Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

  1. #1

    Post Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Most of the languages from Europe to India are members of the large family known as the Indo-European languages. Notable exeception to this in Europe is the Finno-Ugric family consisting mainly of Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian and Lapp languages. On the Indian front, the Dravidian family of Tamil, Teluge, Kannada and Malayalam which are the principal languages of four South Indian States, also does not belong to the Indo-European.

    Finnish language has remained independent and quite distinct, in spite of the close proximity to other European neighbours. On the other side, Dravidian langauges - all except Tamil - have been heavily influenced by Sanskrit words and alphabet to an extent that some of the literary works in these languages contain more Sanskrit words than the native ones! However, it is easy to find old writings in these langauges, which do not contain a single Sanskrit word.

    Dravidian Languages - Origin
    Nothing definite is known about the origin of Dravidian languages. Are they just native to India? In recent years, a hypothesis has been gaining ground that Dravidian speakers have probably moved from north-west to the South of Indian peninsula, a movement originating possibly as far as Central Asia. There is also general agreement that the language of Indus Valley Civilization looks like Dravidian. The presence of a Dravidian language called Brahui, isolated in Pakistan, spoken by 750,000, probably remnant of the Indus people, supports this theory.

    The Dravidian languages have remained an isolated family to the present day and have defied all of the attempts to show a connection with the Indo- European tongues, Basque, Sumerian or Korean! "The most promising and plausible hypothesis is that of a linguistic relationship with the Uralic (Hungarian and Finnish) and Altaic (Turkish, Mongol) languages groups". [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 715 1989 Edition]. In our essay we attempt to elaborate this theory with some striking comparisons.

    Dravidian Words elsewhere?

    A number of Dravidian loanwords appear in Rigveda, the earliest known Indo-Aryan literary work in Sanskrit. In the Hebrew text of the Bible, peacock is called "tukkhiyim" probably similar to Tamil "tokai", tail of peacock. A number of words also appear in Greco-Roman sources such as Periplus maris Erythraei (AD 89). The western words for rice and ginger are cultural loans from Dravidian. (Italian riso, Latin and Greek oryza, Proto-Dravidian arici, and for ginger, German Ingwer Greek zinziberis, Old Tamil inciver meaning ver (root) if inci plant. In contrast to the words loaned during the colonial era (Copra, Cashew etc), these words are very old and appear in very old texts.

    Finno-Ugric languages
    The ancestor of Finno-Ugric language called Proto-Uralic was spoken 7,000 to 10,000 years ago in the general area of the northern Ural Mountains Range.

    Grammatical Similarities
    There are some grammatical similarities between Finnish and South Indian languages. Both do not use prepositions at all. An example makes it clear. Note that Malayalam has its own alphabet, but we use Roman script here so that you can read it.

    Finnish Malayalam Means

    Helsingissä Helsinkiyil in Helsinki
    Helsinkiin Helsinkiyilekku to Helsinki
    Helsingistä Helsinkiyilninnu from Helsinki
    Turkuunko? Turku-yileko? to Turku?
    kirjan hinta Pusthaka-thinte Vila the price of the book

    The use of suffixes is not the only similarity. In the case of noun + noun constructions, the qualifying name comes first in both languages forming a single compound word. Eg: In Finnish, brick(tiili)+ house(talo) = tiilitalo. In Malayalam brick(Ishtika) + house(Veedu) = Ishtikaveedu. On the other hand, in the case of noun+name construction, where noun indicates relationship, both languages follow the same pattern. Eg: Matti setä = uncle Matti. In Malayalam it would have been Matti maman = uncle Matti.

    Some striking words
    Some words are strikingly similar and have the same or close-to meaning. This can be quite accidental, until someone can prove otherwise. Also 'sata' (=100) in Finnish means the same in almost all Indian languages! But the source of this is obviously Sanskrit satam.

    Malayalam means Finnish means

    amma mother äiti mother
    emä maa mother country
    emä laiva mother ship
    nalu four nelja four
    vatti basket vati basin
    puu flower puu tree
    muusari foundryman muurari* mason
    piri screw thread piiri circle
    eei (colloq.) 'no' ei no
    tuuli blow in wind tuuli wind
    kudi(kudil) house koti house
    kayyi, kai hand, arm käsi hand, arm
    kol (kolluka) die, kill kuolla die, pass away
    ulla, olla(thu) be, exist ole to be

    * Can be pure coincidence? They did not use bricks at the
    time of supposed contacts. Muurari comes from "muuri" which means "wall".
    Whereas in Malayalam Musari comes from "Musa"(=mould). Though not exactly
    same meaning, the formation of the final word follows a similar pattern.

    Meeting Place : Central Asia or Ural Mountains?
    If the original inhabitants of Ural mountains spoke a Proto-Uralic langauge, then it is older than any modern Indo-European langauge prevalent in Europe today (7,000 to 10,000 years). Migration from Ural Mountains happened towards North and Northern part of today Russia. But there is absolutely no evidence that Ural people ever moved towards east or southeast.

    It is now widely accepted that Indus Valley Civilization was "non-Indo- European" and is generally classified as "Dravidian" or "native Indian". "It is a well-established and well-supported hypothesis that Dravidian speakers must have been spread throughout India, including the north-west region... Thus a form of proto-Dravidian, or perhaps Proto-North-Dravidian must have been extensive in north India before the advent of the Aryans." [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 716 1989 Edition].

    "The circumstances of the advent of Dravidian speakers in India are shrouded in mystery. There are vague linguistic and cultural ties with the Urals and with the Mediterranean area". There is also speculation that original Dravidians were a mix of Mediterraneans and Armenoids who moved towards India in the 4th millenium BC. "Along their route, these immigrants may have possibly come into an intimate, prolonged contact with the Ural-altaic speakers, thus explaining the striking affinities between Dravidian and Ural-Altaic language groups."[Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 716 1989 Edition]. During and after the fall of, Indus Valley Civilization (3000-1500 BC) there was fairly a constant movement of Dravidian speakers from the northwest to the southeast of India.

    A Note to Readers
    What we have discussed is something which happened or did not happen, well before the recorded history (4-5 thousand years BC). It is difficult to coin the correct terminology to depict the people or languages of that period. Any reference to current people with the same name is misleading, because of the changes, migrations and mixing happened many times in the history.

    For example, today's "Dravidians" of South India are a mix of original Proto-Dravidians who migrated from North India and the Australoid people who probably were natives of Southern India or Indonesian archipelago. This "mix" was further diluted with the coming of Aryans in the Vedic period. The same can be said about the Uralic people. The current "Finns" are a blend of European and the original Uralic forefathers. According to this view, the more archaic Uralic type is preserved among the Lapps. [Encyclopædia Britannica Vol 22, Page 703 1989 Edition].

    Note: The author Gopi Nathan has written this out of academic interest only. I am neither a philologist nor a linguist. Those interested in similar subject should consult internet elsewhere. One of those pages is Ural altaic language home page where you see quite a lot of information and links on Finnish, Hungarian, Uralic in general and altaic languages.
    Last edited by Frans_Jozef; Saturday, May 15th, 2004 at 03:04 PM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Saturday, February 8th, 2020 @ 04:48 AM
    Single adult
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Last edited by Euclides; Saturday, May 15th, 2004 at 02:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, October 22nd, 2005 @ 12:04 AM
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    36 Posts

    Post Re: Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Sounds plausible that the Ugro-Dravidian group's link was severed by the Indo-European incursion from the west ( into central Asia ).

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 10:17 PM
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Quote Originally Posted by AWAR
    Sounds plausible that the Ugro-Dravidian group's link was severed by the Indo-European incursion from the west ( into central Asia ).
    Dravidian mignt be Nostratic but its unlikely to be closer to Uralic, than Indo-European is. A lot of linguists, recently accept an Indo-Uralic group, with Indo-European and Uralic both in it.

  5. #5

  6. #6

    Post Re: Dravidian Languages vs Finno-Ugrian

    Well, if not a few think we're aboard a phantastic but unconvincing theory, there is more to come that sounds far-fetched, although none is anything new.
    The next article brings evidence of Austric connection between the Austric languages(a phylum including Austronesian and Austro-Asiatic languages: and Indo-European!

    Interestingly, the author mentions a PIE dispersal reaching Central Asia at 6000BCE.
    Paul Rivet in L'origines de l'homme américain proposes a theory in which Europe got depleted of people during the LMG an a current of the Chancelade race sought out more clement living areas in Central Asia.
    On the other hand, the UP races in the Don area share a lot in common with the Western Magdalénians(see my thread on Kostenki: ) and the type can still be traced back in the Neolithic(Dnepr-Asov culture).

    Way back in 1932, Wilhelm von Hévésy wrote a book, Finnish-ugrisches aus Indien, wherein he points on the kinship of the pre-Dravidian and pre-IE Munda language in India with Oceanic languages(Austronesian) and ...Uralic.
    Munda is today recognized as an Austric language.

    The following article has a heritical content, but new paradigms often are ascribed to much maligned outsiders who create new apparently unfound, hazy viewpoints on the go and are often misunderstood or hard to follow by.

    Austric words in IndoEuropean and AfroAsiatic?

