not really
sanskrit is an indo european language with hebrew most definitely is NOT
there are however a handful of loanwords ultimately from sanskrit sources in hebrew, but those are thought to have come into the language from persian or perhaps hittite
"Indo-European Languages and Their Nonexistent Common Source That never existed".
3 weeks ago
Radiochan
That doesn't answer anything. It can be reliably reconstructed and we see that there are dozens of related languages that obviously come from a common source.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>That doesn't answer anything
Exactly, PIE theory doesn't answer anything. >It can be reliably reconstructed
Creatively imagined and invented.
Because PIE theory fabricates it's own proof to confirm the theory. So circular logic. >we see that there are dozens of related languages that obviously come from a common source.
No, you can't see that at all.
You often need to "reconstruct" two completely dead and unwritten languages on top of each other before you reach this "common source"
It's just fairytale writing.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Are you by any chance the anti-Celtic schizo?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
?
Hebrew is Greek. Read the book that puts neo rabs on suicide watch to this day.
https://archive.org/details/Hebrew.is.Greek
Well that makes sense. There definitely are similarities in sound and Hebrew like English has very confusing spelling by features inherited from other languages.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>There definitely are similarities in sound and Hebrew like English has very confusing spelling by features inherited from other languages
Excellent points!
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Excellent points!
I sense sarcasm...
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Not at all. Totally serious, I think you hammered two nails in with one blow.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Thirdie seething. Jealous much? It's understandable, no other language family has such rich history and such fine grammar and vocabulary systems. I'm sure your own, ahem, colloquial has its own rather interesting features.
The linguistic theories underpinning the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European were completely validated by the discovery of Hittite. Vowel sounds in IE languages were theorised to have differentiated based on the laryngeal sound they had in PIE. And indeed we find these laryngeals preserved in Hittite. It's understandable you missed the news, this was only discovered in 1917 after all.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
yes. hes a poo who denies cultural colonization. but i guess he can erase history since its not actually provable that sanskrit is indo european in origin. for example, basque is definitely older than spanish, since we know the basque lived in spain before latin arrived, yet now basques vocabulary is majority latin based.
>You are deranged
That isn't an argument anon.
Wow, maybe you should tell me about how Shiva, Jupiter and Dazbog are all the same god lol.
You can even invent some imaginary linguistic link if their characteristics aren't convincing enough for the theory.
Raetic, ancient Greek, and Phoenician have first attestations so closely together that any one of them could have come from the other. Phoenician edges out by a mere fifty years.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
only true if you're talking about Greek written with linear A.
We have Canaanite writing in Proto-sinatic going back to the 1400s BC, which is the ancestor of the Phoenician script.
I can dumb this down for you as well.
The first two letters of the greek alphabet are Alpha and Beta. Alphabet.
The first two letters of Phoenician and Hebrew are Aleph and Bet. The alphabet is called Alephbet.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>only true if you're talking about Greek written with linear A.
No, I'm talking about the Eurotas inscriptions dating back to the early 9th century. It uses symbols closely related to Raetic and some are literal runes that only show up again in northern Europe a millennium later. If anything, based on clustering of like characters then Phoenician is the odd one out. The rest of the scripts more heavily resemble each other. Putting the chronology of a fifty year lead aside and basing the origin point on common clustering, then the scripts probably originally came from the Alps.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Putting the chronology of a fifty year lead aside
Bruh, can you read?
The inscriptions I'm referring to go back to the 1400s BC. That's 600 years before what you're referring to.
So here is your problem and why you are an idiot: You saw the word "Sinai" in proto-Sinaitic and because you think the Bible is a legitimate document you immediately connected proto-Sinaitic to an ancient superpower called Israel, which also happens to be a complete work of fiction.
Instead, Sinai is referencing a geographic point named much later. In fact, Sinai for the Greeks is in Thailand and shown on the maps of Ptolemy. Instead "proto-Sinaitic" is actually referring to Egyptian, where the first collection of characters is found.
You have been educated. Adieu.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
retarded spammer
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>We have Canaanite writing in Proto-sinatic going back to the 1400s BC, which is the ancestor of the Phoenician script.
Other way around. If you pull up a list of Phoenician and Canaanite, Phoenician always comes first in terms of artifacts (no scripts involved). The problem is that the religious community (that is, neo-rabbinicalists) have to push back the date as close to the 2nd millennium BC for the Bible to make sense because the Canaanites necessarily have to be that old. By pushing forward to meet material evidence, the Biblical (Torahite) narrative crumbles like ash on the end of a cigarette. In fact, the earliest evidence for an inscription which I will generously refer to as Canaanite since Phoenician is a Greek exonym of European origin, is a comb that demonstrates a drifting away from Semitic style lettering.
>The Latin script being ultimately derived from the Phoenician alphabet does not mean Latin is a semetic language.
But a Phoenician/Latin Rosetta stone would reveal information you could never gleam any other way.
With no writing you have no evidence of an ancient language even existing.
Your imaginary point is bizarre.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Bro you just don't know the difference between script and language family.
Next you're going to tell me Vietnamese is related to English because they adopted the Latin alphabet.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Next you're going to tell me Vietnamese is related to English because they adopted the Latin alphabet.
The fact that they adopted the Latin alphabet means that they have been culturally influenced by outsiders. And their language will reflect that to an extent.
>Bro you just don't know the difference between script and language family.
Everyone understands that anon.
But you don't understand the importance of script.
Anon, stop saying bullshit. "Svet", for example, means "light" in both sanskrit and russian.
>Anon, stop saying bullshit. "Svet", for example, means "light" in both sanskrit and russian.
And that's wrong.
श्वेत white
उस वृद्ध की दाढ़ी सम्पूर्ण रूप से श्वेत है।
us vriddh kī dāṛhī sampūrṇ rūp se śvet hai.
That old man's beard is completely white.
you've never heard hebrew or greek spoken in your life have you
>That doesn't answer anything
Exactly, PIE theory doesn't answer anything. >It can be reliably reconstructed
Creatively imagined and invented.
Because PIE theory fabricates it's own proof to confirm the theory. So circular logic. >we see that there are dozens of related languages that obviously come from a common source.
No, you can't see that at all.
You often need to "reconstruct" two completely dead and unwritten languages on top of each other before you reach this "common source"
It's just fairytale writing.
do you think languages come out of being magically with no history?
Greek and Latin yes.
Sanskrit is more likely a case of independent origin with some trading of words over time.
Likewise Latin isn't related to old Norse.
incorrect
we have reams of manuscripts and we can actually pronounce it
I have a cousin with a degree in anceint Greek and she knows how to pronounce it
in the specific case of ancient Greek we have grammarians who instructed their students how to pronounce it and wrote about it
also I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Greek is still a spoken language, alive, and spoken by tens of millions of people
Yeah, we actually do, and it's part of the work of linguistics to reconstruct it based on what people wrote and what people who spoke different languages wrote ABOUT it.
Greek and Latin yes.
Sanskrit is more likely a case of independent origin with some trading of words over time.
Likewise Latin isn't related to old Norse.
Sanskrit is not a case of independent origin and we know this because of cognates in Avestan which is also an Indo-European language.
As for Old Norse we know it's related to Latin because it's a Germanic language. Have you ever... actually read a book about comparative linguistics?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>t's part of the work of linguistics to reconstruct
Creatively guess... >we know this because of cognates in Avestan
People claim cognates for everything all the time that turn out to be rubbish. >As for Old Norse we know it's related to Latin because it's a Germanic language
Lol.... >Have you ever... actually read a book about comparative linguistics?
Yes, that's how I know it's mostly bullshit unless you are comparing two very similar languages.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>that turn out to be rubbish
Sanskrit's relationship with Avestan is well-established, much like the relationship between Vedic and Iranic traditions, which have substantial thematic and ritual similarities that go far beyond the assortment of identical and barely modified deity names (e.g. Mitra, Mithra; Vayu, Vayu; Yama, Yima; Trita, Thrita; Marut, Marut; Manu, Manu; Aramaiti, Aramati etc...).
the Canaanite language is just a general term used for the ancestor of Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It has nothing to do with the Bible or biblical Canaanites.
Test
not really
sanskrit is an indo european language with hebrew most definitely is NOT
there are however a handful of loanwords ultimately from sanskrit sources in hebrew, but those are thought to have come into the language from persian or perhaps hittite
I'm not asking or arguing. I'm telling you, Hebrew and Sanskrit have similarities.
This is not debatable.
It's pretty debateable. Modern Hebrew is also not Biblical Hebrew.
Anon asked the bar tender, "who made this beer?" The bar tender pointed and said, "He brew".
>sanskrit is an indo european language
"Indo European" is a stupid classification that includes completely alien speaking and writing systems.
so stupid, that studying Sanskrit and comparing it to Latin and Greek became the basis of modern philology?
Philology isn't defined by dumb Indo-European theoretical nonsense.
Why is it "nonsense"?
"Indo-European Languages and Their Nonexistent Common Source That never existed".
That doesn't answer anything. It can be reliably reconstructed and we see that there are dozens of related languages that obviously come from a common source.
>That doesn't answer anything
Exactly, PIE theory doesn't answer anything.
>It can be reliably reconstructed
Creatively imagined and invented.
Because PIE theory fabricates it's own proof to confirm the theory. So circular logic.
>we see that there are dozens of related languages that obviously come from a common source.
No, you can't see that at all.
You often need to "reconstruct" two completely dead and unwritten languages on top of each other before you reach this "common source"
It's just fairytale writing.
Are you by any chance the anti-Celtic schizo?
?
Well that makes sense. There definitely are similarities in sound and Hebrew like English has very confusing spelling by features inherited from other languages.
>There definitely are similarities in sound and Hebrew like English has very confusing spelling by features inherited from other languages
Excellent points!
>Excellent points!
I sense sarcasm...
Not at all. Totally serious, I think you hammered two nails in with one blow.
Thirdie seething. Jealous much? It's understandable, no other language family has such rich history and such fine grammar and vocabulary systems. I'm sure your own, ahem, colloquial has its own rather interesting features.
The linguistic theories underpinning the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European were completely validated by the discovery of Hittite. Vowel sounds in IE languages were theorised to have differentiated based on the laryngeal sound they had in PIE. And indeed we find these laryngeals preserved in Hittite. It's understandable you missed the news, this was only discovered in 1917 after all.
yes. hes a poo who denies cultural colonization. but i guess he can erase history since its not actually provable that sanskrit is indo european in origin. for example, basque is definitely older than spanish, since we know the basque lived in spain before latin arrived, yet now basques vocabulary is majority latin based.
#
>these languages are similar
>noooo you can't group them together
Schizo moment
>Schizo moment
Schizophrenics think everything unrelated is magically related.
So they are basically PIE theorists like you anon.
>noooo it's a conspiracy
You are deranged
>You are deranged
That isn't an argument anon.
Wow, maybe you should tell me about how Shiva, Jupiter and Dazbog are all the same god lol.
You can even invent some imaginary linguistic link if their characteristics aren't convincing enough for the theory.
Linguistics has zero to do with writing scripts. t's the latter the video was talking about btw
>Linguistics has zero to do with writing scripts
Lol..... That's the most blatantly wrong thing I've heard all week.
This 100% correct. The Latin script being ultimately derived from the Phoenician alphabet does not mean Latin is a semetic language.
Raetic, ancient Greek, and Phoenician have first attestations so closely together that any one of them could have come from the other. Phoenician edges out by a mere fifty years.
only true if you're talking about Greek written with linear A.
We have Canaanite writing in Proto-sinatic going back to the 1400s BC, which is the ancestor of the Phoenician script.
I can dumb this down for you as well.
The first two letters of the greek alphabet are Alpha and Beta. Alphabet.
The first two letters of Phoenician and Hebrew are Aleph and Bet. The alphabet is called Alephbet.
>only true if you're talking about Greek written with linear A.
No, I'm talking about the Eurotas inscriptions dating back to the early 9th century. It uses symbols closely related to Raetic and some are literal runes that only show up again in northern Europe a millennium later. If anything, based on clustering of like characters then Phoenician is the odd one out. The rest of the scripts more heavily resemble each other. Putting the chronology of a fifty year lead aside and basing the origin point on common clustering, then the scripts probably originally came from the Alps.
>Putting the chronology of a fifty year lead aside
Bruh, can you read?
The inscriptions I'm referring to go back to the 1400s BC. That's 600 years before what you're referring to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic_script
So here is your problem and why you are an idiot: You saw the word "Sinai" in proto-Sinaitic and because you think the Bible is a legitimate document you immediately connected proto-Sinaitic to an ancient superpower called Israel, which also happens to be a complete work of fiction.
Instead, Sinai is referencing a geographic point named much later. In fact, Sinai for the Greeks is in Thailand and shown on the maps of Ptolemy. Instead "proto-Sinaitic" is actually referring to Egyptian, where the first collection of characters is found.
You have been educated. Adieu.
retarded spammer
>We have Canaanite writing in Proto-sinatic going back to the 1400s BC, which is the ancestor of the Phoenician script.
Other way around. If you pull up a list of Phoenician and Canaanite, Phoenician always comes first in terms of artifacts (no scripts involved). The problem is that the religious community (that is, neo-rabbinicalists) have to push back the date as close to the 2nd millennium BC for the Bible to make sense because the Canaanites necessarily have to be that old. By pushing forward to meet material evidence, the Biblical (Torahite) narrative crumbles like ash on the end of a cigarette. In fact, the earliest evidence for an inscription which I will generously refer to as Canaanite since Phoenician is a Greek exonym of European origin, is a comb that demonstrates a drifting away from Semitic style lettering.
>The Latin script being ultimately derived from the Phoenician alphabet does not mean Latin is a semetic language.
But a Phoenician/Latin Rosetta stone would reveal information you could never gleam any other way.
With no writing you have no evidence of an ancient language even existing.
Your imaginary point is bizarre.
Bro you just don't know the difference between script and language family.
Next you're going to tell me Vietnamese is related to English because they adopted the Latin alphabet.
>Next you're going to tell me Vietnamese is related to English because they adopted the Latin alphabet.
The fact that they adopted the Latin alphabet means that they have been culturally influenced by outsiders. And their language will reflect that to an extent.
>Bro you just don't know the difference between script and language family.
Everyone understands that anon.
But you don't understand the importance of script.
>Anon, stop saying bullshit. "Svet", for example, means "light" in both sanskrit and russian.
And that's wrong.
श्वेत white
उस वृद्ध की दाढ़ी सम्पूर्ण रूप से श्वेत है।
us vriddh kī dāṛhī sampūrṇ rūp se śvet hai.
That old man's beard is completely white.
cвeт light or world, earth, universe
Retard alert
Anon, stop saying bullshit. "Svet", for example, means "light" in both sanskrit and russian.
English: brother
Sanskrit: bruder
Dutch: broeder
German: bruder
The only difference is R1b and R1a
Brood
Hebrew is Greek. Read the book that puts neo rabs on suicide watch to this day.
https://archive.org/details/Hebrew.is.Greek
you've never heard hebrew or greek spoken in your life have you
do you think languages come out of being magically with no history?
>do you think languages come out of being magically with no history?
..... The wheel was independently invented multiple times.
you also have no familiarity with Latin, Greek, or Sanskrit
they're very obviously related
Greek and Latin yes.
Sanskrit is more likely a case of independent origin with some trading of words over time.
Likewise Latin isn't related to old Norse.
>you've never heard hebrew or greek spoken in your life have you
Nobody alive today has ever heard ancient Greek or Hebrew...
incorrect
we have reams of manuscripts and we can actually pronounce it
I have a cousin with a degree in anceint Greek and she knows how to pronounce it
in the specific case of ancient Greek we have grammarians who instructed their students how to pronounce it and wrote about it
also I'm not sure if you're aware of this but Greek is still a spoken language, alive, and spoken by tens of millions of people
>we have reams of manuscripts and we can actually pronounce it
Nobody knows how it was pronounced 3000 years ago anon.
Yeah, we actually do, and it's part of the work of linguistics to reconstruct it based on what people wrote and what people who spoke different languages wrote ABOUT it.
Sanskrit is not a case of independent origin and we know this because of cognates in Avestan which is also an Indo-European language.
As for Old Norse we know it's related to Latin because it's a Germanic language. Have you ever... actually read a book about comparative linguistics?
>t's part of the work of linguistics to reconstruct
Creatively guess...
>we know this because of cognates in Avestan
People claim cognates for everything all the time that turn out to be rubbish.
>As for Old Norse we know it's related to Latin because it's a Germanic language
Lol....
>Have you ever... actually read a book about comparative linguistics?
Yes, that's how I know it's mostly bullshit unless you are comparing two very similar languages.
>that turn out to be rubbish
Sanskrit's relationship with Avestan is well-established, much like the relationship between Vedic and Iranic traditions, which have substantial thematic and ritual similarities that go far beyond the assortment of identical and barely modified deity names (e.g. Mitra, Mithra; Vayu, Vayu; Yama, Yima; Trita, Thrita; Marut, Marut; Manu, Manu; Aramaiti, Aramati etc...).
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sanskritavestan.htm
http://www.elinguistics.net/Compare_Languages.aspx?Language1=Sanskrit&Language2=Avestan&Order=Details
https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/aveol
https://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339484332_Early_Vedic_Schism-Indo-Iranian_Split_and_Rise_of_Zoroastrianism
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/books/chapters/the-great-transformation.html
Some illiterate indians confused hebrew for sanskrit.
the Canaanite language is just a general term used for the ancestor of Phoenician, Hebrew, and Aramaic. It has nothing to do with the Bible or biblical Canaanites.
Well obviously. It was found in Ayodhya. Aka Judea (seriously that's another spelling for it). Rama was born in Judea because Rama is a israelite
>It was found in Ayodhya. Aka Judea (seriously that's another spelling for it). Rama was born in Judea because Rama is a israelite