A Division of the Devoid Man

What am I supposed to be dealing over? You have a theory. Prove it. You say that the mainstream theory is wrong. Prove it. Otherwise don't expect to be believed.

Harlan Mesinger

No, I've never said that the "mainstream" theory was wrong. I just said that reconstruction of the IE roots is a simple "cross section" of the contemporary condition/form of IE languages.

For instance, according to modern linguistics, the PIE root *dheub- is a basis for words as deep (Serb. dubina), dive (Serb. daviti choke) and *dial- was a "source" of deal (Ger. Teil, Serb. deo). In addition, it is supposed that Latin divido is a compound word (dis + vido). Would it not be more logical to say that divido is related to deviate (de + via), similar to serbian od-vajati, od-vojiti (separate) or od-voditi (take away; Serb. od- = Lat. de- "off"; cf. Eng. devoid).

If we know that divide is "making two of one" it seems illogical that the prefix dis- is used in the word di-vido, di-videre. What is then the meaning of "-videre" in this case? How should we treat the Latin word diplasios (duplicate), also as dis + plasio?

Would it not be more resonable if we concluded that Latin divido had something to do with the number "two"? For god sake, don't you see that Latin dis- is in fact the Latin number duo/s (to double, divided into two parts). Compare English doubt (from Latin dubito) and Serbian dvojba (doubt), dvojiti (separate into two sides); Serb. dvojbljenje => dvojenje = Ger. Zweifel <= Goth. tweifljan). In Serbian all is clear: number dva comes from the verb odvaliti/odvajati (separate) and this one is from dubljenje (deepening), obviously related to the woodworking (dubiti deepen => deljati deljati (carve the wood, chisel) => delati (work); i.e. dubljenje deepening => udubljuvanje bulging inward => odvaljivanje breaking off => odvajanje separation).

As a reverse process, dubljenje (deepening) is understood as debljanje (thickening); udvajanje (making one of two; debljanje) <=> odvajanje (making two of one; deljenje dealing).

I made a hyphenation mistake because Serbian odvajati (separate) is a prefixed vord dvojiti/dvajati (to double; Serb. dvojenje from dvojbljenje); it means it should be od-dvajati. There are thousands and thousands of word that originated from the Gon-Bel-Gon basis. It seems it would be interesting to mention here the Serbo-Slavic words 'daljina' (distance; Cz. dálka, vzdálenost; Russ. dalьnostь, dalь) and 'dužina' (length; Russ. dlina, dolgota; Cz. vzdálenost, délka). The Serbian noun daljina (length) is related to dolina (valley, dell) and dubina (deepness; from dubljina, becaus dolina is a long depression in the surface of the land that usually contains a river).

Please, remember that "river" (and water in general) has a key role in the evolution of the big part of Belgonic words.

Now compare Slavic dlugina (length) and Germanic *lang (long) and, for instance, the English lungs and Russian lёgkie; from legkiй/legkiy light, easy; Ger. Lunge, Serbian lagan light, not heavy) to see that both words are derived from the same basis: d-lugina = lang. Is there any connection among words like lung, long and light? Yes, there is! The lungs are light, spongy, and they float in water. In Serbian lungs are called pluća, and it is related to Latin pulmo -nis and Greek πλεύμων or πνεύμων; Eng. blow, Serb puhnuti (from pulhnuti) and plin (gas; Serb. plinuti gush, plima tide), all derived from Bel-Gon basis, (Slavic polniti, polno full; Cz. pln; Serb. pun; from obilno abundant, bulky, akin to Slavic oblak cloud). Probably, you are going to ask, what light (easy) has to do with long. Of course it has, because we are taking a horizontal (line) position when we are lying down to rest, and resting (lying, Ger. liegen, Serb. leganje) is the way to alleviate (re-lieve, to lighten) our strained muscles.

I just wanted to show you how fruitful the ur-basis Gon-Bel-Gon was. The ancient man understood that any movement towards the horizon is the movement into a kind of deepnes. Serbian verbs odlaženje (leave, departure) and dolaženje (coming, arrival) are akin with the verbs odlinuti (pour out, flow out, defuse) and dolinuti (pour in, flow in, infuse, to add liquid; Serb. talas wave). There is the Serbian word taljige (a primitive cart) and the verb taljigati (work hardly, go to and fro), from which the other Serbian verb sprang out – tegliti (tug, pull hard; metathesis of taljigati), težina (weight), teg (weight), tegovi (set of weights), staklo (glass; from tegljenje pulling, stretching; is-tegljen (outstretched, extended)…

Let's go back to Slavic človek/čovek (man, human being) and in Polish "man" is also known as chlop (Cz. chlap guy, lad; Slov. hlapec boy). As you see, sometimes the sound changes are so "weird" that you can hardly understand how and why it happened that way. For instance, the word in Serbian, which suits to the above mentioned words for man/boy in other Slavic languages, is klipan. How we can settle down the unusual relation among the Slavic words as chlop (man), chlap (guy, lad), klipan (obnoxious boy, nuisance)? The common "denominator" in this case is the Slavic word glava (head; Russ. galava, Cz. hlava; Pol. głowa) and lobanja/lubanja (skull; from globanja, similar to Latin globus; Serb. oklop armour, shell, cover; lopta ball; oklopiti to cover, Gr. καλύπτω to cover).