    Stephen Oppenheimer in his book "Eden in the East" proposes that
    the sudden rise in sea level appr. 6000 BCE flooded Sundaland, the
    area which is now the sea around Indonesia, and forced people
    living there to leave, in the process travelling to many places,
    including the Mediterranean, where they became "civilizing
    heroes". It is interesting that the initial spread and dispersal
    of AfroAsiatic and of Old European (of which Etruscan is a member?)
    is generally set at about the same time. At the same time, Proto-
    IndoEuropean reached Central Asia from the Fertile Crescent.
    If this is true, did these exiles from Sundaland (presumably
    speaking an Austronesian or at least Austric language) leave
    linguistic traces in the IndoEuropean and AfroAsatic languages?
    It would seem they did.
    Paul Manansala has published a list on the internet with comparisons
    between Sanskrit (and its descendants) and Austric languages: PMA and
    between Sumerian and Austric languages: PMS.

    I think (but I am not sure) that Manansala proposes that the
    Indic/Austric cognates he has listed belong to a substrate of
    Indic (or is Indic?). The problem is that the Indic half of the
    cognate pairs have well-established cognates of their own in
    the other Indo-European language groups. Therefore the existence
    of the cognate pairs that Paul Manansala has found does not disprove
    Indo-European influence in India (which he doesn't claim, anyway),
    rather it would tend to reinforce an out-of-India hypothesis for
    Indo-European. Some of the cognate pairs have cognates themselves
    in other language groups (Afro-Asiatic, Kartvelian, Sumerian). Which
    means, I think, if the Austronesian cognates are outside the Indic
    influence area, that there have been earlier (and extensive! judging
    from the number of cognates) contacts between Proto-Austric (or
    perhaps Proto-Austronesian with Austro-Asiatic as sister languages)
    and the block of languages now being proposed as descendants of
    Nostratic. In principle the contacts could of course be both ways,
    but a post-diluvian dispersal of a boat people from east to west
    would be intriguing. We are left with two options for action

    1) Assume that it is all a part of the Proto-World language. Add
    Austric to the stock of candidate languages as a descendant
    of Nostratic.

    2) Assume a heavy borrowing of cultural items in the areas of
    astronomy, boats, kingship, measuring, mythology, basic
    geometrical structures couched in zoomorphic terms (this
    is supposed to mean that when they talk of snakes and trees,
    they also mean lines, waves and circles), psychology, magic,
    shamanism, etc from East to West. Go chase Proto-Austronesian
    (the Austro-Asiatics are landlubbers) cognates in every
    language group that has a coastline (well, the speakers of
    which live in an area that has etc, you know what I mean).

    I go for 2). If you don't, check for Scandinavian bronze age rock
    carvings on the net and be convinced.

    This has some consequences for my modus operandi.

    For each of Paul Manansala's cognates, I have tried to find
    IndoEuropean cognates (from EIEC, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture)
    AfroAsiatic cognates (from HSED, Hamito-Semitic Etymologgical Dictionary)
    Nostratic cognates (from IENH, Indo-European and the Nostratic Hypothesis)
    and I have hoped each time (especially with Nostratic) that the cognates I found would belong to a language spoken in an area with a coastline (not too many Proto-Altaic roots, thank you very much). I seem to have been lucky. Most of the roots I found have belonged to places not incompatible with a theory of sea-borne transmission.
    I have supplemented with discussions of root stems and related derivatives from the works of Møller and Cuny. Although they are very aged, I have nowhere found a similarly detailed exposition of the subject. Present-day authors seem to be content with working with single words (not fair, but sort of true). Especially around the complexes *H-n-(g) "bend, snake, fear, kill, sew, straight line", etc and *H-r-(g) "king, erect, set straight, extend" etc they have been invaluable.
    Dumezil is good for setting things straight, when the sense of words makes no sense.
    And some Etruscan cognates thrown in for good measure.
    Of grammar
    Charles Fillmore (in CFC) has proposed that in all languages the various NP's (noun phrases) in a sentence each take on one of a fixed number of roles relative to the verb. He called those roles deep cases (as opposed to what he termed surface cases of e.g Indo-European languages like German, Russian and Latin).

    The number of deep cases varied as the theory evolved. Here is a typical list (I cite from memory, accuracy WRT names is not guaranteed):

    These are the "non-spatial" cases. The "spatial" (or "spatio- temporal") may include:

    (place where action occurred)
    In standard Proto-IndoEuropean, such as it is reconstructed, a sentence consists of a verb and one or several noun phrases. The roles (deep cases) of the noun phrases are indicated by adding suffixes to the component words (articles, adjective, nouns) of the noun phrase in question. In Proto-Austronesian (according to PA) a sentence consists of a verb and just one noun phrase. The role of that noun phrase is indicated by an affix (pre-, in-, suf-) not of the noun phrase but of the verb. Here they are:

    Actor mood : *-um- (infix )

    Object mood : *-ën (suffix)

    Beneficiary-Locative mood : *-an (suffix)

    Instrumental mood : *Si- (prefix)

    There is also a

    Perfective mood : -in- (infix)

    to which one might compare:

    For actor mood and perfective mood

    The Proto-IndoEuropean present tense -n- infix (CAIEH 76).

    For object and beneficiary-locative mood

    The Germanic and Slavic past participle in -n- (CAIEH 77)
    (corresponding to Sanskrit -ána). If the language has no
    copula (e.g. Russian), a passive sentence will correspond
    to a Proto-Austronesian one. Perhaps the Latin absolute
    ablative construction is an archaic sentence type that
    belongs here too. Compare also the Etruscan suffix *-na
    (shuthi "grave", shuthina "grave goods" written on
    funeral gifts).
    Alternative: the Germanic infinitive suffix (-an, later
    variously -en, -e, nothing), Sanskrit ´-ana.

    For instrumental mood

    The AfroAsiatic languages makes causative verbs by mens of an
    s-preformative (prefix). Herman Møller has suggested that the
    Proto-IndoEuropean "s mobile" is a cognate and therefore
    originally also was a causative preformative. It is tempting
    to compare it to the Proto-Austronesian instrumental mood
    prefix *Si- (cf. English "melt" vs. "smelt" (make melt?), and
    "reach" vs. "stretch" (make reach?), cf. German "recken" and
    "strecken", Germanic inserts -t- into sr-, as in "stream"
    from *(s)rw-m-, “flow”).

    Beside the s-preformative for Proto-IndoEuropean and Proto-
    AfroAsiatic, Møller also postulates the existence of a
    w-preformative of no distinct semantics.

    It is possible to identify suffixes in the words: *-gh/k-, *-dh/t-.

    Of phonetics

    Since I assume an Austronesian origin for the cognate "clusters"
    I am free to assume whatever alternations that are common there,
    so r/n/l/d will be permissible alternates, and I have permitted
    n-infixing into tri-consonantal roots C-C-C < > C-NC-C. This
    is partly accepted in Indo-European already as present (ie.
    imperfective) stem infixes in verbs. Dyen notes a similar
    function in Proto-Austronesian: verb with n-infix, noun without.
    Also (NEOVF), in Afro-Asiatic, Cushitic Bedawi has an imperfective
    -n- prefix (two-consonant stems) and infix (three-consonant
    stems), eg. verb -ktum- “to come”, 1st sing. perfective a-ktim,
    imperfective a-ka-n-tim.
    Further I will not attempt to keep laryngeals apart. This means
    a lot of freedom and a good deal less credibility, but then,
    this is only a first approximation. It should be noted that
    in Semitic, the choice between r/n/l is considered "a matter
    of style" (I read somewhere) and that it is generally assumed
    that some substrate languages of the Mediterranean had d/l/n/r
    vacillation. Consider also old Indo European problems like
    (Hittite) laman vs. (many other Indo-European languages)
    n-m-, Latin lingva vs. Germanic etc dengwa, and the archaic
    neuter -r/-n and -l/-n paradigms. Thus it is possible to
    claim a common origin for the *H-n(-g)- "snake" and *H-r(-g)- "ruler" roots.

    In general, I think this d/l/n/r vacillation has been ignored.

    Of notation

    I have made some horrible
    substitutions for various phonetic symbols.

    & schwa
    ly palatal l
    ñ, ny palatal n
    î, û Slavic short i and u, soft and hard sign
    ã, õ, Slavic nasal vowels
    gh, kh,
    dh, th
    bh, ph Aspirated stops
    H1, H2, H3 I got rid of Ha in EIEC by calling it H2,
    because it's easier to write. Sorry.
    Y Some funny-looking Y-like letter
    categorized as "emphatic spirantic lenis"
    in VISW. Corresponds approx. to H3.
    Unfortunately I know next to nothing about
    # Some other laryngeal
    plus various others that I made up on the spur of the moment.

    (...) optional
    [..|..|.. ] alternatives
    (..|..|.. ) alternatives or nothing

    *A-d-m- “cover, fill, build, create”

    *A-n- “wind, breath, god, spirit”; “man”

    *A-r- “earth”

    *H-bh-g- “to apportion”

    *H.-g^- “sharp”

    *H-gh- “day”

    *H-l-g- “stick, glue”

    *H-l-gwh- “light”

    *H-kw- “eye, see”

    *H-n-g- “snake, serpent, destroy”

    *H-r- “noble”

    *H-r-g- “maintain”

    *H-r-k- “sun, silver, gold, fire”

    *H-s- “fire”

    *H-p- “fire”

    *H-w-s- “dwell, wear”

    *Y-p- “water”

    *Y-p-r- “(break on through to) the other side”

    *air- “go”

    *bh-A- “(make) appear from the beyond”

    *bh-rs- “copper, iron”

    *bh-r/l- “bright, castle, bank, high,
    and many other strange things etc
    (or numinous light above island?)”

    *bhudh- “to fathom, awaken, understand”

    *b-l- “axe”

    *chag- “leave”

    *dan- “river, lake”

    *dh-r- “bear, hold”

    *d-l-k- “see”

    *d-w- “die”

    *d-y-w- “divine, light”

    *g-m- “to eat, chew, tooth”

    *g-n- “get, create”

    *gw-r- “heavy, great”

    *hor- “time, period”

    *kat- “speak, story”

    *kay- “body, tree, wood”

    *ken- “know”

    *k-k- “chicken”

    *k-l- “call, sound”

    *k-m- “love”

    *k-m-t- “shine, moon”

    *k-r- “bark, skin; turn, cicle, enclosure”

    *k-r-(n-) turtles, frogs, crabs; horn

    *k-r-s- “dark, black”

    *k-w- “magic”

    *k-w-l- “hollow, ditch”

    *kur- “dog”

    *kw-r- “work”

    *l-k- “body”

    *l-w- “flow, wash, shine”

    *l-w-k- The hole to the other side

    *mats- “fish”

    *m-d- Tree (pole) at middle of the world,
    middle of the world,
    order of the world,

    *m-gh- “great”

    *m-l- “sweetness, honey”

    *m-n- “spirit”

    *mula- “root, source, base”

    *m-y- “urinate; cloud”

    *n-bh- “cloud, shower”

    *n-s- “island”

    *p-g- “pole; catch”

    *p-H- “protect”

    *p-H-k- “hold”

    *p(/kW)-d- “foot”

    *p-kw- “to cook”

    *p-k- “belly, flank, wing”

    *p-l- “full, several”

    *p-l-d- “lead”

    *p-l-k- “dirt, foul”

    *p-n- “hand, five”

    *p-t- “lord, mistress”

    *p-r- “love”

    *p-r-k- “pig”

    *pu- “clean”

    *pul- “hair”

    *q-l- “move, time”

    *r-H-m- “dark, black”

    *r-g- “blood, red”

    *s-d- “true”

    *s-g- “hang on to, limb”

    *s-gh- “power, strength”

    *s-k- “sea”

    *sk-lk- “must; debt”

    *s-l- “salt, water”

    *s-l-k- “silver”

    *s-m- “together, one”

    *s-m- “sea, salt”

    *sor- “woman”

    *s-r- “flow, stream”; “arrow, spear”

    *s-w- “one's own, relative, friend”

    *s-w-g- “sick”

    *s-w-l- “shine, sun”

    *tar- “go across”

    *t-k- “fear, evil”

    *t-l- “thorn”

    *t-n- “stretch”

    *t-n- “to sound”

    *toy- “water”

    *t-p- “heat, burn, fire”

    *t-r- “star”

    *t-r-n- “go down”

    *t-w- “to strike, hit”

    *t-w-k- “descendants”

    *w-d- “water”

    *w-dh- “lead; wife”

    *w-gh- “boat, carry, road”, (Vehicle of the Sun?)

    *wit- “branch, tree, trunk”

    *w-l- “choose”

    *w-l/r- “to turn, wrap, (thus cover”

    *w-r- “water”

    *w-s- “water”

    *yug- “to join, unite, mix”

    *dm-pd- “domain and its master”

    Forces of creation, maintenance and destruction


    *H-s-, *t-r- Stars!





    Morphology, inflection

    CAIEH 76
    Verb-forming nasal infix before second consonant of root

    tuboh “body” Melanesian
    tumboh “grow” Melanesian

    yukta-h “joined” Sanskrit
    yuñj-mah “we join” Sanskrit

    The n-infix of the present may become the basis of another noun which may
    replace the original one.

    tumboh “growth” Melanesian

    jùngas “yoke” Lithuanian

    or an n-infix-less verb may be formed from the original noun.

    tuboq “grow” Tagalog
    tubu “grow” Toba
    tuwoh “grow” Javanese

    and if both happens, you may have a doublet root, with
    or without semantic distinction.

    tubuq Proto-Austronesian
    tumbuq Proto-Austronesian

    CAIEH 77
    Suffix (verb)-en meaning “something which gets (verb)ed”

    -ka:qin “eat” Tagalog
    ka:n-in “boiled rice” Tagalog
    makan “eat” Mal.
    makan-an “food” Mal.
    ka-i “eat” Futuna
    kan-o “meat” Futuna

    bit- “bite” Gothic
    bit-an-s “bitten” Gothic
    nes- “carry” Old Church Slavonic
    nes-en-û “carried” Old Church Slavonic

    CAIEH 78
    Austronesian durative reduplication.

    nagpu:tol “did cut” Tagalog
    nagpu:pu:tol “is, was cutting” Tagalog
    mööt “sit” Trukese
    mömmööt “be sitting” Trukese

    títhe:mi “I put” Greek

    quotes E. Benveniste's "Origins of the Formulation of
    Nouns in IndoEuropean" (1935) as the origin of the ideas
    that lead IENH to these observations on the root structure
    of Proto-IndoEuropean:

    1 There were no initial vowels in the earliest form of
    Pre-IndoEuropean. Therefore, every root began with a

    2 Originally, there were no initial consonant clusters
    either. Consequently, every root began with one and
    only one consonant.

    3 Two basic syllable types existed (A) *CV and (B)
    *CVC where C = any non-syllabic and V = any vowel.
    Permissible root forms coincided exactly with these
    two syllable types.

    4 A verbal stem could either be identical with a root
    or it could consist of a root plus a single derivational
    suffix added as a suffix to the root: *CVC-VC-. Any
    consonant could serve as a suffix.

    5 Nominal stems, on the other hand, could be extended
    by additional suffixes.

    Similarly for Afro-Asiatic

    1 There were no initial vowels in the earliest form of
    Proto-AfroAsiatic. Therefore every root began with a

    2 Originally, there were no initial consonant clusters,
    either. Consequently, every root began with one and
    only one consonant.

    3 Two basic syllable types existed (A) *CV and (B) *CVC
    where C = any non-syllable and V = any vowel. Permissible
    root forms coincided with these two syllable types.

    4 A verb stem could either be identical with a root or it
    could consist of a root plus a single derivational
    morpheme added as a suffix to the root: *CVC-VC-. Any
    consonant could serve as a suffix.

    5 Primary (that is, non-derivational) noun stems displayed
    similar patterning, though, unlike verbs stems, they
    were originally characterized by stable vocalism.

    PA quotes Dempwolff for the folowing limitations on the
    Proto-Austronesian word-bases:

    1 CVC

    2 CVCVC, of which some are
    CVNPVC, where N is a nasal and P is a stop, homorganic
    with each other ie -mp-, -mb-, -nt-, -nd-, -n(g)g-,
    -n(g)k-. CVNPVC and CVPVC may be or not be semantically
    equivalent, in which first case they are written

    3 CVCCVC, where CVC = CVC,
    ie two identical syllables. abbr. CVC2

    4 CVCVCVC, trisyllabic roots, of which some are

    5 CVCVCVCVC, very few

    Many have the form cv-, therefore the result becomes
    one of the above, eg. cv- + CVC > cvCVC, cv- +
    All infixes have the form -vc-, and are inserted
    after the first C. eg. -vc- + CVC > CvcVC, -vc- +
    Many are in the form -vc, eg. -vc + CVC > CVCvc,
    -vc + CVCVC > CVCVCvc

    This looks very similar to the structure of Proto-
    IndoEuropean + nasal infix as explained above by Dyen.

    VISW claims the following of the forms of

    1 Pronominal single consonant stems C-

    2 Two-consonant stems C-C-

    3 Reduplication of two-consonant stems C-CC-C ((C-C)2 ?),
    eg. gw-l “roll, turn” >
    gw-lgw-l, Hebrew gilga:l “wheel, circle”
    and as simplification "simple reduplication",
    a consonant is dropped.
    IndoEuropean drops the second consonant
    kw-kw-l- , kweklo-s “wheel”
    Afro-Asiatic drops the third consonant
    gw-l-l “roll”, Amharic gw-l-l

    4 Addition as suffix of the consonant in anlaut
    eg. gw-r “swallow” > gw-r-gw, Old High German querca
    “throat”. Called "half reduplication", elsewhere "broken

    5 Two-consonant roots might be extended by a one-consonant
    suffix, a "determinative". In some cases the meaning of
    the determintive can be seen from its later history in
    Indo-European, eg. -d and -n from -t and -n in Indo-European,
    where the form participles. Since most of the determinatives
    are no longer productive in Indo-European, they must be pre-
    Indo-European. In Afro-Asiatic the determinative is tightly
    bound to the root, since native Sprachgefühl demands three-
    consonant roots

    6 Two-consonant roots may become three-consonant by a one-
    consonant infix. A nasal infix, which is rare in
    AfroAsiatic eg. Ethiopian kanfar “lip” from *k-p-, has
    become very much used in Indo-European. Further, in
    Afro-Asiatic two-consonant roots may also be extended
    by a one-consonant prefix. These prefixes may also be
    found as infixes with no or small semantic change.

    plus 8 more paragraphs.

    As can be seen, the limitations of VISW correspond pretty
    well with those of IENH and PA. In general, I think it sad
    to see how Møller in generally is written off as a
    "philologist" or "semiticist" who undertook an "abortive
    attempt" to find a common origin for Indo-European and
    Afro-Asiatic, by people who obviously haven't read his

    As for the e - o ablaut gradation IVSQA maintains
    that this should reinterpreted as a ë - a gradation.
    So did RVCFRN.

    CAIEH :
    (Conclusion by the author, I. Dyen)
    I must confess that I am impressed with the extent to which I
    have been successful in gathering matchings between the
    reconstructions of the two families. Granting that thus far I
    have not wavered in my stedfast belief in the likelihood that an
    Austronesian-IndoEuropean relationship can not be demonstrated,
    should I waver now?
    TP :
    I do. It should be noted that the article was written not to prove such
    a relationship, but, rather, given the impossibility thereof since no
    connections between the corresponding cultures before appr. AD 1000 is
    (was) known, to test the validity of the comparative method (by providing
    a counter-example, in Popper's sense). Dyen (personal communication), however,
    doesn't see it this way.


    Phonetic Correspondence


    The consonant cluster “ng” has been noted, by Chaterjee
    and others, in word like "Ganga", which is related to words
    meaning simply “river”, in many Austro-Asiatic languages.
    Other words like sanga “having limbs”, Sanskrit seem to indicate
    that intervocalic "ng" may be connected with words associated
    with appendages, limbs, extensions, offshoots and the like. The
    Austronesian words darnga, tarnga, kalinga, etc. all meaning “ear”,
    certainly seem to be related to Sanskrit karna “ear”, the latter
    having lost the “ng” consonant cluster. This has also occurred
    in Austronesian languages were we find kalna, kalina, talina, etc.
    Other possible examples of this trait are:

    TP :
    This *-ng- “appendage” infix wouldn't happen to that horrible serpent
    *-n-g- again? Or am I getting paranoid? At least I would claim "anguli"
    “finger” and "anga" “limb” for it.
    And how about Indo-European *dnghuH2- “tongue”?
    IEW :
    ang-, esp. to designate joints of limbs
    lithus “joint” Gothic
    *lei- “bend” Gothic

    ángam “joint” Sanskrit
    angúri-h “finger, toe”, Sanskrit (from which
    anguli:yam “finger ring” Sanskrit)
    anguisthi-h “big toe, thumb” =
    angushta “toe” Avestan
    anginn “corner” Armenian
    añjali-h “both hands rounded
    held together” Armenian

    linga “phallus”
    langala- “plow”
    vanga- “tree”
    punga “heap, mound”
    sunga “sheath of a bud”
    anguli “finger”
    matanga “elephant (from trunk)”
    anga “limb”
    langula “tail”
    vangsa- “bamboo and other cane”

    Initial retroflex consonants

    There can be little doubt that the common occurrence of retroflex
    consonants in the various languages of India are due to common
    influence upon each other. Many of the retroflex consonants in Indic
    and the Austric languages of India are almost certainly of Dravidian
    origin as they are abundantly attested to in those languages but not
    found outside India. On the other hand, the initial retroflex
    consonants of Indic, cannot be found, or at least are very rare in
    the Dravidian languages. Initial retroflex
    consonants are quite common in Austric languages, both Austro-Asiatic
    and Austronesian. Initial retroflex consonants do not occur in
    IE languages in Iran or Afghanistan or further to the north and
    west. Retroflex consonants themselves can be found as far east
    as Formosa, Papua, Micronesia and the Santa Cruz Islands.
    Re: the retroflex consonants in Swedish and Norwegian which are
    sometimes cited as an example of "spontaneous" "retroflexisation"
    (without super- or substrate influence); the "thick" or cacuminal
    l occurs in the dialects of those areas where bronze age rock carvings
    are found with motifs that might be interpreted as connected with
    South East Asia (tree of life, birds, ceremonial axes, boats).
    The retroflex r (which causes the immediately following consonants
    (n, d, l, s) to become retroflex too) is limited to Sweden and Norway,
    in Sweden historically to north of Scania into which area it is now
    spreading, according to (indignant or jubilant) letters to the editor
    in the local papers.


    There exist an interesting similarity between the Vedic concept
    of the sun as the “eye of Varuna”, and the Hindu one of the orb
    as Lokachakshu, or “eye of the world”, and also as one of the
    eyes of Siva; and the very common Austronesian term “eye of
    the day”. In Thailand, we see the phrase as 'sa ven' “eye of
    the day”, Li, 'da-ben' “sun”, Jer., 'tau wan', Dioi, Sek.

    In Indonesia, and Malaysia there is 'mata wari' and
    'mata hari' respectively for “sun = eye of the day”. In Malagasy
    there is maso andro “sun = eye of the day”. In Amboyna and
    Ceram, we have a slight variation with riamata “shining eye = sun”.
    The words 'mata-alo' of Celebes and 'mata-alon' of Baju probably
    have the same meaning. In Makatea, we have 'mata-ra', “eye of
    the day = sun”, from a word for “day”, that is the same as
    the word for sun in other New Hebrides languages.

    Moving into Oceania, there is 'mata ni siga' of Fiji
    and San Cristoval ahve the same meaning of “shining eye”,
    for the sun. In Espirito Santo and Duke of York we have
    simply 'maso' “eye = sun”, and 'make' “eye = sun”, respectively.
    In Api, 'mat ni ele' “sun”, is quite the same as the 'mata-alo'
    and 'mata-alon' mentioned above. At Leper's Island, 'matan aho',
    related the newly-risen sun to the eye. In the New Hebrides,
    the Western Eromangan has 'nipmi-nen' “eye of the day”.

    Probably connected to this are the Sanskrit 'dina' “day”,
    and 'dina-kara' “sun”. In Malay, there is the phrase 'dina hari'
    “day break”, while in Motu, Mekeo, Kuni and Doura we have 'dina'
    “day”. In Arosi, Sau, Saa, Kwaio and Ulawa there is 'dani',
    'dangi', 'danigi', 'dinga', etc., all meaning “day”. In Motu and
    Proto-Central Papuan 'dina' means “sun”, while in Indonesia
    'tinag' means “torch”.

    We can find many other examples of common terms and
    phrases. For exmaple, in India it is common to denote
    beautiful eyes by the term 'mina-kshi' “fish-eye”. The
    eyes of the fish are also considered beautiful among
    Austronesians, and thus we have examples like 'kole
    maka onaona' “sweet-eyed kole (a fish) = beautiful
    person”, due to the fact that the eye of the kole
    was considered beautiful.

    TP :

    It is obvious (to me, at least) from Stephen Oppenheimer's
    book "Eden in the East", that there was some kind of contact
    from Sundaland (the land around the present Indonesia that
    disappeared following the rise in water level at the end of
    the last ice age) to India, Mesopotamia and Europe
    (specifically Scandinavia). According to a recent (May, 2000)
    article in Genetics some pig races in Europe (i.e. Yorkshire
    and Swedish Countryside) contains Asiatic gene material.
    Note the appearance of "hog" in the above list of
    Austric-IndoEuropean cognates.

    You may have noticed some enormous clusters in the cognate

    *A-d-m “master, lord” | “build, something built” |
    “domesticate” (driving out chaos)

    *H-r-(g-) “king” | “reach, stretch” | “build with wood,
    pile up, mount onto”

    *H-n-(g-) “snake” > “constriction, suffocation, murder”,
    “fear” | “snake” > “bend, wave”, “sew”

    *m-n- “(noble) man” | “sexual desire, magical power” |
    “spiritual body” |
    “something protruding, stick, churning”

    *t-n- “physical extension, physical body
    (as opposed to spiritual, magical body)”

    Words for swimming, travelling, boats.

    The opposites heavy/light, appearing as if originating as
    predicates of cargo on some floating transportation.

    As for the four first clusters, here is what I think "they"
    thought about it.
    They knew about the Kundalini serpent, deep in the mind.
    They saw the terrible conflagration in the depths of the oceans
    at the Flood (whichever) (volcanic activity?, meteoric impact?)
    as that same serpent rising and causing havoc in the physical world.

    The *H-r-g- is not a surveyor, as Dumezil would have it. He is the
    captain of a ship, also responsible for its construction (in wood),
    and knowing about geometry because he sets the course by the stars.

    With respect to the clusters stemming from *H-r-g- and *H-n-g-, they
    may express the two opposite concepts of the straight vs. the crooked.
    The chaotic vs. the orderly.
    Or there may be a three-way opposition *A-d-m-, *H-r-g-, *H-n-g-;
    creation, orderder, destruction.

    The following is taken from memory, and I might be wrong:
    One of the pioneers in the mathematical field of topology was the
    German mathematician and linguist Grassmann. I believe that what
    basis vectors do to a topological space in German is "aus-dehnen",
    a cognate of *t-n- "extend, stretch". Coincidence (or bad memory
    on my part)? In comparative linguistics, he is known for
    "Grassmann's law" in Sanskrit, so he must have had done some
    reading in that language.

    Torsten Pedersen's Bibliography

    Paul Manansala's Bibliography

    *H1ekt “net”
    de-ku-tu-wo-ko =
    dektu-worgo- “net-makers” Mycenian Greek
    díktuon “hunting/fishing net” Greek (-i- from dikein “throw”)
    e:kt- “net” Hittite
    aggati- “catch-net” Luvian
    áksu- “net” Sanskrit

    The Greek forms represent neuter nouns with
    (prefixed?) *d- as in the word for “tear”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, April 27th, 2020, 04:10 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Saturday, December 3rd, 2011, 05:51 PM
  3. Ugrian-Speakers of the Ladogan-Racial Type
    By Boche in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, August 6th, 2007, 11:30 PM
  4. Wow, can you get any more Dravidian then this?
    By cannistraro in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 23rd, 2004, 01:38 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts