Latin famulus (a servant, slave, attendant; famula female
servant) and humilis (on or near the ground , low, shallow) and you
will maybe be able to understand that femina is nothing but a
sibilated homo -inis (human being) and that the change of initials
went in h => f direction. I know that you hardly can understand that
Latin familia is related to English hamlet and Slavic selo (village)
and there is only one way in which one can grasp it substantially. It
is the use of my HSF theory; i.e. the use of the Gon-Bel-Gon ur-basis
(the notion of "round heap") in this case.
What to say about Spanish hiel (bile) and Latin fel fellis (bile).
These two words might not be related at all. Spanish heil is similar
to Greek χολή/hole (OE geolo yellow, OSl зеленъ gren, Greek χλωρός;
Lat. helvus, Eng. gold, choler, Serb. zlato gold etc.), while fellis
looks to be a variant of the word billis (bile).
Let us now compare the Latin word faenum and Spanish heno (hay; Port.
feno). Spanish heno (hay) might be corresponding to Serbian seno (hay)
and to the modern Greek word σανός/sanos/sano (hay). t is hard to say
for sure where the Serbo-Slavic word seno (hay) is coming from.
Probably from the adjective 'suh' (dry); the Serbian syntagm "sušena
trava" means hay. Hence, "sušeno" (dried) became "seno" (hay; from
suheno => seno). In Spanish "dry" is "seco" or "sediento" (from sehien-
to). There is the Latin verb sicco -are (dry) and, if my above
assumption is right (I think it is) then, would it not be more logical
that there was a /s/ to /h/ sound change in the first place, instead
of s => f (Latin sicco => feno).
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 20, 10:04pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]Well, I give up. I>m still going to point out to new
participants when an answer you>ve given them is pure trash,
[/quote]
What do you think you are? The all-knowing Harlan? Do you really think
that nobody knows how to use the brain and that everyone needs your
"guiding" precepts?
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 19, 8:27 am, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
I swear, you seem to think there are no texts in modern languages from
before the 20th century. This change is readily seen occurring over the
course of the written record. Even if we didn>t have literature from the
entire time during which Spanish evolved into Spanish, it>s plenty
obvious, even transparent:
faba > haba (bean)
fata > hada (fairy)
Of course, there is a big problem to understand what really has
happened here.
[/quote]
There isn>t any bigger problem than understanding that some British
people pronounce "f" like "th" or that some English dialects are rhotic
and some aren>t or that some Slavic languages have [g] where others have
[h].
[quote]As we all know, Spanish is the language that has been
evolved from Latin.
[/quote]
It is not *the* language that evolved from Latin, it is one of many.
[quote]And if we observe from that point of view, it
seems indisputable that the sound change we are talking about (f => h)
couldn>t have occurred otherwise but in one direction - Latin to
Spanish. Nevertheless, there are a few questions that need to be
answered here.
For instance, Latin filium and Spanish hijo (son) are probably related
to Greek υιός/huios (son). Knowing that in other IE languages (Slavic
and Germanic) the noun son is related to the sun (shine, sinuti)
[/quote]
[snipping most of the remaining nonsense in which Dusan spins a zillion
complex theories explaining some of the words in my list individually
instead of taking note of the obvious fact that they all follow the same
development]
[quote]What to say about Spanish hiel (bile) and Latin fel fellis (bile).
These two words might not be related at all. Spanish heil is similar
to Greek χολή/hole (OE geolo yellow, OSl зеленъ gren, Greek χλωρός;
Lat. helvus, Eng. gold, choler, Serb. zlato gold etc.), while fellis
looks to be a variant of the word billis (bile).
Let us now compare the Latin word faenum and Spanish heno (hay; Port.
feno). Spanish heno (hay) might be corresponding to Serbian seno (hay)
and to the modern Greek word σανός/sanos/sano (hay). t is hard to say
for sure where the Serbo-Slavic word seno (hay) is coming from.
Probably from the adjective 'suh' (dry); the Serbian syntagm "sušena
trava" means hay. Hence, "sušeno" (dried) became "seno" (hay; from
suheno => seno). In Spanish "dry" is "seco" or "sediento" (from sehien-
to). There is the Latin verb sicco -are (dry) and, if my above
assumption is right (I think it is) then, would it not be more logical
that there was a /s/ to /h/ sound change in the first place, instead
of s => f (Latin sicco => feno).
[/quote]
Or let>s try this: the shift from "f" to "h" is established as fact by
the large and detailed corpus of written Spanish that has been
accumulated over the course of the language>s history. Since it is
factually established, any theory you invent that concludes the opposite
is an invalid one. Since you had to invent a half dozen theories or more
just to contest this one simple, thoroughly and exhaustively documented
sound change, it follows your judgment in these matters is simply and
irredeemably broken and that you wouldn>t know the difference between
the obvious and the far-fetched if someone wrote it on a board and
smacked you with it.
I>ve given you all kinds of opportunities to finally come up with
something that makes some kind of sense, and I>ve given you simple
examples of straightforward analyses against which to compare your
long-winded, scattershot contrivances so that you could see what the
difference is. Well, I give up. I>m still going to point out to new
participants when an answer you>ve given them is pure trash, but I>m not
going to bother justifying it to you any more, and it behooves you not
to claim any more that no one has told you why your theories are garbage. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harlan Messinger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:15 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
Dušan Vukotić wrote:
[quote]On Jul 20, 10:04 pm, Harlan Messinger
hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
Well, I give up. I>m still going to point out to new
participants when an answer you>ve given them is pure trash,
What do you think you are? The all-knowing Harlan? Do you really think
that nobody knows how to use the brain and that everyone needs your
"guiding" precepts?
[/quote]
Yes, I can tell as readily as anything can be told that you don>t know
how to use your brain, and I can tell that from everything you write,
and so can everyone else with a brain. Just look at your last couple of
contributions to this thread. You>ve contrived mutually independent
explanations for a whole bunch of the Latin/Spanish word pairs I gave
you. Anyone with a brain, upon being presented the dozens of these pairs
that exist, would compare
1. a theory that Latin f became Spanish h, and
2. a theory consisting of dozens of unrelated
etymologies for dozens of Latin/Spanish
word pairs that meander through hundreds of
other words before getting to their destinations,
through the most tortured of semantic leaps--
all resulting--MIRACULOUSLY--in Spanish having
words that look exactly as they would
IF Latin f had simply become Spanish h
in the first place
and realize that 1 is obviously the case and 2 is a steaming heap of
dung. And then you can add to that the fact that each of your individual
demonstrations, even ignoring what we know about f > h, doesn>t make any
sense anyway.
And do I need to mention AGAIN that centuries and centuries of Spanish
writing SHOWS the gradual change from f to h?
But never mind reality, never mind documentation, never mind the most
obvious of explanations: you have *decreed* f > h didn>t happen. Why?
BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. And so, irrationally, instead of letting heavily
documented fact and the most obvious of patterns guide your conclusions,
you let your preferred conclusions overrule heavily documented fact and
common sense, and then the most bewildering thing is that you think you
have the right not to be considered a kook for it, that you have the
right to have your opinion as highly valued as anyone else>s. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Duan Vukoti
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: Re: Vamos a hablar claro |
|
|
On Jul 21, 11:15 pm, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]But never mind reality, never mind documentation, never mind the most
obvious of explanations: you have *decreed* f > h didn>t happen.
[/quote]
Please, don>t twist my words Harlan. I have never said something like
that. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.lang/msg/b1ae3bfcaeeeacfe?hl=en&
What I really said is that in some cases the f to h sound change
didn>t seem so "obvious", and I presented my arguments and
reservations "against" the words as family, (female, feminin) and
fumus (both seem to be related to Germanic home and Slavic dom; cf.
Lat. domina /mistress of a household; wife/; Serb. domaćin master,
host; domaćica mistress of a household). Namely, if you admit that
homo/hominis might be related to dominus than you must also accept
that femina might be related to homo/hominis as well as famulus to
homullus (see Ita. uomini men).
I can do nothing if your brain isn>t big enough to grasp that in the
all of above mentioned names for man (master, mistress, servant) we
have to deal with the "gonbelgonic" patterns of human head (Gr.
κεφαλή, cephalus, capita, caput, calva).. If you reject any
possibility that any of my statements might be true and that
everything I say is nothing but a bullshit, then you are in a
delusional state. It means if you wasunable to understand such a
relatively simple things, how would you be able to grasp the relation
among the words as Latin homo, caput, Slavic čovek/človek (man) and
glava (head)?
DV |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