Harlan, it seems you are not interested or, even better, you are against any possibility that my HSF theory could potentially be correct. Instead of following my explanation logically, you are asking me to establish new phonetic rules in order to make it "acceptable" and "plausible". Ger. Haufen/Himmel, Slav. oblak/nebo/gomila, Lat. nebula/cumulus and Eng. Heaven/heap are the words with a very clear mutual kinship. I wonder, that you are not able to understand that similar changes can't be classified or proved by some regularly seen processes because such muations resulted as an accidental sound shift. For instance, Haufen is a counterpart word of Eng. heap while Hafen (harbor, havens) became haven in English. How it happened that German haufen became English heap (f=>p) and haben turn to be have (b=>v)? Or more surprizing, why Ger. Himmel is more close to Lat. cumulus and Serbo-Slavic gomila (heap) than to Eng. heaven?

Slavic čovek/človek is in fact named in accordance with its most prominent part of the body – glava/galava (head), from glavaš, glavonja, glavni (chief; Gr. επικεφαλής, Serb. poglavica; Sp. cabeza head, headmaster, chief; AS hafela => Ger. Kopf/Haupt <= AS heáfod => Eng. head; ON hofud; Dan. hoved head). Obviously, AS hafela is very near to Greek κεφαλή/kefale and as you can see in all IE languages (Skt. kapāla head; kulapatiḥ the head of a family; Lat. caput /head, leader/) the name of cranium corresponds to the word "leader/chief". All the above words are derived fom the Gon-Bel-Gon basis – whose primary meaning was "roundness" or " round heap" (oblak, cloud).

In this case the basis is Gon-Bel-Gon and if you start from it you will be able to follow any possible word mutation or transformation. Russian glubina (deepness) is derived from g(n)ubli(g)na => gublina => glubina (metathesis); Czech hlubina; Serbian dubina deepness, dialectal also dubljina) sprang from g(n)ubli(g)na => gublina => dublina (g => d change). What to say about Irish Gaelic domhainn and Welsh dwfn? Irish Gaelic kept the final Gon syllable g(n)ubligna = dumbihna (nasalization) => dumhainn or Welsh dwfn [similar to Serbian duvanje (blow); Gr. Typhon], from g(n)ubel(g)on => guveln => dwfn (of course some transitional sound forms were possible, like velar to dental change via palatal.

Simply, the root *dheub- cannot explain the "unusual" differences among Ser. dubina, Russian glubina and Czech hlubina (deepness); dentals are always derivatives of velars and it means that the root *dheub- is wrong and it might possible be *heub- or *gheub… if my Gon-Bel-Gon basis is still unacceptable for you. 🙂

AS you can see, these sound changes are rather unique and it is impossible to establish a certain linguistics rules as a pattern of regular sound mutations. There are many alike examples. Let's just mention the Irish neul, Welsh niwl, Latin nebula, Ger. Nebel, Slav. nebo (sky), Skt. nabhas etc.; all from the same Gon-Bel-Gon basis as above dubina (deepness).

What is the meaning of 'videre" in "dis- videre"? I was right when I said that divide might be related to devoid and deviate (Serb. od-voðenje /taking away/, od-vajanje (separation, deviation), od-vaditi (to remove, empty), but I had a problem to present all this complicated matter to your simple-minded brain. German zweiteilig is Serbian dvodelno (bipartite); and Ger. teilen is the same as Latin divido; It means that Ger. teilen is equal to Serb. deljenje and English deal (Ger. Teil, Slav. del, Eng. deal). The final conclusion imposes itself: divide and deal are the words that were derived from the same basis! Compare dubito and divido with the Serbian words dvojiti (to double), dvojenje (doubling), dvojba (doubt) and you will maybe understand that these two Latin words (dubito, divido) sprang out from the same source.

What's happened here? According to my HSF the sound /l/ must always be accompanied by /b/ and /b/ originally was the first one in "queue" (BL). Slavic prepositions od- and do- are still containing the hidden meaning "two" in their essence. The same case is with Latin di-, dis- or Eng. out- and to-. On the other side are the words as English both (two things or people together), Slavic oba (both; Serb. obojica, obadva), Latin bi-, bis-, ambi-. The Serbian pronoun obadva could be translated in English as both-two (oba-dva = Lat. ambi-duo; the Serbian verb odvijati has it's counterpart word in English "wind out" (i.e. out-wind; Ger. aus-winden), Serbian od-vod is German aus- weg. Exodus = Serb. Ishod

I hope, now you are able to comprehend the mere essence of being and nothingness. The sense of "being" and the verb "to be" is to be something other what is divided from the whole. Doesn't matter if you use "di-" (two) or "bi-" (two, the other, both) the number "two" is always present either in a clear or hidden form. In order to "exist" (to be) any being demands to be either divided (deviated) from the other being or devoid from nothingness. The whole cosmos is arranged in pairs.

Explore posts in the same categories: Comparative Linguistics

One Comment on “A Division of the Devoid Man”

  1. bluecoffee Says:

    It's a lot of work on language interesting

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: