Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Linguistics
Forum Discription: Discuss linguistics: the study of languages
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637
Printed Date: 23-Apr-2024 at 18:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Subject: Is Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 10:03
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimms_law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_law
I believe these sound changes have been firstly made in the Iranian languages, please search above words in this Avestan Dictionary: http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm - http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm English: Avestan Three: Tishro & Thri (t->th) Door: Dvara & Taro (d->t) Foot: Pad & Frabda/Frat (p->f) ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 10:16
| But OK, we can discuss it. However, you need to accept both Proto-Iranian and Proto-Germanic as REAL languages - otherwise, you have nothing in hand. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 10:40
|
Let's first ignore the simple facts that this is impossible due to the fact that the Germanic peoples are not moved in Iranians? Secondly, chronology doesn't hold. The first sound shifts are believed to be around 500BC, while archaeology shows that the Germanic peoples populated southern Scandinavia and northern Germany before 1000BC. Conclusion is that the change was local, and not imported. And even if you want to ignore archaeology (and real linguists' papers), you still need to show that all same changes occured in Iranian - and no other changes. Otherwise you haven't shown any correlation. Three examples proves nothing. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 13:47
|
Slayertplsko, Where did you find this 2500 BC? Would you please tell me your sources? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic : Proto-Germanic is the stage of the language constituting the most recent common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages, dated to the latter half of the first millennium BC. (500 BC-50 BC)
Do you want that I show several other sources which confirm it? -------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 14:09
What a conclusion!!  Do you think in 500 BC Germanic peoples suddenly decided to make these sound changes?! In this case you should also believe that in 650 AD Egyptians made some changes in their language and spoke Arabic, also about peoples of Turkey, south America, Australia, ...-------------
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 14:30
It's not my idea - it even says so in the link you posted. Careful research based on loan words shows that these changes started to occur in the 6th century BC, which pretty much destroys your theory. Before you start making up theories, I suggest you to do a little literature study. Try for example Historical Linguistics, by Lyle Campbell. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 15:41
You didn't read my post (maybe I should have said their ancestors, but still, you didn't read my post). And if you want sources that confirm what I said: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pgmc01.html - http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/books/pgmc01.html Here it says: PGmc may be dated from approximately 2500 B.C. to the beginning of our era, a period during which it underwent numerous changes. (my source can't be edited) This means that its slow developement was started by the arrival of IE peoples to Scandinavia, and ended with Grimm's shift (beginning of our era). And as you probably (don't) know, Nordic Bronze Age is considered a direct predecessor and origin of Germanic peoples...again, your favourite wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bronze_Age - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Bronze_Age |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 15:45
In which language? Lets read it again:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0106&L=indo-european&P=27441 - Chronology and history of Germanic Consonant Shift "For the date of the 1st sound shift, we can use the word hanf, which comes from the Greek word kannabis. This word is a loan word out of Scythian, which did not enter Greek till the 5th century BC. In Germanic we meet the word in its shifted form *hanap-. Since Germanic could not have borrowed this word very early, we can assert that at this time the rules *k > h and *b > p were still in force. But it does not tell us how long this rule had existed. That it no longer was in force in the 3rd and 2nd centuries before Christ can be concluded from loan words from Latin, none of which have shifted forms." Then we read it says: "A Scythian source for the 'hemp'-word is reasonable enough, given Old Persian <kanab> and alleged cognates in Finno-Ugric. But why on earth would Greek intermediation be necessary to get a Scythian word into Germania?"
I think it is obvious that "Hanap" was itself a Scythian word, there are several similar words that we see "k" becomes "h" in Iranian languages, about the next sound shift, we know Old Persian "Kanab" has been changed to "Kanap" in Middle Persian (b->p [Grimm's law]) and then "Kenaf" (p->f [Grimm's law]), this word has also gone into English as a loan word from Persian. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 15:54
|
And 'ale' has gone into Iranian from Germanic...so what?? Your article is about the last stage of Germanic...so what?? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:07
"PGmc may be dated from approximately 2500 B.C. to the beginning of our era."
I think this sentence is the result of all researches about Pro-Germanic "imaginary" language, it is really the best approximation! 2500 years!  -------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:17
If it is proved that Germanic is a subgroup of the Iranian languages then these words can be considered as common words, not loan words. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:21
|
No it's mostly archaeological evidence...read the Nordic Bronze Age. So, if you don't accept PGmc, then why have you started this thread...in this case, neither PIE and PIranian existed, so they could not have been ancestral to Germanics. Now, were you on drugs when you compared Saxon to Persian??? WHY?? Proto languages are imaginary so there is no connection between Persian and Scythian, between Avestan and Persian, and between Avestan and Scythian...was Avestan ever spoken in nothern Europe?? Nope. Neither was Germanic spoken in Pontic steppe (until 3rd century...Gothic) or Greater Iran. Anyway, if you read my link further: The only textual material contemporary with [late] Proto-Germanic is recorded in classical authors, or maintained in borrowings into other languages as exemplified by Finnish kuningas 'king'. Classical texts chiefly include proper names, such as Khariomēros in Greek and Langobardi in Latin texts. You constantly contradict yourself and have no idea what you're talking about (I could post a few of your quotes again, but I think all know it...). |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:23
But it's not proved..and you're not gonna prove it, because you would need to have studied BOTH (again, I can prove by the stupidity of some of your claims...no offence). And it was YOUR source bro. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:26
|
Correct me if I'm wrong. You posted the source for 'ale' to prove that it had got into Germanic through Scythian, but didn't read it carefully enough. |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:27
|
maybe Iranian is subgroup of Germanic |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:29
No, it's 'approximately 2500BC' and 'beginning of our era'...it was a slow developement, that's all...but you're using these 'imaginary' languages to support your claims, so calm down. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 16:31
Next on turn are either Slavs or Balts...no we've been through Slavs, but Balts weren't Iranian yet, so get ready Roberts  |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 17:37
You are wrong, Styrbiorn knows that I had posted it some months ago too, this is originally a Saxon/Scythian word which can be found in both Iranian and Germanic, as a subgroup of Iranian languages.
Meanwhile please use more polite words. -------------
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 18:58
Cyrus, I believe that the post Slayerplsko is referring to is this post posted on or about June 10 and can be found on page 8 of the Learning a Scandinavian language thread:
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 19:04
| Exactly this one. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:11
|
Nothing will be changed if you say Iranian is a subgroup of the Germanic languages, the fact is that they were the same till about 500 BC. Etymology of "Hot": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Hot&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Hot&searchmode=none O.E. hat "hot, opposite of cold," also "fervent, fierce," from P.Gmc. *haitoz (cf. O.Fris. het, O.N. heitr, Du. heet, Ger. heiß "hot," Goth. heito "heat of a fever"), from PIE base *qai- (cf. Lith. kaistu "to grow hot"), But why "Hot" means "Cold" in Avestan language? Letin Gelu (*g→k) English: cold, Dutch: koud, German: kalt, ... in Germanic languages (*k→h & *d→t) Avestan: Hot Another word is:
Lithuanian: gyvas (*gy→kw/ku) English: quick (*k→h) Avestan: Hurva -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:33
True, but the same applies to you claiming the contrary. Anyway, we were only joking.
Do you see any Iranian language there??
This is especially interesting. If I analyse it by your logics then: (it doesn't come from Latin, but I think it wasn't your point...just to be sure) cold, koud, kalt...hot PGmc kaldaz (g→k)...English cold, Dutch koud....then in the latter half of 1st millennium, Grimm's law gets into action again, but only in High German (d→t)...so 'kalt' k→h shift is actually k→x→h shift and took longer time to develop in the first shift (xangistas→hengest). The fact that Avestan has 'hot' (source?? can't find it) would mean it underwent the High German shift and then took even longer shift of k→h...so it would mean that Avestan's time would be about 1000AD...and that's illogical. This would again lead us to what we already jokingly claimed...(Iranian is a subgroup of Germanic). So yes, 'hot' in Avestan is interesting, but has nothing to do with Germanic. They're two different branches and none is subgroup of the other. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:51
Don't edit your post for a new word to discuss, create a new one please. It's overlookable.  The gy→kw is not really correct, it's gw→kw. And again it would mean that Avestan has developed it further, and thus comes after Germanic as a subgroup of it. From PGmc kwikwaz however, I have no idea how you could get hurVa. Maybe you could get it kw→hw and then hw→w and then w→v...but it would take a looooong time...and still, it would be huRva. And there's the dead end. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:53
| What does hurva mean anyway?? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 08:53
|
Avestan Dictionary: http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm - http://www.avesta.org/avdict/avdict.htm ,"a" before a vowel is spelled "h", so aota=hota & aurvant=hurvant -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 09:04
|
Thank you. I see that 'hurva' means swift, but this is the meaning found in English (almost the same meaning), not in other languages and it's not the original meaning (lively, living). |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 09:06
|
Anyway, as I'm looking into pronunciation: ao - as out h' - as h, possibly stronger It doesn't say A is spelled 'h', does it?? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 12:16
|
Well, word play is fun...I like it. But so that we don't get bored, let's compare the phonology, and start with consonants: AVESTAN: nasals: m, n, ɲ, ŋ, ŋʷ plosives: p/b, t/d, tʃ/dʒ, k/g fricatives: ɸ/β, f, θ/δ, s/z, ʃ/ʒ, x/ɣ, xʷ, h approximants: j, w trill: r lateral: l GERMANIC: nasals: m, n, ŋ plosives: p/b, t/d, k/g, kʷ (gʷ in early stages) fricatives: f, θ/δ, s/z, ʃ, x, h, hʷ (xʷ in early stages) approximants: j, w trill: r lateral: l Now, you can notice considerable differences in each group. nasals: Gmc has only three, while Avestan has a labialised ŋ and a palatal nasal found in many other language groups (extensively Slavic and Italic), but not in Gmc. plosives: Gmc again lacks a few: tʃ/dʒ (found in Slavic, Baltic and Italic), but has kʷ fricatives: Gmc again lacks bilabial ɸ/β, voiced velar ɣ, voiced palatal ʒ (again in Slavic, Baltic and Italic) |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 17:51
Could you send me a link to the thread please?? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:01
It obviousely shows that the Germanic languages have come apart from the Iranian languages, not vice versa. Don't you think so? -------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:02
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22148&PID=418755 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22148&PID=418755 (27-Nov-2007) -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:07
| No it doesn't show either of this (Grimm's law backs it up). By your logics, Iranian would come from Vietnamese, Chinese or Zulu. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:13
|
Thanks. So it's exactly the same link and it says it is originally a Germanic word, which Scythians borrowed and later lent to North Caucasians. So I wasn't wrong. It was already explained to you. You really have to read your sources carefully, I think this is the only problem about it - you don't seem to have any kind of difficulty with English, so just read carefully. Just to be sure: It's a North-Caucasian etymological dictionary...so it says: This Avar-Tsez isogloss (the North-Caucasian word) is rather interesting, because it is certainly an old Iranian (Scythian) loanword, ultimately going back to a Germanic source (Proto-Germanic *aluđ 'beer' < PIE *alut-). So the North Caucasian word is a Scythian loan word, and Scythians borrowed it from Germanic. It's clear it is not of Iranian origin, but of Germanic origin. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:16
| Grimm's law doesn't mention bilabial fricatives, voiced palatal fricative, voiced velar fricative, voiced palatal nasal and others. This means they would have to be present in Germanic had it been a subgroup of Iranian. This fact pretty much disproves your theory. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:36
Where did I say it is of Iranian origin? I had read it carefully, it was just important for me that Scythians used the same Old Saxon word. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:38
Here.  |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 18:51
It seems I know very little about Iranian languages! What is your source about bilabial fricatives and other ones in the Avestan language? -------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:01
http://www.avesta.org/avdict/pronun.htm - http://www.avesta.org/avdict/pronun.htm
CONSONANTS
All others are pronounced as in English. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:07
|
For instance: as azure (or French je)...if you don't know what a voiced palatal fricative means, them don't reply. Here you have sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language#Phonology - 1 and http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-1-X.html#Ave01_GP02_01 - 2 |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:09
| Oh and I forgot about the two affricatives. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:13
|
All are there. I don't know why you object - and maybe you do have a poor knowledge on avestan, who knows...but I would say it's a phonology issue if anything. Here is another source: http://www.ancientscripts.com/avestan.html - http://www.ancientscripts.com/avestan.html http://www.omniglot.com/writing/avestan.htm - http://www.omniglot.com/writing/avestan.htm |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:15
|
I really find it difficult to imagine how anyone can take a generic vowel followed by an 'l' and read any significance whatsoever into it appearing in different languages. I have a grandson called Al. The French say 'Allo' into the phone. Italians eat spaghetti al dente. For that matter, oil is a lot more a barrel than ale, and Japanese restaurants serve grilled eel.
Maybe drinking too much ale or øl makes you ill (or is that from too much eel?), alas. ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:21
All my allies refuse to eat eels
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:25
|
Lets discuss one by one, first show your source about bilabial fricatives in the Avestan language. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:28
| Anyway, I doubt it's because of the similarity only...it sure must be found in context, only then you can grasp the meaning. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 19:33
The source no1 (a wiki table) and the last two sources dealing with the script. Avestan was spoken since about 1000BC till cca 400AD...most of the time used as the language of Zoroasthrians...it's a long time, that's why the sources differ a little in phonology. Cyrus, describe me a voiceless bilabial fricative...do you know what it is?? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 20:19
|
hi, sound changes in language can be very similar and not even related because humans all generally have the same mouth structure. P often becomes B or V and this has occurred very recently and independently among local cognate Iranian languages in Iran which make some words sound akin to more western IE languages than Persian. Also words are often simplified and over time inadvertently become formal. However, I am not completely unsympathetic to Cyrus' proposition because there are certain words and structures which Germanic and Iranic languages have in common which are not found (in my experience) in intermediate IE languages. can someone please advise what the word for daughter and girl is in slavic and italic languages (and Greek)? ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 20:32
|
For daughter we have currently 'dcera' (d is silent). Old Church Slavonic had 'dusti', Lithuanian had 'dukta' and Greek 'thygater'...they are cognates. 'girl' appears in English only, and in the meaning of a young female relatively lately. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 20:39
|
I agree with what you said about the shifts...some of Grimm's shifts appear in Slavic, too. About the words. Just like shifts, the words alone don't account for much. And as you can see, the word cognate to 'daughter' can be found in other branches as well - I don't know about Italic languages. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 20:49
|
About the palatal affricatives, we can use your own source. c - church (voiceless)....about the voiced form...'j' isn't included in the list, so it should be pronounced like in English - i.e. voiced palatal affricative. And theeeen...aha...voiced velar fricative, again your source: kh - voiced x (often transcribed gh)...'x' is voiceless velar fricative, and it says voiced, so... And we had also voiced palatal fricative, again your source: zh - as azure (or French je) About the others: voiced nasal fricative: all my sources...candidate in your source is 'ñ' (this is the way Spanish uses the grapheme), because english already has 'n' and other grapheme for it would be useless. ...so Cyrus, you didn't read your source carefully again. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 23:02
|
Well there are some things you notice as a speaker of Persian and English which may lead you to believe certain things which are related but perhaps not directly so. German: Man = Persian Man = English: me German: Tochter = Persian Dox(kh)tar = English: Daughter These are just two lonesome examples I can think off the top of my head, my point about the pronunciation being more similar than the intermediate languages referred to words such as these. ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 23:13
|
Well, what do you mean by German Man?? Persian man means me right?? German man doesn't mean 'me', it isn't 'Man' but 'man' and it's used in the sense: Man tut das nicht. One does it not. It is not done. (English doesn't have it to my knowledge, it's a general subject). 'me' in German is 'mich' (acc) and 'mir' (dat)...in Slavic languages we have 'mna', 'mne' etc. It's similar in many languages. French 'moi' etc...it was like this in PIE, so it is similar in most of languages. About 'daughter', it's quite common as well...Ger. Tochter, Skt. duhitar-, Armenian dustr, O.C.S. dusti, Lith. dukte, Gk. thygater. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 05:05
Do you want to say there were no ch, x and zh sounds in the Germanic languages? but why there are several words with these letters/sounds in their languages and they can spell them easily?!! What are the origins of "ch" sound in Chicken, "x" sound in Saxon  , in "zh" sound in Visual?-------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 05:32
The very Persian word for "girl" is "Kirla" (*g→k), I think it is not used just because its bad meaning in Arabic (kir=penis), you can find similar words in almost all other Iranian languages, such as "Kilka" in Deilami, "Kor" in Gilaki, "Kich" in Kurdish, ... -------------
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 07:10
|
Man, yes One = formal "me". Again, my friend - I am not drawing any conclusions, I am just noting the similarities as a speaker of English, Kurdish, Persian and at one time, German. ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 08:50
It appeared in Old English first and it's not in Old Saxon or Old Frisian according to Koebler, so I guess maybe Vulgar Latin or Celtic influence, or maybe just a shift. The same about the voiced form. It wasn't in Old Low Franconian, Old Norse and Old High German either. It definitely isn't influence of a Germanic language on English. I would bet on Vulgar Latin if anything, due to the palatalisation that occured in the language.
Where do I mention this?????
