A Supervised Nadzor


Serbian word nadzor (suprvision; Russ. nad-zor/nad-zor (supervision); Czech do-zor; Pol. nadzór (supervision); Arabic nadzara (supervision); Tur. nezaret (supervision); Per. nâzer (overseer), nazar (sight, vision); False cognates?

na*DH*a:ra(t)

Yusuf B Gursey

And what is your point? Do you think of Aramaic NDR (vow; nthar; nethra, nziru), Arabic nadhara (vow, dedicate, promise), Hebrew nazar (dedicate, consecrate, separate)?

Yes, these two words are closely related; "to keep sacredly separate" is very near to "supervise" and those who "supervise" are called Na(d)zarite; cf. Akkadian nazaru (curse; Tur. nazar "an evil eye"; Arabic nadzar sight, look; Akkadian nassaru, Heb natzar /look, watch, keep, guard/).

In the Slavic languages, "nad" (and variants) is a prefix attached to "zor" (and variants), "zor" being the root. Therefore "nadzor" (and variants) doesn't constitute a root. In Arabic, n*DH*r is a root meaning "to look."

Marc Adler

First, the Arabic "root" for look cannot be your n*DH*r because the Arabic word nadzar is derived from two basis: n@(d) + zhr (to be visible, light; cf. Serb/Slav. zora dawn; Arabic sahhar; Serb. Zornjača Venus; Arabic Zuhara Venus; Serbian personal name Zora, Arabic Zohra – both with the meaning "dawn"). The way in which the linguistic science treats Semitic "roots" is absolutely wrong; it means that reality is quite different – Semitic "primal bases" (of words) are probably the same as those in IE.

"Any given language pair contains just enough coincidental lexical similarities to convince linguistic neophytes that there is an undiscovered genetic link between the two languages." – The Adler theory of coincidental lexical similarity between languages

Marc Adler

This definition seems to be incomplete. You say "language pair… between two languages". Between which languages? Maybe you thought "between two languages of different language families"? The so called "false friends" between two Europen IE languages are just a kind of semantic changes, while "false cognates" are absolutely impossible among European languages (excluding Albanian and Armenian).

And if you don't believe me, you should see the list of linguistic coincidences I've compiled for Japanese and English

Marc Adler

Yes, in case of English and Japanese "false cognates/" are quite normal… nothing unusual. These languages do not belong to the same language family and, according to probability calculus, similar linguistic (randomly "matching") coincidences are resonable and clearly possible (foreseeable) result.

I've said what I have to say about the matter. Enjoy your theorizing.

Marc Adler

You are theorizing with your "theory of coincidental lexical similarity between languages". Anyone can see that it is not the same if we speak about relation between English and Japanese or English and German. Your "coincidental formula" is generalizing and putting under the same "umbrella" very complex and very different language families, what is (from the scientific point of view) absolutely inadmissible. It means that you neglected obvious differences among languages originating from different language families (on one side), and ignored the internal relations among languages within the one specific language family (on the other).

Maybe you believe that you have said something significant via your "coincidental theory", but in reality, your "theory of coincidental lexical similarity between languages" is nothing else but a pure "philosophy of emptiness".

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: