Consider the following examples taken from:
In all of which “a” means water (compare French eau, Persian ab,etc.)
Gal: high, big (compare gallant)
Once again, I did have a look at gallant in the first place. This English form goes back to French galant.
The problem is, in my opinion, that we take the explanations of any established dictionary for granted, whereas different dictionaries sometimes do not share the same opinion. On the other hand, almost all dictionaries referred to by you and me, use no other linguistic method than comparing phonetic similarities and making guesses. Even the whole science of PIE is based on an artificial language created on assumptions. If we are supposed to take all those things for granted, then we cannot take even a single step forward.It is quite well established that this French word (verb, even, since galant originally is a present participle of the old verb galer) goes back to a Gallo-Roman verb *walare, which in itself goes back to Germanic *wala. This *wala is found back in Dutch (wel) and English (well).
[My source: Rey's Dictionnaire historique de la langue Française. Similar information (but more concise) can be found here].
So, your starting point shouldn't be "Sumerian gal - English gallant", but "Sumerian gal and Germanic *wel".
Do you still think there is a relation between Sum. gal and Gmc *wel? If so, please explain in detail.
All the major dictionaries I (we?) use are peer reviewed scientific works. Personally, I have slightly more faith (not blind faith, though faith might be a bad choice of words here) in such a work, the result of many specialists working in the same field compiling, comparing, etc., than in a post on (any) message board.The problem is, in my opinion, that we take the explanations of any established dictionary for granted,
Yes, what's weird about that? That's how it goes and that's how it works. And that's why people always try to double check things. That's what makes linguistics such a dynamic science with a lot of (often animated) discussions and debates.whereas different dictionaries sometimes do not share the same opinion.
No other method? Guesses? You're kidding us, aren't you?On the other hand, almost all dictionaries referred to by you and me, use no other linguistic method than comparing phonetic similarities and making guesses.
No, it results in reconstructing PIE, PIE is not the base of the 'whole science'. Maybe you should spend some time on the history of historical linguistics to find out the difference, for example here.Even the whole science of PIE is based on an artificial language created on assumptions.
I start to wonder what you mean by "a single step forward": Sumerian roots in PIE languages? You'd consider that a step forwards? Forwards to what?If we are supposed to take all those things for granted, then we cannot take even a single step forward. The similarities with Sumerian is not limited to "a", it is much more numerous than than, and I am going to provide lots of other examples.
What better way is there?By saying that most dictionaries do not agree on the origin of words, I mean that their methologies are based mainly on speculations and reconstructed hypothetical languages like PIE. I am by no means promoting the method of sheer phonetic similarity for establishing etymological relationships, but the dictionaries do not really follow any better way.
I think the word "speculation" is sometimes misused with regards to science. I would make a distinction between speculation and theorization. Linguists theorize; they do not just speculate out of thin air.If you look at the scientific methods used by linguists, you will notice that the major component (not all!) is speculation.
You seem to imply that any objection against your Sumerian-(P)IE connections (as in the case of Sum gal and English gallant), can be dismissed as yet another 'speculation' and hence leaves room that your connection is possible?The problem is, in my opinion, that we take the explanations of any established dictionary for granted, whereas different dictionaries sometimes do not share the same opinion. [...]
There are similarities that can be explained as "genetic" relationships between languages. As mentionmed, there are criteria to be used in deciding.Hello Aydintashar,
Please keep in mind that the EHL forum is not about chance coincidences, which exactly your lists are basing their arguments on. As already requested by the moderator Frank06 (#5 supra), you have to compare the Sumerian words with the oldest forms recorded in the languages you are trying to see Sumerian influences in.
"m" words for mother or wet nurse are abundant all over the globe, as are "p"/"b" words for father. I suppose that babies' first sounds often can be compared to the b and p sounds, and so proud parents interpret them as referring to themselves...Aydintashar said:umu, um:old woman; nurse; wise or skillful teacher. Compare with Arabic “Umm” (mother)
pab, pap, pa:father; brother; man; leader. Compare with “baba”, “papa” occuring in plenty of languages
Has anybody investigated the possibility of ancient Mesopotamian roots (e.g. Sumerian, Elamite, Babylonian, Akkadian, Assyrian etc.) in modern languages. Can you provide any examples?
According to the source you presented, the word for water in Akkadian is
The word is very similar with the Romanian word for water (probably in pronunciation too): apă, which is officialy identified as coming from Latin word aqua. I mean, I'm getting confused here, is there any relation between those two words: apa´h and apă? Is that source reliable?
OOPs, wrong button... still writing the mail
I searched a bit, and I found other Latin-Romanian pairs with q > p:
apa < aqua
iapa < equa http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=iap~a
patru < quattuor http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=patru
p~aresimi < quadragesima http://dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=p~aresimi