Arabic – the “Mother Tongue”

As a student of Indian languages, I can tell you straight off that you
have made sweeping generalisations in your choice of place-names.

You are right, this is a compound word; the root 'srb' never existed
in IE.
In this case we have the same basis Sur-Bel-Gon for both of these
words – Serbin (Serblin) and Sarband. It means that words Srbin and
Sarband are compound words. The literal meaning of the word Serblin is
probably "zora bela" (white dawn), but it could also be "red dawn" or
"burning dawn";
Sar is also head (chief) in English (ser) and in German (Her) because
the most important man (leader, chieftain, headman) of a tribe was
compared to the sun (or sun divinity) – Czar (!).
Serbian 'zora' is clearly related to the sun (Serb. sunce; Sur-Gon
basis; from sur-nce => sunce; elision of the sound "r"); therefrom
Serbian Zornjača (Venus, Lucifer. Morning Star).
Of course, meanings 'white' and 'high' are completely different as in
case of Serbian words 'belo' and 'visoko' (high) or veliko (big); also
'planina' (mountain). On the other hand, we should know that
'belo' (white) is springing from the sun-god Bel as wel as the word
'plam' (flame; from Serbian 'planuti' blaze; Bel-Gon basis) or the
word vezati (bound).
Now we can see that Serbian white (belo) and bound (vezan) are the
words that were derived from the same Bel-Gon basis. How? Serbian belo
(white) is related to bljesak (flash) and munja (Russ. molniя/molniya;
Bul. mъlniя; from Bel-Gon basis; paljenje (ignition, burning) =>
maljenje => mulnja => munja; cf. Serb. bljuzga/v => mljuzga/v =>
mlaz). Of course, Serbian verb vezati is not directly related to the
"whiteness" or "flash", but indirectly, via Bel (the sun), oblak
(cloud; oblak oblači sunce /cloud clothes the sun/) and Serb. obloga/
oblanda (coating, covering) the vord vezati (bind; Avesta basta /
bound, tied up/; Hindi bastah; Skt. valganaṃ) is connected to the sun
The names Sarband and Sarbuland are obviously derived from the same
source, because 'band' also sprang from the Sur-Bel-Gon basis (Serb.
obloga/oblanda; Skt. valganam; cf. Skt. valga /bridle/). Finally, both
of these words are indirectly "related" through the words as oblak
(cloud; obloga/oblanda, vezati /fasten/) and nebo (sky), nebo, nebule
is (visoko; Serb. ne-besko /of the sky/; visoko high; nad-visiti /
become higher, overgrow/) high in the sky and the sky (nebo) is
"white/red/flamed/blazed" in the morning.

Who told you that Sanskrit is IE only because of loanwords? It is
generally recognised that
Sanskrit is derived from an Aryan tongue of
invaders into India. Yes, the native population of India all acquired
vocabulary from these invaders. But you must not forget that the Aryan
invaders also acquired vocabulary from the conquered peoples of India.
Sanskrit contains so much IE that it would be safer to say that it is
an IE tongue that contains elements of Indian tongues in it, and not
the other way round.

The Sanskrit vocabulary is not logically arranged according to the
meaning of words. The Sanskrit words cannot be traced back to its
original source (basis, root) without the help of European languages
(Slavic, Germanic, Romance and Greek). The similar internal lexical
confusion is visible in Albanian (probably in Armenian) and in all
other eventual languages where the number of loanwords surpassed the
number of native words.

It is thus a rather small estimate to state that the total
number of
root words
in ancient Arabic is 100 000.

How many words the ancient Arabic had? Read again what you have
written: […Then, using each one of these basic root words, literally
thousands of
further roots can be constructed…]
Please, multiply your "each root" of "existed" 20.000 "basic roots" by
your "thousands of further roots" and what are you getting…?
20.000.000 of "roots" and "subroots"?

Arabic: A-R-D Dutch: AA-R-D German: E-R-D English: EA-R-TH Latin: T-E-
RR(A) [T has changed place]

Arabic: GH-R-B English: C-R-(O)W Latin: C-(O)-R-V(US) French: C-(O)-R-
Arabic: A-G-G (to light a fire) Latin: I-G-(NIS) Sanskrit: A-G-(NI)

Arabic: Q-A-T-'A English: C-U-T Hindi: K-A-T
Arabic: Q-(I)-T English: C-A-T K-(I)-TT-(EN) French: CH-A-T German: K-

Arabic:H-U-SH [house courtyard] English: H-(OU)-S-(E) German: (H-

Arabic: D-A-M [staying somewhere] Serbian: D-O-M Latin: D-O-M-(US)

Arabic: A-R-D

And all these is related to "hard" (Serbian gruda /lump of soil/;
krut /hard/) in IE languages. Aramaic daḥrānāy (hard); "terrain";
Russ. daroga/doroga (road); Hebrew däräk (road). This is just another
example that could be taken as one of the "undeniable evidences" of
the common origin of IE and Semitic

Arabic: GH-R-B

Aramaic harak (burn; Arab. harak burn; giru /fire/) and Serbian goreti
(burn) are the words from the same Hor-Gon basis; hence Serbian garav
(black, dark), gar (soot), žar (ember)
Arabic ghirab and Latin corvus are related to Serbian gavran (crow;
metathesis of garvan; Serb. garab /black/); cf. Serb. gorivo fuel

Arabic: A-G-G

Serbo-Slavic oganj (fire), žega (heat), žedan/žeđ (thirsty. thirst);
in reality, oganj (ignis) comes from Gon-Bel-Gon basis (Serb. ognjilo
fire-place, curved pieces of steel used with flint to strike a spark);
Serb. nebo se za-ognjilo "the sky burned up"

Arabic: Q-A-T-'A

Serb. prekinuti (break), preseći (cut), seći (cut), Latin sectio
(cut); Eng. hack; Serb. ot-kinuti (split), kidati (pluck, kut off;
Serb. kidaj! /tear off! cut!/);
Latin praecido (to cut short); praeseco (cut short); Aramaic pesqā
(section, cut; maybe omission of the sound "r"; cf. Latin praeseco;
Serb. preseći, presekao (cut in half). It seems that this word is much
clear in IE than in Semitic.

Arabic: Q-(I)-T

Probably Serb. domaćin, Lat. dominus; apheresis do-maćica (hostess) =>
maca => mačka (cat); Serb. domaći (domestic; domaće životinje live-
stock); cf. Latin do-matrix => mater. mother.


Serb. kuća (house), Slovene hiša (house), Eng. hut

Arabic: D-A-M

This word 'dom' is related to 'sky' (Serb. nebo), inhabit (Serb.
naseobina) but it demands a long explanation and I have no time at the
moment to write how it has been developed; try to relate Ger. Nebel
and Slavic dim/dimljenje (smoke/smoking; Turkish duman smoke)

This is why linguists usually place semitic languages
very near the base (the so-called 'MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES' of the
language tree.

Don't you think that talking about the "mother of all languages"
sounds childish and ridiculous? There were a lot "scientists" who
solemnly declared urbi et orbi that they found the "mother tongue" –
beginning with the Sanskrit for which the most of modern linguists,
even today, believe that it was the first descendant of the PIE. All
the PIE reconstructions were made as a mirrored image of Sanskrit and
therefore they all were/are wrong.

All IE languages must be of the same age as well as all Semitic
languages must have been born at the same time. In case that IE and
Semitic used the same primeval basis (Xur-Bel-Gon) it would have meant
that IE and Semitic are coeval languages. The world wasn't always a
"global village" and some groups people were often separated one from
another by natural disasters, sometimes for periods longer than the
millennium/s. When they met again, logically, they were unable to
understand eachother because their former common language has been
bifurcated into two different (unintelligible) tongues.

One natural language cannot be "born" from another "older" one. For
instance, could anyone say which one of the German dialects is
"older": Frisian, Frankish, Alemannic, Bavarian or Middle/Low German?
Being "born" implies a precise moment of "creation" and it implies
sudden existence and more or less quick perishing. Natural languages
are developing enormously slowly and therefore "invisible". We can see
a "grown up" natural language but we cannot see its "childhood".
English cannot be taken as an example of naturally (normally)
developed language because the conqerers of the British Isles mixed
their language with the language of native people to a great extent

And what makes you feel that this is not an example of normal development?

Joachim Pense

Old English has been heavilly "polluted" during its history: first by
Scandinavians (8th and 9th centuries) and than by Normans (11th
century). Old English vocabulary and grammar were changed by force
(unnaturally) and therefore the Modern English language could be
considered as a sort of mixed language.

Slavic languages are most naturally developed languages among all IE
tongues, thanks to the small (negligible) influence of foreign
speeches to their internal logic and philosophical patterns, being
used in the process of their evolution.

Any of particular language families of today must have expirenced a
prior phase of "total isolation", which sometimes lasted for hundreds
of thousands of years, maybe millenniums

In case of the genesis of languages there is/was no the "previous
one". There are no languages that can be considered "older" or
"younger" – languages exist in a form we see them today and their
historical development could be traced back less or more deep into the
past, but not more than two to three milleniums.

Otherwise, will you say that a mammal is the same creature as a
reptile, which is the same creature as an amphibian, which is the same
as a fish, which is the same as an invertebrate, which is the same as
a single-celled organism?

I think you have chosen a good example: which one of the living
creatures is the "oldest" one on the Planet Earth? You could say
"none" and you could say "all" and both answers would be equally
correct. All the "earthly living creatures" must be of the same age,
because all of them have the common ancestor – a single microscopic
living cell!

If you say that Arabic is a "mother tongue" it automatically implies
that Arabs taught IE people how to use the tongue as a mean of
communication. You can believe whatever you want but you cannot prove it with a few
words you mentioned in one of yours earlier posts. As a matter of fact,
I think that I managed to show the history of those words much better
than you succeded to prove your Arabic-Mother-Language "hypothesis

For example, the word SUKKAR in Arabic (sugar) is derived from the
root S-K-R which means "to make drunk". This word is still used today.
And the link is obvious: sugar is the basis of alcohol production,
whence drunkenness. This is the case scenario for every single word in
semitic tongues.

No, you are wrong: Arabic sukkar is the Greek loanword (Gr. σακχαρ
sugar) and this Greek word is related to ισχνωσις (drying up); i.e.
Serbian šećer (sugar) is related to Serbian sušenje (drying up) and to
the word sušara (dryer, drying room); cf. Skt. śarkarā (sugar);
śuṣyati (dry up; Serb. sušiti dry up). Arabic s-k-r (sukr drunkennes)
could be related to sukkar in sense of consumption of "sweet drinks"
but the word sukkar wasn't derived from the Semitic root SKR but from
the primal IE basis Sur-Hor. I hope I do not need to remind you that
you cannot produce sugar without the process of drying of cane juice
(the earliest sugar refining methods used the sun's heat energy; Skt.
sahasradhāman the sun; sūryakiraṇaḥ sun-beam; Serb. zrak).

Between SUKKAR (sugar) coming from
DRUNKENNESS, which is very precise,
and SUKKAR coming from DRY, which is very general and could apply to a
whole load of things, I think I know which one a logical person will

Do you know the etymology of the Arabic word ssahhra (Sahara); is it
related to Arabic ssahha (cloudless. clear; Hebr. tsakh dry, glow,
dazzling, bright; Serb. suh dry; sijati glow, sjajan dazzling; Amharic

The primeval basis of all these words is Sur-Gon (Serb. Zor-njača
Venus; Sunce Sun; from Sur-Gon => sur-nke => sur-nce => sunce sun);
hence the Serbian words zrak (beam), zriknuti (look), Russian zerkalo/
zerkalo (mirror); Serb. zrno (grain; according to the round shape of
the sun; sunce (sun; the omission of the sound r) <= surnce => zornica/
zornjača (Venus) => zrnce (grain). Now is clear that Serbian word suho
(dry) is derived from the noun sunce (sun) and the verb sunčati (to
sun); hence sušenje (drying; from suhenje /h => š palatalization/).

Sahara desert is nothing else but Serbian suhara (sušara /driying
place/) or Semitic sakh (dry; Serb. suh dry) and the relation between
the words sun (Arabic shams), sunny (shiny), Arabic ssahha (clear;
Hebrew tzakh dry, bright) and Serbian suh (dry) and sjajan (shiny;
also Serb. sinuti brighten) is more than obvious.

Finally, if we compare Arabic sahhar (dawn) and Serbian zora (dawn) we
will understand that any story about "mother" language is pointless;
cf. feminine personal name Zuhra, Zorah (dawn) and Serbian Zora/Zorica
(dawn); Zohreh (planet Venus; Serb. Zornjača Venus).

Some of the linguists compared Sanskrit śarkarā (gravel)
śarkarākhaṃḍaḥ (pebble) and Greek κροκαλη (pebble; from κροκυς flock;
an orderly crowd; from Gr. krykos circle; Serb. krug circle). Serbian
zrno (grain) is derived from the Hor-Gon basis (krug circle; from the
rounded form similar to the shape of the Sun; Slavic sun divinity
Hors). It means that sugar could have aquired its name in accordance
to its granular structure. If we know that Hor-Gon basis is just the
same as Sur-Gon (both basis came from Xur-Gon) we can compare sugar to
the Serbian adjective zaokružen (rounded) which is equal to English
surrounded; all from Sur-Hor-Gon basis (Serb. šećerenje sweetening;
zgrudvati to lump; gruda lump of soil; Arabic arsz Earth; Hebrew
erets); cf. Arabic qarasa make rigid; Hebrew kheh'res earthen; Semitic
q-r-s harden; English hard; Serbian krut).

And look at the following miraculous "overturn": Serbian verbs
izgoreti and sagoreti (burn down) are clearly related to the words
mentioned earlier as Serbian sušara (drying place) and sagoreti (burn
down) is related to Serbian skoreti (encrust) and, in addition, that
skoreti (encrust) is related to zgrud-vati (to lump) and ukrutiti

Finally, Latin sugo, sugere (suck) is related to Serbian sisanje
(sucking; from sihanje; suhenje => sušenje drying up, sisa/sika
nipple, mammary gland, woman's breast); cf. Lat. sicco -are (to make
dry , to dry).

Comparing Sahraa to Zohraa is also a clear example of how you do not
understand that s and z are NOT interchangeable in Arabic. In Arabic
NO consonants are interchangeable. They ARE interchangeable in IE.

Not truth! Compare sharq (East), sahhar (dawn) and Zuhara (Venus),
Sanskrit śukra (Venus);
Or gharb (West), gharib (foreigner), harb (war), harb (hostility);
gharib (camel's back); ghariba (go dawn, sunset)
Arabic sachuna (be warm) is clearly related to Serbian suh, sunčanje,
sušenje and sunce (the sun), Arabic shams (the sun).

Explore posts in the same categories: Comparative Linguistics

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: