The Cybalist Guru’s Ignorance

This guy Piotr is the leading linguistic Cyba-cave "expert" among the
dickheads like Brainy and Word-and-Game. In reality, Piotr Gasiorowski
is a shame for the linguistic science and his "teaching" and
"lectures" are nothing but a rubbish/bullshiting that must be cleaned
up as soon as possible.

Re: [tied] Slavic placenames

19-01-04 12:32, andelkod wrote:
Amateur question regarding slavic root *lub or *lob meaning skull,
cranium (lubanja, lobanja) and from the same root also 'lubenica'
(watermellon) .

The meaning can be even an exposed and visible hill.
So, placenames like Lubenik, Lubenice, Lubnica, Lubenka, Lubyanka,
and even Ljubljana and Ljubelj, I suspect, can be connected with this
root (locations with exposed and visible hill).
Placenames like Lomnica could also be result of development from
Lobnica and Lovnik from Lobnik.
Am I wrong?


You're confusing several different etymological bases, such as *lUbU ~
*lUbI 'head, skull', *lubU 'bast, strip of wood or bark', *ljubiti
'love', and *lomiti 'break'. No connections, just similarity.



I found your above post by chance (Google) and I must admit that I was
deeply disappointed when reading those lines of your total ignorance.

Is it possible that you are unable to grasp that all the above words
are derived from the primeval Gon-Bel-Gon basis (Serbo-Slavic oblo
round; Russ. okolo, ob; Cz. oble; Pol. pełny; Slavic *pln; Serb.
obilan => p/o/ln => pun full). Can you not see that Slavic *lob is
related to Latin globus and Serb. oblina (roundness; from h/oblina;
cf. Pol. powłoka, Serb.. obloga coat, covering); metathesis – oblog
(cover, coating) => oklop (armor, shield, shell, mail). Do you know
why the ball is named piłka in Polish and why and how is it related to
Serbian lopta (ball) and lubenica (watermelon) ?

Slavic verb ljubiti (kiss, love; from oblo-biti => obli-vati suffuse
=> ob-ljubiti love, kiss, intercourse; cf. copulate, coupled) is also
derived from the words like oblak (cloud), oblina (roundness) and
obloga (coating, covering); i.e. from the above mentioned ur-basis
(Gon-Bel-Gon) . Unusual, is it not? Love, globe, lobanja (skull),
lubenica (watermelon) , lomiti (break) – all is born from the same Gon-
Bel-Gon "womb"!

Would you like me to tell you how it happened… precisely?

Well — yes.

We've been asking you to do that for months if not years, and you
never have done yet.

Peter Daniels

I hope now you are able to understand that all the Serbian words on
this graphic are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon (or Bel-Gon) ur-basis.
It starts from the heaven (nebo) and cloud (oblak) via kaplja (drop)
to coast (obala), vlaga (vetness) and voda (water). All is influenced
by the round form of the sun (oblo, oblina round). Similar is in other
IE languages.

I think you are going to be surprised if I say that English cloud and
clod are the words closely related to Ger. Wolke and Serbian oblak
(cloud; cf. Serb. kolut a round piece of something, hoop; klada stump,

English cloud is related to Serbo-Slavic oblak (cloud) in the same way
as hill is related to Homolje (gomila, cumulus, heap; hlum. hum) or
even glava/glavica (head, the top of a hill; Slavic galava is
metathesis of h/oblo round; Gr. κεφαλή; Lat. globo = Serb. h/oblo).
Slavic lubanja (from hlobanja => globanja => glava) is in fact the
same word as Latin globus. Hence you can see that Slavic lubenica
(watermelon) was named like that in accordance with its round form
{cf. Slavic jablaka (apple) from h/oblo (round), Serb. kruška (pear),
from krug (circle)}.

You probably know that bath or spa is balneum in Latin and in Serbian
it is banja. The Serbian verb banjati means "to bath, bathe" and it is
closely related to the Serbian words oblak and kapljanje (dribble);
oblak came from gnoblak => goblak => oblak and kaplja (drop) from
gnabla = gabla; cf. Serb. obliti suffuse; h/obliti => kapljati (to
drip). Serbian banja (bath) and banjanje (bathing) is coming from the
verb kupanje, i.e. from the above g/oblak (cloud) and kapljanje

If we add to the above the Serbian verb ovlažiti (from vlaga vetness;
ovlažen wet; from g/oblagen) we are going to understand why the whole
"aquatic" chain of words is related in Serbian: oblak (cloud), kaplja
(drop), kupanje (bathe), ovlažiti (to wet; vlaga wetness). Finally,
there is relatedness between Slavic voda and Latin aqua through the
Serbian verbs okupati (bathe) and ukuvati (boil). Of course, there we
can make other comparisons as among the words like Serbian okovati (to
fetter, shackle), uhvatiti (catch) and Latin occupo -are (occupy),
habeo (have), capio and a whole bunch of words I was talking about in
one of my earlier posts.

The English word love is a counterpart to Serbian ljubav (love) and
the Serbian verb ljubiti (to kiss, love). In this case (as I have
shown in my graphic), ljubiti is aphereses of obljubiti (copulate; as
you see "copulate/coupling" also comes from Gon-Bel-Gon basis; Serb.
oblegnuti copulate, from h/oble-gnuti). Not accidentally, the Serbian
verbs obljubiti and oblegnuti (both with the meaning "copulate") are
very close phonetically to the other Serbian verbs: oblivati/oblinuti
(suffuse, flood) ond oblagati (to coat, cover). Beside obljubiti,
there is the Serbian verb oblepiti (to stick around, to glue), from
which the Slavic *lubU (strip of wood or bark; Serb. oljupina); cf.
Serb. pri-ljubiti (stick together), pri-lepiti (to glue together).
Bark of tree is a protective covering of the woody stems and it is
"glued" (Serb. lepiti to glue) to the trunk. We need no big brain to
grasp why ljubiti (kiss) is almost the same as lepiti (glue) and both
are close to uljubiti (to kiss inward) and ulubiti (bulge inward).
Later on, ulubiti (bulge inward) became ulomiti (to break; /b/ to /m/
sound change) or lomiti (break).

You haven't presented any argument to counter.

You haven't "tried to demonstrate" a damn thing. All you do is "hope
we are able to understand," without providing any hint of what there
is to understand.

Peter Daniels

All the words I mentioned here are derived from the agglutinated

OBLINA (roundness; from G(N)OBLIGNA).
OBLAK (cloud; from GNOBLAK, Ger. WOLKEN),
KUPANJE (bath; from G(N)UBLANJE; Serb. BANJA spa; Lat. BALNEUM),
OVLAŽEN (wet; from (G)OBLAGEN),
OBLINUTI (flood, suffuse; from GO(N)BLIGNUTI; Lat. INLUVIES from

What else can I do if you are unable to comprehend what I am talking
about? This is not too complicated to understand. Perhaps, you are
not familiar with some of the Slavic languages; if so, this may be a
"pueblo español" for you.

First, show how each of those "from"s is derived (regularly) from
"BO(N)BELGON" (whatever that is); then show how each of your words is
derived (regularly) from those "from"s.

Peter Daniels

Serb. OBLINA (roundness) from GNOBLINA by apheresis; cf. Eng, KNOB (a
circular rounded projection or protuberance), KNOLL (hill-top), Old.

OBLAK (cloud) from GNOBLAK (apheresis) akin to Serbian OBLOG, OBLOGA
(coat, covering); OBLEKA (cloth) cf. Latin NUBO (to cover, veil),
NEBULA (cloud).

In addition you can see that Serb. KAPLJA originated from GNOBLAK,
OBLAK (cloud), NEBO (sky); hence Serb. adj. NAVLAŽEN (soaked, wet;
from GNABLAGEN, omission of the initial /g/, /b/ to /v/ sound change
in the second syllable, palatalisation /g/ to /ž/, third syllable);
cf. HUMIDUS, UVIDUS (humid, vet).

Lat. humidus is related to Serb. umiti (to wash, lave); Lat. uvidus is
related to humidus (umidus), do you no why and how? All these words
are derived from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis or the H/obligon agglutination:
Serb. obli-gnuti => oblinuti (suffuse, flood) => obliti (suffuse) =>
oMbliti (nasalisation) => umiti (wash, lave).

Above change is regular and there are many similar examples (haben =
imati; oblak =Himmel etc.). The rule you are asking for is about to
be written; I am working on it.

If you have understand the above explanation we may continue our "experiment"
with more difficult examples.

Not accidentally, there are Serbian words NA-OBLAČEN (cloudy), akin to
NAVLAŽEN (wet, soaked); Serb. OBLAK (cloud) => VLAGA (wetness); it
means that KAPLJA (drop) is NAVLAŽENA (wet; from GNABLAGNE = KAPLJANJE

No, sometimes two words that you think are related, really *are*
related. A problem is that there is nothing in your approach that
distinguishes those cases from the cases where your relationship claims
are wrong, because your approach is insufficient to make that determination.

Let's put it this way: Not one of your arguments I've ever seen has
looked anything like:

German "ei" ~ Dutch "ee" ~ English "o"


or this:

Latin initial "pl", "cl", "fl" > Spanish initial "ll", Portuguese
initial "ch"


An explanation of this latter sound correspondence that resembles your
usual contributions would read like:

'See if you are able to grasp that Spanish "llover" is related to
Portuguese "chover". Compare Latin "labium" ("lip") to English
"chapstick" (substance that's spread on the lips). Also compare
"chapstick" with "spit" (thing that comes between the lips), "chin",
"cheek" and "llorar" (crying, thing that comes out of the eyes).'

The conclusion would be true, but this reasoning wouldn't lead to it.
It's a mess, and it's the way all your rambling "demonstrations" work.

Harlan Mesinger

It is not difficult to see the correspondences among the same branch
of languages. What are we going to do with Slavic or Romance words?

German "ei" ~ Dutch "ee" ~ English "o"eins/een/one =
Latin unus; Russian odin; Greek ένας; Serb. jedan; Slovene eden; Cz.

It is more than obvious that all these words were derived from the
same source. Tell me, what source was it? For instance, would you say
that Serbian jedan and German jeden -r (any; jedenfalls anyway) could
be related to Serbian jedan, jedno (the same) and jednako (equal).
What do you expect me to do if the phonetic changes were so
unpredictable as they were in this case; German jeden corresponds to
OE 'ænig' or English 'any' (anyone). Among the common people in Serbia
even today we can here the words "jenak" (the same, of the same
quality; jednak) and 'jenom' (to sombody); hence the Serbian pronouns
'onaj' (that one), 'neko/neki' (someone, anyone). After this small
comparison, the conclusion is inevitable: all the pronouns (except the
second person singular and plural) in Serbian are related to the
number one (jedan). Similar is in all the other IE languages.

zwei/twee/two = Serb. dva, Lat. duo; similar in other IE languages.

Have you ever asked yourself why the German "divide" sounds Teilung
and not Zeilung (Zeile row, line)? Divide is related to Serbian
odvojiti (separate; odvajati) while German Teilung is akin to Serbia
'deljenje' (division, separation; Ger. Teil part = Serb. deo; from
del, deliti divide). Now we can see (I hope you are not so blind) that
English divide (Lat. divido -videre), German teilen and Serbian
deljenje/odvajanje are the words derived from the same ur-basis. In
addition, there is the English word double (Lat. duplus), which is
also in an accordance with the all above mentioned "divisible" words.
The number 'two' followed the "breaking off" (Serbian odvaliti break
off => odvojiti separate) and the opposite, "thickening" (Serb.
debljanje /thickening/ => dobijanje /acquiring/ => dvojenje /
doubling/) logic.

OK if you like the games. Let mi ask you, why German Haufen is
phonetically closer to Heaven than to Heap, while Himmel could be
rather compared to Cumulus than to Heaven?

As you can see, nothing to do with Serbian… pure Germanic words, but
I bet you cannot explain the above "enigma". Are you going to say that
the above words are not derived from the same ur-basis?

Because things don't operate phonetically in the nice, neat patterns you
would like them to. Just as just as the Dutch word "water", the
corresponding French word, "eau", and the corresponding Irish word,
"uisge", don't sound anything like each other–yet this is a case where
we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have the same origin. If
you don't understand the facts, then you are in no position to be
creating theories, or at least not in expecting anyone to believe
anything you say.

Harlan Mesinger

What do you mean? Eau-de-vie? Water of life qalqued as uisge beatha or
aqua-vita? Of course, as translations these words are related.

You are the one who is unable to understand that aqua and water are in
fact akin to eachother. On the other side, Gaelic uisce might_be the
same word as Rusian vodka. In reality, aqua is derived from the Gon-
Bel-Gon basis and voda and wetness from Bel-Gon. Serbian voda (water)
and vlaga (wetness) have the same ancestor, while English water came
from the extended form Bel-Gon-Hor (similar to Serbian vodurina /big
water/). Aqua is related to Serbian oblak (cloud; from g(n)oblak and
kupati (bathe), Greek Ωκεανός; there is a big secret why the Serbian
verbs 'uhvatiti' (to catch, seize, fetch; hvat hold) and
'okovati' (fetter) are phonetically almost the same as Latin
'aquatio' (a fetching of water) and why the English word 'fetter'
sounds almost the same as 'water' (see the etymology of the word fetch

It means that you have an opinion that *aqua- and *ved- are the roots
who have the same ancestor and that ancestor is *aquved-?
If so, you might be partially right. Serbian words like ukapati (to
seep in, ooze) and ukuvati (to boil down). The first word (ukapati) is
related to oblak {g(n)oblak} and kapljanje {from g(n)abljanje oozing}.
The second one (ukuvati) comes from the Serbian verb kobeljati (to
roll about, hobble); hence kuveljati and kuvati (whirl, simmer). It is
unnecessary to add that Kobeljanje (hobbling) is related to Okupljanje
(assembling) and both words are akin to Gomilanje (heaping up) the
ancient man had noticed when he looked the heavy Cumulus heaping up in
the sky.

I found the Scottish word whisker (a breezy
wind) This word appears to be
related to whisk (beat, whip, a quick, sharp stroke, a swift
(sweeping) movement; also wisk, wysk and quhisk). It could be related
to Serbian vihor (a strong wind) while the Serbian word udar (beat,
sharp stroke; Serb. udar vetra /the blow of the wind/) is in relation
to both – to vetar (vind) and to voda (water; Serbian vodurina /a big
water/ => udaranje /beating, strike, pounding/).

It seems that MacBain was right with his *ud-s-kio- root where the
sound /s/ might have had a "prosthetic" role.

Actually, there are two unrelated IE roots for water. Latin "aqua"
(whence French "eau") derives from one of them; Germanic "water"
and Gaelic "uisge" are from the other.

Christian Weisgerber

Don’t take Harlan's words too seriously in this case. He is just
trying to be witty.

Here is what MacBain is saying about uisce:

{…Irish uisge, Old Irish uisce, usce: *ud-s-kio, root ud, ved; Greek
@Gu@`/dwr, @Gu@`dos; English water, etc.; Sanskrit udán; further Latin
unda, wave. Stokes suggests the possibility of uisge being for
*uskio-, and allied to English wash….}

It is the reason why I said that uisce _might be_ related to Russin
vodka (diminutive of voda; Serb. vodica). Of course, it is not my
"invention"; some serious scientists have also been mentioning it.

There are also Serbian vords like voša (hypocoristically), Slavic
surname Vodenski, Vodeski, village Vodensko in Macedonia (Voden in
Greek), river Vodenska in Bulgaria.

I think that a certain musical band coined the word VODSKI, by
combining VOTKA and WHISKEY.

There are a lot of Slavic place names Vodice; above mentioned Slavic
town in Greece – Voden or Vodica – was renamed Έδεσσα in Greek.

A German historian Ulrich Wilcken concluded that the name Edessa was
of Illyrian origin despite the clear fact that Edessa was a Greek
garbled "translation" of the Slavic P.N. Vodica (Voda water). Of
course, you will find an incorrect explanation about the origin of the
name of that ancient town in the official history. Namely, the name
EDESSA means nothing in Greek, while Serbo-Slavic VODENA or VODICA
(VODENSKO) is the logical name for the town, which is full of water
resources and waterfalls, located in the mere centre of the city .

The problem is, if the modern science accepted the above undeniable
facts, the whole history of the Balkan must have been reexamined and
rewritten. Hence, if the name Edessa was a mutilated Slavic name
Vodica (and it was like that undoubtedly), it would inevitably entail
that Slavs were natives of the Balkan long before the Christian era.

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 )

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: