Follow by Email

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Monogenesis



For a long time the linguists have discouraged the relationships between the languages outside of their family. In our modern days, some great linguists, Noam Chomsky, Joseph Greenberg, Derek Bickerton, etc, deeper than others have confirmed that there is a strange link between the languages classified as separate families. Their confirmations have been strongly opposed, especially Joseph Greenberg’s research, because they are very difficult to be understood. Those reaserches have led to reclassification of languages in a number several times lower than previous classifications. Today, some of their approaches are accepted, but several decades ago it would have been impossible. There is no doubt that the knowledge and the use of new methods of language can improve the linguistic thinking on this point, but I have to say we are at the very beginning of the new linguistic era.

The etymology, or other suspect linguistic branches have in common that they do not have a precise scientific method; neither rational nor methodical about how languages were created. The linguistic of the past still is cited, and it is being taught in today's schools, even though  most of its deductions are guesses. It always tends to rule out other new possibilities of the linguistic research , continues to impact negatively every kind of research in this direction.

Regarding Albanian language, the linguists use the "loan" term, without considering what they do not know about the language, or at least without taking into account some other very old language links , which can rotate the “loan” route.

Unfortunately, who have written about Albanian not only did not know what was not known about languages, which is normal, but also they did not know Albanian too.


Albanian language Wikipedia; discussions;
Unknown #1::In Albanian N.sing.Accus. Def. is also inflected with -n , feminine dative sing nouns are also inflected with -s, the Albanian gen/dative plural -ave or ëve bear a striking similarity to the cited gaulish obo - ebo - ibo inflections. The Gaulish vocative cited here seems to be a bare stem; likewise in Albanian. Compare the uninflected Gaulish subordinating particle jo with the Albanian particle që, also uninflected. Albanian also has pronominal clitics which are tied to the verb and which can be doubled to mark direct and indirect objects. The described analytical sentence structure (SVO pro-drop, genitives and adjectives follow head nouns)could equally describe Albanian.Possible cognates: Gaulish=art Albanian=ari Eng=bear Gaulish=uerno Albanian=verv Eng=alder Gaulish=carros Albanian=karro Eng=wagon Gaulish=briga Albanian=breg Eng=hill Gaulish=bitu Albanian=botë Eng=world Gaulish=gobbo Albanian=gojë Eng=mouth Gaulish=maru Albanian=madh Eng=great/big Gaulish=sapo Albanian=sapun Eng=soap.

Unknown #2:
The short answer is that these are coincidental. To begin with the cognates, some go back to the same PIE root (artos/ari; bitu/botë; verno/verr; briga/breg); maros/madh are unrelated; others are loans from Lat/Romance (sapun < L sapo(nem) < Gaul sapo < Gmc; gojë < Ital gola < L gula; karrë < Lat carrum < Gaul carros); gobbo/gojë are unrelated. As for morphology, që 'that' < *kwṓd, and its behavior is seen in other langs., including Eng. that. Most western European langs are analytical to varying degrees and share these features to varying degrees (Spanish/Italian are like Alb.). The Gaul. vocative is not a bare stem (-e, -i, -u), and neither is Alb., where -o is borrowed from Slavic. Alb def. endings are generally from an old suffixed demonstrative (cf. -i < is; -it < tei; -et < tei/tons), but the m.acc.sg. is the only orig. ending to be retained (because the demonst. fell off), and it matches Gaul. (and most other IE langs) because they are both from PIE. Similarly, fem.dat.sg.def. -ës is from an old suffixed demonstrative (ës < āi-tsāi < āi-kjāi). Alb. fem.pl.indef. -ave/ëve is an innovated compound of a/ë < -ā (copied from the other endings) + masc. u-stem -ve < -u̯-ōm, which copies the masc. formation by analogy; it is completely unreleated to -abo/ibo. Finally, the doubling of clitics in Alb. is a trait common to several Balkan langs., but Celtic does not have the same kind of phenomenon. Hope this was helpful. Flibjib8 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
Unknown #3:
Every time when the linguists do not understand something they use that "coincidental" word. Your premise is based to a language that the contemporary linguists like to think that it is the ancestor language. No linguist can provide an answer about the amount of the time that a linguistic set lasts. The PIE language is not a fact. It is a supposed language. All its words are not based on measurable and verifiable data. Your argument is not valid, because the major premise is untrue. [(artos/ari; bitu/botë; verno/verr; briga/breg); maros/madh are unrelated]; It is so clear that they are related. Loans from Latin? The Latin word for mouth is not "gula", but it is "bucca" and /bocca/ in Italian. The Latin word for throat is /gula/, and /gola/ in Italian. The Albanian word for mouth is "goj" and the Chinese word for mouth is 口(kou), although somebody is going to say, "It is coincidental", because of the prejudices, or of the lack of a really knowledge on how words are created.

No comments:

Post a Comment