Ishinan sent in the following contribution taken from the pages of the
The Egyptian Chronicles:
Experimental Verification of PIE * uper (Best seen with JEPGs by clicking on the URL below:)
Traditional Indo-Europeanists have concluded that PIE * uper has generated important derivatives based on the following hypothetical reconstructions: From 1) * uperi, 2) variant from or suffixed from *(s)uper, suffixed (superlative) reduced from *sup-mo and sur- (for more details see attached JPEGs).
However, critics look at reconstructions like these and see serious problems. The data is open to challenge, and it's quite easy to find in this case words that are similar in sound and meaning to one another in unrelated languages.
In fact, there exists among the lexicon of the Semitic languages five vocabulary items parallel to those terms dealt with above by the Indo-Europeanists. They are from the Ugaritic *(1), Hebrew/Aramaic *(2) and Classical Arabic *(3). All of them convey parallel correspondents similarly in range of sounds and meanings:
These are: 1) `br: Over, passing over, through and beyond.
2) `fr : That exceeds the ordinary bounds.
3) sbr: The top, highest,chief, head of a people, supervisor & sovereign.
4) swr: The uppermost, superiority, eminence and nobility.
5) smt: Summit, zenith, azimuth, peak and/or point of culmination
In the Semitic languages, each of these items is derived from an independent trilateral root. In this instance, these items are unrelated. Their roots are respectively depicted as: `br,`fr ( *Proto Semitic: `pr), sbr, and smt (see the respective JPEGs ).
Logically, two unrelated family languages are unlikely to invent the same word independently from one another unless we are assuming the validity of the existence of a parallel universe. In this instance we are not dealing with one contradicting example to PIE * uper as evidence, but rather five from an unrelated family language. In a court of law such multiple circumstantial evidences would be enough to convict the guilty party.
CONCLUSION: In view of the parallel Semitic examples offered above, theoretical reconstruction of PIE * uper is unconvincing. Ishinan | |
Andis Kaulins replied:
There is no question that the Indo-European alleged hypothetical root of
*uber is a fabrication of deluded and misguided world linguists having little understanding of the true development of human language.
I wrote long ago that the root of the terms discussed here is seen clearly in the whole host of words in Indo-European e.g. Latvian having a PA-RA root, i.e. as written at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi53.htm :
"
[They are ]derived from the combination of PA [viz. BA] with RA, with PA as a "prefix of being, or place" and RA as a root of "eye, see, sight, light, use, eye (to hand) coordination"."Hence
PĀR viz.
PĀRI (both with long a) in Latvian mean "over, above, across", as derived from the primordial idea of "there - see", which of course is related to English
far, i.e. "over there".
The idea of being "over" or "above" something led in time by the process of dissociation from
PAR to the word
VAR / VARS in Latvian meaning "to be able to do, to can do, power, might".
Combined with the S-mobile prefix as derived from the affixation of the prefix ES "the self, I" in its conversion to a directional prefix, this not only led in Latvian to words such as
UZVAR(A) "victory, win" - from
UZ-VARA <
*ES-VARA ("I win") but also to the idea of
SVAR(S) [ES-VARS] "weight" and "might" in this sense.
This resulted in words such as English
SOVEREIGN which is Latvian
SVĒRIEN(s) - long e - "weighing, mighty of weight" or English
SUPERB which is Latvian
SVARĪBA - long i - "importance (by weight), weighty".
SVARS was by the way also an important word in ancient Egypt and is the word transcribed erroneously by the Egyptologists as OSIRIS, the God of the Underworld. Of course, SVARS was actually the Egyptian concept of gravity initially, a force which the ancients saw as emanating from the bowels of the Earth (that analysis is our discovery). Later this force was personified.
Your run-of-the-mill Indo-Europeanist or Egyptologist has never seen these connections because 1) he or she does not speak Latvian [or any similarly useful language such as Lithuanian], 2) they do not consult Latvian in making their etymologies, and 3) they generally have no clue about how language was actually constructed in ancient days - as mainstream linguists mostly fail to appreciate that more complex conceptual ideas derived from simpler graspable physical concepts - for which there were originally words.
As a result, it is quite clear that BR, FR, SBR and SWR do in fact have have the same root [when applied to terms meaning over, power, etc.], whether this be Indo-European, Ugaritic, Hebrew/Aramaic or Classical Arabic.
As for the fifth term, the word summit, how the Indo-European linguists managed to attempt to merge a totally unrelated word like summit into an equally erroneous root of *uper is a case study for the cognitive psychologists who study these kinds of academic aberrations.
The Latin term for "sum" was
summa viz.
summus, for which the Indo-Europeanists have no clue of actual lexical origin, because they have not consulted Latvian. In Latvian the origin is clearly seen, as a
saim(is) or
sain(is) which is a "bundle of something", for which reason also a
saime is a community of some kind, i.e. a bundle of persons, a sum of persons, and for which reason in Latvian a
soma is a "bag" or "pouch" of some kind, in which one collects some number - a bundle (viz. sum) - of objects.
The origin of the English word
sum, is correctly seen in the concept of "bundle".
As for astronomy, I write about the Sumerian zenith at
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi179.htmThe word
summit has the same origin as the word
azimuth, as found in Latin
semita "path" and the Arabic
as-sumut or
as-samt "the way, compass bearing", which may be related to Latvian
atzīmetais "that marked" and "
acī-metis", that marked by the eye.
The Indo-Europeanist idea that the word
zenith derives Arabic
samt (ar-ra's) is curious to say the least, and the Latvian
ce(l)nite - long i - "that raised, that in culmination" gives us the proper ancient explanation, pointing to the root word
cel- "raise".
Again, Ishinan, Latvian shows that all of these languages - Indo-European, Ugaritic, Hebrew-Aramaic and Classical Arabic - once all derived from the same source.
______________
Ishinan replied:
Andis Kaulins wrote:
"There is no question that the Indo-European alleged hypothetical root of *uber is a fabrication of deluded and misguided world linguists having little understanding of the true development of human language."
To view Andis' response in its entirety click on the URL below:
Dear Andis,
I totally agree with your assessment, as It is unscientific to cherry pick examples from a few languages and ignore all the rest. A solid and persuasive theory ought to be inclusive and allow it to be properly scrutinized in order to survive the test of time.
I also would like you to know how much I appreciate your thought on human history which I share here with the LexiLin members:
"Much of mainstream human history is based on myth, unfounded opinion and just plain hearsay. When we look at the testimony of man's history through the piercing eyes of a cross-examining lawyer, much accepted dogma needs revision." Andis Kaulins
Yours sincerely,
Ishinan
______________
Andis Kaulins replied:
I wrote previously that "The word summit has the same origin as the
word azimuth, as found in Latin semita "path" and the Arabic as-sumut
or as-samt "the way, compass bearing", which may be related to Latvian
atzimetais "that marked" and "aci-metis", that marked by the eye."
When I reconsidered the Latin semita "path" again, then it became
clear that the Latin term semita has a different origin than the word
summit and that mainstream linguists have erred in seeing the two as
connected.
The correct origin of the Latin term semita is in the Indo-European e.g. compound term samita in "Latvian" as derived from sa-mita "down-trodden", i.e. a "trodden path" formed by man or animal, which is what the most ancient "paths" were.
Summit on the other hand will either be related to eye orientation, as
I already surmised previously, or is related to the Latvian term jumt-
which means "ceiling", perhaps from an original *uz-met "upon thrown",
i.e. above one as a summit in this sense.
Posts