Found in words like 'genre' and 'journalist' right?? And in some other like the one you said - again, not a Germanic word, and voiced palatal fricative appears quite lately in English. The same applies to German, but Norwegian pronounces these loan words with 'sh'. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 08:56
I'm not sure what you mean, could you give me a sentence with this meaning?? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 09:06
Now it's your turn...give me your source for this bitte |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 11:35
It's common in modern Italian too, as a result. In French it has softened to more like English 'sh' as in 'chambre' or 'chaud'. Portuguese is like French, approximately. In Spanish it seems to have turned to English voiceless 'th'.
Modern German has a very similar sound to the French, at least in the Rhineland, in the pronunciation of 'ch' in 'ich' or 'Brecht' or 'g' in, say, 'beschäftig' (n both cases after a soft vowel).
Russian has the sound all over the place, and has a special letter for it.
I really don't know what it meant by the 'origin' of a sound. Sounds don't only develop once. I figured out once, many years ago, that I had learned to pronounce (not always well) some seventy-odd consonants and about 35 vowel sounds. The same ones crop up in all sorts of different languages, like the final 'dark' 'L' in Russia and (modern) Wessex.
------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 11:43
So do even all Slavic languages. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 12:32
French has the same word for both daughter and girl - 'fille', though since it can also mean prostitute you have to be careful in usage. Italian also has 'figlia' for daughter, but 'ragazza' for girl (and of course colloquialisms like 'bambina'). Spanish has 'hija' for daughter (and 'hijo' for son), and 'niña' or 'chica' (hence 'chick') for girl. Portuguese goes with French/Italian to 'filha' for daughter and and Spanish for girl.
Latin originally had 'filia' for daughter, which seems to have remained, and 'puella' for girl which seems to have vanished at least in the Western languages.
Frankly I think the various words for 'girl' all derive from slang languages, or possibly imports, or both like English 'bint'.
The Germanic word for girl in English is 'maid', like German 'Mädel' and 'Mädchen', but it only gets used nowadays in combinations like 'milkmaid' and 'meter maid' or metaphorically as in 'maiden voyage' or 'maiden over'. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 12:37
|
In what I wrote about 'chicken' I was misleading in saying in Spanish it seemed to have turned to 'th'. That's true about the single letter 'c' before a soft vowel ('ch' in Italian and 'th' in Spanish) but the 'ch' sound still remains when it is spelt that way, as in 'chica' (which I remembered when I posted about 'girl'. ------------- |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:27
Why not Middle Persian Chuchak (Modern Persian "Juje" [Arabicized])?
You say there is no "Ch" sound in the Germanic languages, so English words with this sound have not Germanic origins, yes?
Some English verbs:
Chew
Middle Persian Chuvtan (Modern Persian "Javidan")
Chide
Middle Persian Chirtan (Modern Persian "Chert"=nonsense, grumble)
Chill
Middle Persian Chalitan (Moderin Persian "Chaiidan")
Choose
Middle Persian Chuztan (Modern Persian "Chidan"/"Gozidan") -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:30
| Because the nearest Persian was about 3000kms far away from England. While the nearest Celtic or Vulgar Latin speaker was across the street...therefore. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:36
When are you gonna start to think? No, they have Germanic origin (not all of course): church is a Germanic word - and the four you provided are Germanic too. You were surprised by the bilabial fricatives in Avestan - so Avestan comes from Japanese???? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 16:38
| And where is it that I say there is no 'x' sound in Germanic languages??? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 17:10
What about Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans and other Iranian peoples? There are several sources which prove a large group of Sarmatians lived in England. -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 17:17
|
Not a large group, but an elite military unit under command of Romans. There is no link between Scythians, Sarmatians and Persian since Old Iranian (the one to link them) is an 'imaginary language'. Anyway, you're dragging us off the topic with the English - start a new thread here, or continue in the Saxon and Scythian thread if you wanna discuss it. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:17
Nope. The 'ch' sound in otherwise Germanic words developed all by itself in England, possibly under Norman French or church Latin influence.
It's from old English 'ceowan', though it has parallels in Persian and Greek and German ' since it is still close to the PIE root.¨
Old English 'cidan'. Webster says it isn't found outside Old English. That Persian happens to use similar letters in a word with an entirely different meaning is just happenstance. There must be zillions of cases where three phonemes make a word in different totally unrelated languages, there being a limited number of possibilities.
Is French Chinese (or Chinese French) just because 'chou' is a word in both languages?
This is just another variant on the 'cold', 'caldo', 'chaud', 'gelid', 'kholod' theme, in which it means either cold or hot depending on your language. Is there any IE language that does NOT have this root, meaning either hot or cold?
Incidentally, what does it mean in Persian?
'Choose' is French 'choisir' though it is also OE 'ceosan' and may have got into French from Frankish (or even back from Emglish). Italian has 'scegliere', Spanish 'escoger', Portuguese 'escolher' (pronounced 'schkolyer) which also may be Germanic influence but I can't see any cognate Latin root. Latin gives all the Romance languages and English some version of 'optare'.
What does 'chidan' mean in Persian? And why don't you give it as an equivalent to 'chide'? ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 18:58
|
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-1-X.html#Ave01_GP03 - 1 , So, as has been proved, Iranian have got much different declension - 8 cases, whilst Germanic have only four, with another two rarely appearing. Germanic languages moreover lack the dual number for nouns and pertain it with pronouns (1st and 2nd person). http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-2-X.html#Ave02_GP07 - 2 , The personal pronouns are much different as well. - azə̄m, tvə̄m, hō tat hā, vayam, yūžam, tā 3, They have a completely different phonology. - proved here. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-1-X.html#Ave01_GP05 - 4 , The standard word order of an Avestan clause or sentence is generally Subject-Object-Verb, whereas Germanic have SVO. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-3-X.html#Ave03_GP12 - 5 , The demonstrative pronouns are different as well. - ha- 'this', hvo- 'this', a- 'that' (check the declension - very interesting) http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-1-X.html#Ave01_GP04 - 6 , Avestan has four tenses - present, aorist, perfect, and future, whilst germanic have only two - present and past. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/aveol-1-X.html#Ave01_GP04 - 7 , Avestan has three voices - active, middle and passive - Germanic only two - active and passive. These are just a few differences. I could list much more of them. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 19:49
|
Please first answer this question: Why OE "Ceallian" is changed to "Call", not "Chal" or OE "Ceorfan" to "Carve", not "Charv" but OE "Ceowan" is not changed to "Cew" but "Chew"? -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 20:04
|
'ceallian' was replaced by ON kalla. I don't know about 'ceorfan' (maybe because of the pp form?). I still don't see any logics in your post. the first two (call, carve): tsh - k (tsh - tsh proposed by you) the last one: tsh - tsh (tsh - s proposed by you!!) You're mixing up different shifts here. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 20:07
And now? |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:05
|
Did you answer my question?!!
You should answer my question, "Chaiidan" in Persian doesn't mean "Cold" but "to feel cold" and also "to shudder", I think the best meaning is "to chill". -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:20
Sure I did. I told you that 'ceallian' didn't turn into 'call', but was replaced by 'kalla', and this turned into 'call'. It could be the strong-weak change in 'ceorfan' that caused it (curfan was the preterite). I also told you that there was no logics in your comparison because: 1, "Ceowan" is not changed to "Cew" but "Chew" 2, OE "Ceallian" is changed to "Call", not "Chal" or OE "Ceorfan" to "Carve", not "Charv" These two have nothing in common. There is 's' in 'cew', not 'tsh'. Yes I did answer your question. You didn't answer mine: where do I mention that Germanic languages lack 'x' sound??? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2008 at 21:51
Why not? Changed at different times, different places, by different people. Shifts like that aren't orchestrated by some master grammarian sitting in judgment like the French Academy. Nobody says 'Today we all say 'ch' instead of 'k'. Some people make one change, others make another, and different versions later get cobbled together in a 'standard' language.
There are dozens of dialects of old and middle English, all of which have their own sound shift patterns. Germanic 'feder', from a PIE 'pet...', in modern English is either pronounced 'feather' or 'fevver' or 'feder' depending where you come from: that the standard spelling is 'feather' is pure happenstance. English 'here' written is frequently pronounced 'yeer', and even 'yer', a shift all on its own in some specific areas.
And don't forget 'firty fahsend fevvers on a fevvered frushes froat.'
 You don't seem to have much idea of how languages develop. ------------- |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 08:02
|
Do you really think "k" sound has been changed to "ch" in English by random?! It seems as if you say it was originally Swedish "Kina" which has been changed to "China" in English "by random", is it English language which lacks the "k" sound or Swedish "ch"?
It is said "Choose" comes from a Germanic word which has a sound, that is said to be "k", +"use", but was it really "k" sound? It seems some Germanic peoples have totally ignored this sound, for example German "Aussuchen" and Swedish "Utse".
About "Chew": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=chew&searchmode=none - http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=chew&searchmode=none you see that it says this word comes from PIE base *gjeu- "to chew.", "g" could be changed to "K" but there is also a "j" after "g". -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 09:30
You apparently don't have a slightest idea on how these letters are pronounced in Germanic languages. 'Kina' is not pronounced with a 'k' sound!! And yes, Swedish language lacks the 'ch' sound Whether they did it by random or not, it definitely wasn't due to any Iranian language, it was due to VL if anything.
What do these two words have to do with 'choose'?? And what do they have to do with this thread?? What does the ENGLISH itself have to do with the topic?!
And do you see any Iranian language there?? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 09:36
| And you still didn't answer my question! |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 13:20
In effect, yes. All these sound shifts are random, in the sense they are purposeless and aimless and unco-ordinated. There's no reason why 'k' should change to 'ch' at one particular place or time. Some Germanics changed it to 'kh', as when Rhinelanders say 'ich werde gucken'. They pronounce 'gucken' 'kukhen' where many Germans stick to 'kuken' and there may even be some that actually say 'guken'.
Swedish lacks the 'ch'. The word comes ultimately from the Qing dynasty (pronounced, roughly, 'ching') making it into Italian as 'cina', which, Italians being the way they are, is pronounced 'china'. The English copied the Italians, but had to put the 'h' back in since 'ci' is pronounced 'si' in English.
Note: this does NOT mean the English are Chinese, or the Chinese are Scythians or Persians.
Build yourself a time machine and find out. I don't know what on earth 'Aussuchen' has to do with this: 'ch' in German spelling has nothing to do with 'ch' in English spelling (where it is the same as Spanish) or with 'k' (though some Germans have a tendency to pronounce final 'k' as 'kh'.
German has plenty of words with the 'k' sound: in fact about 5% (rough count) of the words in my German dictionary begin with a 'k' - pronounced 'k'. (25 pages out of 500).
'gj' is a single consonant. ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 13:36
|
Aha, this didn't occur to me That 'aussuchen' should be pronounced as 'aussu-tsh-en' - it's pronounced 'ous-zookhen' Cyrus, with 'aus-' being a prefix. 'suchen' itself means 'to search for'. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 15:14
|
About the developement of sounds: maybe Cyrus also has an explanation for the Czech 'ř' sound, an alveolar fricative-trill consonant (the only in the world to my knowledge) - who did they inherit it from?? It wasn't in PIE, Iranian, Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Greek etc. It wasn't in Proto-Slavic. It's probable it was developed in Old West Slavic, since Polish language still writes the voiced palatal fricative with 'rz' in some words (ź in other), which leads us to conclusion that 'ź' and 'rz' represent two formerly different consonants that merged into a single consonant. The same can be said about Sorbian 'ř' which is pronounced 'sh', just like 'š'. So, who did they borrow it from Cyrus?? Who had it?? By your logics, it would have to be borrowed from some other language, let's say Avar. Avars would have to borrow it from their ancestors, their ancestors from their ancestors, and we are right in 3,000,000 BCE. And we would end up with a claim that australopithecus had a fully developed articulated speech!! Yes, it is very often random that a sound develops/changes. Zulu, Vietnamese, Czech, Maori - each of them possesses some kind of 'exotic' sound in their phonology system and it was a random developement. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 18:48
|
You should just say that you don't know why, it is enough that you compare these words with Persian ones then you will find the reasons. The persian word for "face" is "Chihre", similar to Old French "Chiere", we see some parts of the face also start with "ch" sound, such as "Chashm" (eye). In English there are Cheek (Persian "Chak"), Chin (Persian Chane) and I believe the verb Chew (Middle Persian "Chuvtan", Modern Persian Javidan -> Jaw in English) ceratinly relate these words. We can compare "Chin" with "Knee", "Cheek" with "Kick" and maybe "Chew" with "Come"! -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 19:05
|
Cyrus, there is no way how Persian language could have influenced English, because the nearest Persian was 3000km far away!! And yes those shifts are random, we have already proved it. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 19:10
Jaw comes from Gaulish, via French. Chin and cheek are Germanic words. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 19:11
WHAT??  |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 19:20
| Cyrus, who gave the 'ř' to western Slavs??? |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 19:58
It's not that I don't know why at all. It's that I know there is no 'why'. Not a linguistic why, anyway: there may be physical reasons one could dream up, like maybe some Slavs had better or worse teeth so they distinguished between the hard 't' and 'd' and the soft versions, which most other people have trouble hearing any difference between.
Or of course, especially in England, there are social class reasons: you say "huntin, shootin and fishin" to distinguish yourself fashionably from hoi polloi who say "hunting, shooting and fishing".
I remember very early on a Russian instructor telling us that we should not say 'Tobolsk' but 'Tobolsk' (which is what it sounded like to us then) because there was no myagkii znak after the 'l'. (And there incidentally is a 'g' that is pronounced 'kh' for no reason whatsoever except somehow it caught on.)
Now you're just listing words with vaguely similar spelling (in different spelling conventions) from different languages irrespective of their meanings. Again what does it prove that Chinese and French both have the word 'chou'? After all, writing that, it occurs to me that Chinese has the word 'lai' whch obviously is the same as English 'lie' so there's even more proof that the Chinese are Germanics, or whatever you're currently claiming.
We could, but why would we?
Incidentally modern English has no 'k' sound in 'knee' - or 'know' or 'knot' or 'knell' or 'knight' or 'knacker'... ------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 22:31
|
Anyway, if you really need a 'source' for the shifts, the palatalisation was a common feature of Vulgar Latin and included the k -› tsh shift. A good example is the word 'Caesar'. Unlike Persian, VL really was able to have some influence on Old English. Claiming that Persian influenced English is equivalent to claiming that Nahuatl influenced Avestan. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 22:36
I can't find 'chak' in the dictionary. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2008 at 22:37
| About the 'chew' - Slovak žuvať. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 06:12
|
What are the distances between England and America or England and Australia? What is the relation between "influence" and "distance"? Do you want that I list numerous Persian words in the Comorian language? Do you know where Comoros Islands are? -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 06:59
|
We there not Englishmen in America, Australia??? Yes there were, that's how English got to be spoken there. There were no Persians closer than 3000km (apart from a few merchants, just like from every nation)!!! English ESTABLISHED the Anglo-Saxon America and Australia!!! Persians merely knew where England lies! (maybe didn't know at all). And also Zanzibar...so what? Wikipedia on Comoros: Traces of this original Asian culture have blended with successive waves of African, Arab and Shirazi immigrants. Persians were on Comoros, but not even a bit near to England. That's it. Anyway, what does English have to do with the topic of the thread?? Let's go back to the topic: 'Is Germanic a subgroup of Iranian?'. Why are you changing the topic so often?? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 07:07
|
And you still didn't reply to some of my questions: 1, where is it that I say there is no 'x' sound in Germanic languages??? 2, who gave the 'ř' to western Slavs??? I'm especially interested in the second one. The first one was caused by you lacking the knowledge of phonological terms, OK you needn't answer the first one if you can't. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 07:33
Ok, I do it first.
You said "kh - voiced x (often transcribed gh)...'x' is voiceless velar fricative, and it says voiced, so..."
Please read it: http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/ling006.html - http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/ling006.html
Should I know it?! -------------
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 07:45
The link says: 'gh' (in English, not Avestan!) was pronounced as 'ch' in Scottish 'loch' - and that's voiceless velar fricative. The source about Avestan says that voiced velar fricative is often transcribed as 'gh'. And as you know, I was talking about the voiced one. The voiceless velar fricative is transcribed differently in each language! Slavic use 'ch' or 'h', Celtic use 'ch', some use 'kh', Spanish used once 'x' (Mexico) and now uses 'j' and so on. And it's still the same sound. Do you even know the difference between voiced and voiceless? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 07:46
No because the answer doesn't exist. They were the ones that created it. Just like there was no bilabial fricative in PIE, but Avestan created it. |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 08:15
|
Is English a Germanic language or not? Are those words, that I mentioned, Germanic or not? The fact is that you can find all Avestan Consonants in the Germanic "own" words, you say some modern Germanic languages lack some sounds, what does it prove? Isn't it obvious that they have lost those sounds? Arabs and Persian have lived near, with and among one another for hundreds years, there are numerous Persian words in the Arabic language but Arabic lacks some phonetic sounds found in the Persian, such "ch", "p", ... just tell me one Arabic "loan" word from Persian with these sounds, if you find an Arabic "own" word then I will say Arabic is the same Persian! -------------
|
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 08:37
Is Dutch a Germanic language or not? -------------
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2008 at 11:05
In my case at the moment the nearest American to me is about 30 feet away. She has had a considerable effect on my vocabulary.
Everybody else seems to think Comorian is a Swahili variant. But I bet you could find numerous 'Persian words' in every language on earth, since you define a 'Persian word' as 'any combination of phonemes'. ------------- |