Kali Yuga


Franz, it seems that I am the only one (here on sci.lang) who understands exactly what you are talking about. Despite such a vexing "reality" you are unwilling to enter a serious discussion with me.

1) In this specific case your DAL and KAL are derived from the same source (Gon-Bel basis) because DAL came from KAL (velar to dental change).

2) You are right about DAL (walley, dell, dingle; Serb. dolja, dolina), but you are wrong about its inversed form LAD because it doesn't mean 'hill' (you mentioned ladder as an example) but "to lean"; from PIE *khli-; Serbian na-klon bow, leaning forward; za-klon shelter; kloniti shun; po-kloniti bow, endow, donate; English lend, loan; Ger. leihen; Serb. lihva; Greek 'klino' to make to bend, slope; Serbian lotre ladder, probably from German Leiter); as you well know hill could come from your KAL syllable (Ger. Hügel, Italian collina, Serb. hum/hlum; Greek gelofos, kolone, chelone; compare helm, Haube, globus and Serbian oklop armor)

3) LAK is derived from the Bel-Gon basis (PIE *bhelgh-); Greek pelagizo (sea, lake), flowing, pool; Serb. politi/obliti (suffuse), lokva (pond, puddle, pool); Serbo-Slavic polniti; English fll, German füllen and it cannot be taken as a basic syllable or morpheme.

4) Your KAL for hell could be related to Hindu Kali Yuga (age of vice) and Serbian 'kaljuga' (bog) or the Serbian verb 'kaljanje' (pollution) where from the Serbian noun 'kajanje' (penitence) has been derived; of course, English calcination is close to the above mentioned words (Serb. kaljenje calcination) because the water-fire principle in a process of speech evolution (Ger. Flamme, Serbian 'pakao' hell; 'pa- kleno' hellish from the word 'planuti' (catch fire). I hope you will gather all your strength and forget any prejudice or bad feelings in order to enable this promising discourse to go on. Please, do not be afraid of me, I cannot injure you through the aether even if I am a bad Serbian guy

I told you my opinion before, and you didn't really answer my questions. In my opinion, your XUR BEL GON formula is a poetic aperçu containing a truth: word language may really have begun with religious formulas, perhaps uttered during a shamanic ritual, early words _were_ short, and there were only few words in the begin. However, a poetic aperçu is not the same as a scientific theory. You never explained when that formula was revealed to humankind, and where this happened. You never answered my old question why you constrict yourself to only five (and now to only three) ur-words. I have the same problem with Richard Fester and his five ur-words. The Ice Age people certainly knew many many more words.

LAD for hill is actually a big challenge for me, and it may develop into another test case of Magdalenian. I found no cognates and derivatives, apart from ladder, from an old word meaning slope. Perhaps lad hlad klad German klettern for to climb. This might be a further cognate or derivative. Then perhaps laden 'to load' and Ladung 'load', as a heap of fruits loaded on a wagon rsembles some sort of a hill. It may also be that lad for hill was eclipsed by a word for love, as Russian lady. I am working on this case.

The original Underworld KAL had a positive meaning, which can be seen in the Greek derivative kallos for beautiful. The negative meaning came about with the labor of mining.

Franz Gnaedinger

***

Absolutely right! I told it many times before, but nobody seems to
care about my posts… aaahhh 😦
English heaven and hell appeared from the same Gon-Bel womb (cf. Serb.
nebo, Lat. nebula, Ger. Nebel; Himmel; Hölle etc….; /see my post in
the "The 'hard core' of IE" thread/) </body>

Not Gon but Gon-Bel! I cannot say that Fester was wrong; on the
contrary, his Ur-syllables are plausible but nevretheless they belong
to the second layer of primordial morphemes. In fact, he did not
realize that his <ba> is Bel and that kall, tal, tag and acq were
componded, KALL and TALL of Gon-Bel; TAG of reduplicated Gon syllable,
ACQ of Gon-Bel; only OS (I used Wikipedia's article about Fester not
sure was it presented correctly) remained an enigma for me and I
couldn't find the way to fit it into my speech formula. If his OS
meant 'opening' as I read in Wiki (Lat. os or ostium; Serb. usta,
Greek stoma all with the meaning mouth; cf. stomach) then it must be
again reduplicated Gon syllable (cf. guest)

Hlǽfdige? The mistress of a household! Dough-maker! When we look at
English 'dough' (without the employment of the Xur-Bel-Gon speech
"formula") we would probably never say that that word is closely
related to Serbian 'testo' (dough).

Farthermore, using my speech formula we will be able to understand the
way in which a great number of words was developed begining with a
simple Gon reduplication (Serb. gonjenje; Eng. going/hunting; Serbian
kucanje; Eng. nocking; Serb. nit; Eng.knit; Serb. iz-gon /expel/, is-
kanje; Eng. asking) and ending with words as Serbian is-tezanje, na-
tegnuti and English tug or tension; Serb. taknuti/taći; English touch
etc…Serbian 'testo' is "produced" after a certain process of tuging
(Serb. tegljenje, tegnuće; cf. Ger. Teig, kneten; OCS gneti, gnesti;
Serb. gnječiti /knead/) is being applied.

Load (from OE hladan /hlód, hladen/) cannot be taken as a riverse DAL
simple because we are missing initial velar. Load is related to clod
and cloud in the same way as Serbian gomila/hlum (heap) is related to
oblak (cloud) and nebo (sky) or Lat. cumulus to nebula; cf. Himmel; OE
heofon/wolcen.

All the words you mentioned are going back to your KAL basis or my Gon-
Bel; even ladder is a reduced form of OE hlæder wher initial velar is
missed (hence Ger. klettern). I cannot find the cognate of klettern or
(h)ladder in Serbian simply because Serbian followed a different logic
(nebo, oblak /sky, cloud/ => penjati se /climb/; from /h/upinjati se /
strive/; cf. OE hoppian /hop/ – Gon-Bel-Gon basis) similar to OE
climban, instaed of clod/cloud "orientierung" (klettern, Leiter; again
Gon-Bel-Hor ur-basis).

In one of my previous messages (where I spoke about unusual parallel
relation between Serb. oblak /cloud/ vs. obleka /cloth/ and cloud vs
cloth) said that I used a certain "semantic tricks", but everyone who
read carefully the above analysis would see that such a semantic
relation (profound and greatly expanded) is more than OBVIOUS! It
means that comparative method must, in the first place, rely on
semantics and after a thorough semantic inquiries are done then we
have to observe phonetic rules, which appeared to be unsuitable in
some cases (RUKI rule in Slavic, for example).

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Comparative Linguistics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: