German and Georgian

Discussion in 'Etymology, History of languages and Linguistics (EHL)' started by Galushi, Apr 30, 2010.

  1. Galushi New Member

    english
    I heard that German language is a revolutionary transformation from Georgian language (Caucasian). What do you think about it?


    I try to explicate.
    That was a linguistic hypotheses of Nicholas Marr (Georgia-born historian and linguist who gained a solid reputation as a prolific scholar of the Caucasus). Also it was approved by some German linguists (end of XIX-beginning of XX).
    It means that German and Georgian languages (Svan dialect especially) have a lot in common and German derived from Georgian via India (like other Indo-European languages).


    It’s quite logically that place where rose white race (Caucasian race) it’s a spot where were born proto-Indo-European language. Proto-Indo-European started in Transcaucasus (not far from the site of the Tower of Babel itself), and then spread eastwards and northwards, round the Caspian Sea towards Europe. As the mainly agricultural communities migrated and separated from each other, the language changed into different dialects and then daughter languages and, by about 4,000 years ago, proto-Indo-European had split into twelve distinct languages, not all of which survived.
    For instance:


    • pepelon (in French – “baterfly”) – pepela (“baterfly” – in Georgian)
    • bagatelle (“knick-knack, bric-a-brac “ – in French) – bagatel (the same in Georgian)
    • navi (Georgian boat) – navigation (latin) – nav (dead man in Russian that was put on boat)
    • mountain - mta ("mountain" in Georgian)
    • Ibaruri, Taviani and others – Georgian and Iberian (Spainish-Iberian, Italian-Iberian) last names.



    Yes, many European languages in fact share a common ancestry.


    But Marr meant that Georgian manifests more clear this cognate relations.
    Some more examples from Georgian and German




    • wissen (“to know” in German) – vici (“to know” in Georgian) – wit (english)
    • shawl – Schal – Schali (sheep in Svan dialect of Georgian).


    I insist that not only languages, but civilization came to Europe from Caucasus via Greece.
    Because language determines all and everything.
    What do you think about it?







     
  2. Frank06

    Frank06 Senior Member

    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    I feel cold chills when I read "transformation", let alone "revolutionary transformation" in relation to historical linguistics. What can you possibly mean by this?

    Not proven enough, since this theory is completely dismissed by any modern historical linguist who takes him or herself serious. By the way: which German linguists exactly approved it, and how about approval in XXI??

    But what a coincidence once again: a historian/linguist born in region X claims that IE languages originated in that very same region X. Yeah, right.

    No, it's not logical. Languages don't have a lot to do with "race", whatever can be meant by "race" in this context. Language has as much to do with with the colour of the skin as with the predominant colour of the nail polish used in a community).
    And as for the Caucasian being the place where the "white race rose"? Is that local mythology?



    The Tower of Babel itself?? Yes? What about it?

    And all this is "proven" on the basis of a list of "similar" words. This is not linguistics.

    Language determines everything? What do you mean by that??

    Anyway, whether you insist or not, doesn't really matter. The weakest line of "evidence" thinkable for this kind of outright fringe claims is a random list of "similar words". Presenting this kind of lists (and the Tower of Babel) has nothing to do with linguistics!


    Frank
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  3. phosphore Senior Member

    Serbian
    Before we tell you what we think about it, could you tell us some more about your agenda? For example, are you looking to prove that the Georgians are the oldest nation in the world? or that we are all in fact Georgians? or is it just out of curiosity that you investigate in this field?

    As a side note, I understood that Germans and Georgians split when Germans left Caucasus for India on their way to present day Germany, but I haven't understood what makes you say that Germans are Georgians that left Georgia and not that Georgians are Germans that didn't leave for Germany. Could you elaborate some more on that too?
     
  4. Frank78

    Frank78 Senior Member

    Saxony-Anhalt
    German
    The problem is that the word German/Germanic is a Roman invention. There's virtually no (historic proven) knowledge about these tribes before they had contact to Greeks and Romans. The first archeologic founds date from the Bronze Age, ca. 1500 BC.

    Furthermore the term "race" is completely out of place. Since the Germanic tribes had no concioussness of belonging to one ethnic group.
     
  5. Outsider Senior Member

    Portuguese (Portugal)
    The history of the classification of the languages of the Caucasus has had some interesting twists and turns. I suggest you read this account (pdf). It's well worth it. :)
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  6. Galushi New Member

    english


    I see you share only your own opinion.
    But I dare say there is infinity of theories, views, etc. in linguistics. Not only yours.

    I have written about comparative theory of communicative language systems. But you don’t trust such information. It’s your right.
    Ancient people believed that our planet was flat, and science dissidents were declared as heretics or insane.
    Now is XXI century. Different views have right to exist.

    I’d like to mark that I want to learn participants of forum opinions, not only personally yours. And I prove nothing. I just tried pay forumers’ attention on large amount of coincidences in language phenomenon included.


    Nicolas Marr was born in the family of the Scot James Marr. Not a Georgian family.
    Besides Marr, many linguists were occupied by this field: Ibero-Caucasian comparative linguistics and deriving Indo-European languages from common source – Proto-Indo-European language, such as Gumboldt and Riders, Rudolf Steiner.

    This list of words can be turned into a large number of lists. For this mental blinkers must be taken off. Don’t keep to Procrustean bed of your brains.

    Some more strange similarities and coincidences:

    • Ancient Romans named Ireland “Hibernia”. Iberia is part of Spain and part of Ancient Georgia.

    • The word “Albania” means “white”. In old time Albania was located in the Caucasus (not Balkan). Later aliens borrowed this toponym. Now Albania is a Balkan state.

    • “hominy” (ground corn) in Georgia sound as “homi”.
    You assure, it is not sufficient and not linguistics. Should I ask you: what is linguistics? What juice of linguistics activities? Probably describe obviousities? Though question arose: what are obviousities?

    Jews think that the universe exists for about 7000 years. Archeological and astronomical evidences proved that the age of the Earth is 13,5 billions – merely illusion for them.

    Unfortunately, mankind at whole and personality especially are subjective. In addition, during their evolution human beings developing aggression but not ability for vision and hearing (with comprehension).

    My response to phosphore:

    Read very attentively my post. And try to perceive: I’ve never said that Germans and Georgians are the same.

    Finely, origin of Caucasian race from Caucasus is not a local myth. This is fruit of searching scientists who based their exploration on Caucasus aborigines’ anatomy and compared data with white Europeans. They came to conclusion that Caucasus aborigines are a perfect model of European race.
    It’s astonishes Old Grey Europe. However, now we are not amazed that Indians are Arians and white people. Soon we’ll digest the fact mentioned above (about Caucasus). And survive, I hope.

    Have nice clever thoughts, meditation, reflection, speculation and elocution.
    In short: Good night and have your own way.
     
  7. Galushi New Member

    english
    Diffusion of early Indo-European dialects, Caucasian MTS. From Oxford University Press, 1979.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. itreius Senior Member

    Assembly
    For how many of the listed words did you take into account phonological changes throughout history?
     
  9. miguel89

    miguel89 Senior Member

    Argentina
    Spanish
    All languages belonging to the IE family share a number of common traits that doesn't turn up on Georgian, ergo Georgian isn't an IE language. Also, Europe wasn't deserted before IE languages spread: it's wrong to equate IE to pale skin, or any language to any physical trait for that matter.

    Lexical similarities may be due to borrowing, whether it took place recently or long ago, or they may be due to no more than chance. But the core of Georgian vocabulary and grammar has scarcely anything to do with others IE languages, thus placing it outside this linguistic group.
     
  10. Frank06

    Frank06 Senior Member

    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    I don't share "my opinions". These are not "my own opinions".

    The idea that there is "infinity of theories in linguistics" is at best a fringe view, at worst an empty phrase that tries to open the door for ideosyncratic views.
    Your -- how to call it, it's not a "theory" -- your ideas so far are solely based upon lexical similarities. This is somehow the most naive basis possible.

    I don't think there is any need to victimise yourself, to consider yourself as the victim of the scorn by mainstream linguists.
    On the other hand, to present yourself as the misunderstood genius, is a rhetoric trick used in a lot of pseudo-sciences. Looking at what you presentend so far, I think that imagining yourself as the linguist who's about to bring a Copernican change in the linguistic paradigm, is a bit presumptuous. Especially when the "theory" you present is based upon the incredibly pre-scientific idea of comparing the lexicon and pointing out lexical similarities and those only. I am sorry, but this is comic book linguistics.
    Historical linguistics started to get some great results exactly after linguists started to realise that the lexicon is not the basis for a theory, but the grammar, including morphology and phonology, and when they started to describe systmatic changes.

    But "the right to exist" doesn't mean that these theories, your theory, is automatically acceptable. So far, on the basis of what you wrote in this thread, it's not.
    In stead of trying to find out why there are similarities, whether it's due to loans or coincidence or something else, you blindly jump to a fringe conclusion. This is not acceptable.

    I hope you have noticed by now that I am a participant of this forum. And this forum, by the way, deals with accepted and acceptable theories. Not with fringe stuff.

    The "forumers", especially the regulars, will sigh when they see once again a link to Donald Ringe's publication On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison and Rosenfelder's essay How likely are chance resemblances between languages? The answer in short: more likely than the average fringe linguist dares to imagine.

    That's von Humboldt. Calling esotericist Rudolph Steiner a linguist is completely off the wall.
    But yes, I noticed your usage of the past tense "were". These days, hardly any serious linguists "are" occupied by these obsolete and already dismissed theories.

    It doesn't matter how long the list is, a list of similar words is not a good method, not a good starting point. A list plus one item is still a list. A list plus 100 items too.
    This kind of lists is quite often the starting point for the fringe theories already suggested in the glorious past of EHL.

    If you want to know what historical linguistics is (about), please start with Wikipedia. It has a fairly good series of articles about it.


    Yes, and?
    One theory is based upon science, the other is not. One theory is scientifically acceptable (and accepted, until other, better data are available, if any), the other not. One theory is discussed by scientists, the other not. The same goes, m.m, for your "theories" and mainstream linguistics.

    Your trees bear a strange fruit...

    Phosphore already asked about your agenda. I'd like to go one step further: in how far do you think you can push your agenda using these kinds of fantasies. I'll put it in another way: your agenda seems to be important to you, important enough to pervert any kind of linguistic methodology, and this I find intellectually dishonest. Why do you do this? Is your agenda more important than any kind of scientific truth?

    If you think that EHL is a venue for your race theories, then you are thoroughly mistaken.
    Here, we have it the EHL way. The rules (also the ones about pseudo-linguistics, fringe theories, racism and politics etc.) can be found here, please pay special attention to #15 and 16.

    Frank
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  11. sokol

    sokol Senior Member

    Vienna, Austria; raised in Upper Austria
    Austrian (as opposed to Australian)
    Galushi, much has been said already.
    I'd just like to add one thing: Nicolas Marr (or Николай Яковлевич Марр, or ნიკოლოზ (ნიკო) იაკობის ძე მარი which of course I copy-pasted from Wiki, I cannot read Georgian) proposed the Japhetic theory which doesn't even claim that German were "derived" from Georgian, but rather that the "Japhetic" group (a highly hypothetic group not supported by most historical linguists) had been a substratum of Indo-European.

    Also, Marr's theory is not a theory of the "21st century", quite the contrary, it's one of the 19th and early 20th, and it was promoted in the USSR until Marr's and Stalin's death - to my knowledge it isn't even supported by modern Russian linguists.

    So you are proposing to discuss an ancient theory not supported by a significant number of serious linguists anywhere in the world, and you still claim that we were treating your suggestion to take Marr's theory more seriously "unfairly" (or so I read your posts).

    As I see it, we have a very exotic, very much hypothetical and definitely unproven theory. Pray, why should we accept it then at face value?
    (That is of course, Marr's original theory - not your suggestion that German were derived from Georgian.)
     
  12. Frank06

    Frank06 Senior Member

    Nederlands / Dutch (Belgium)
    "Posited homeland", the illustration says. Posited, assumed, proposed.
    However, in the last 200 years, almost every square kilometer between Skandinavia and India has been "posited" as the homeland of PIE.
    Otherwise said, one illustation from a handbook (out of context?) doesn't prove a thing.

    Frank
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010

Share This Page