mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
_________________________________________________________________

"Knowing" Words in
Indo-European Languages
_________________________________________________________________

The first systematic theory of the relationships between human
languages began when Sir William Jones, "Oriental Jones," proposed in
1786 that Greek and Latin, the classical languages of Europe, and
Sanskrit, the classical language of India, had all descended from a
common source. The evidence for this came from both the structure of
the languages -- Sanskrit grammar has similarities to Greek and to
nothing else -- and the vocabulary of the languages. Thus, "father" in
English compares to "Vater" in German, "pater" in Latin, "patêr" in
Greek, "pitr." in Sanskrit, "pedar" in Persian, etc. On the other
hand, "father" in Arabic is "ab," which hardly seems like any of the
others. This became the theory of "Indo-European" languages, and today
the hypothetical language that would be the common source for all
Indo-European languages is called "Proto-Indo-European." The following
table shows a genealogy for two "knowing" roots, which in modern
English turn up as "know" and "wit."

Words that are related to each other by descent from a common source
are called "cognates." English "wise" and Sanskrit "veda" are thus
cognates. Note that descent can become confused when words are
subsequently borrowed. English has borrowed "idea" and "agnostic" from
Greek, "video," "visa," and "cognition" from Latin, "vista" from
Spanish, etc.

Another striking example of cognates are all the following words for
"is" -- modern French and Persian pronunciation is given in
parentheses:

English German French Latin Greek Sanskrit Persian
is ist est
(ê) est esti asti ast
(ê)

Traditionally, all Indo-European languages were divided into "centum"
and "satem" languages, after the Latin and Avestan words for "100,"
respectively. This is an "isogloss" (like an "isotherm" or "isobar" in
meteorology) that distinguishes languages where, in certain
environments, an Indo-European k has remained a k and where it has
turned into an s. Most importantly, the Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit, Persian,
etc.) and Slavic languages are "satem" languages. However, this
particular isogloss is now no longer taken to reflect a fundamental
division in descent. In the chart above, Russian, the principal Slavic
language, will be seen to be more closely related to German and to
Latin than to Sanskrit; and Greek, a "centum" language, is more
closely related to Sanskrit than to anything else. What has happened
is that more features have been taken into account and the overall
greater similarities between Greek and Sanskrit outweigh a lesser
point that Sanskrit seems to share with Slavic languages. On the other
hand, the whole picture of branching descent, while perhaps
appropriate for organic evolution, may not be as appropriate for
languages, which can borrow features from even unrelated languages in
geographical proximity. The Slavic and Indo-Aryan languages thus may
well have shared a certain sound change, even while retaining closer
affinities to other groups.
_________________________________________________________________

Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages

The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe

Philosophy of Science

History of Philosophy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 1998, 2000 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved
_________________________________________________________________

Greek, Sanskrit,
and Closely Related Languages
_________________________________________________________________

The Sanskrit language whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful
structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the
Latin, and more exquisitely refined then either, yet bearing to
both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in
the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by
accident; so strong, indeed, that no philosopher could examine them
all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common
source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.

Sir William Jones (1746-1794), speaking to the Asiatick Society in
Calcutta, February 2, 1786.
_________________________________________________________________

The following chart zeroes in on the relationship between Greek and
Sanskrit, with the closely related Iranian and other Indo-European
steppe languages, and the modern descendants of them all. Greek can be
seen to radiate into a number of dialects, later to be consolidated
into the koinê or "common" dialect of the Hellenistic period. The name
Yuèzhi, "Moon Tribe," was given by the Chinese to an Indo-European
group who came off the eastern end of the steppe. Latter, under
pressure of Turkish and Mongol peoples, they fell back into the Tarim
Basin (the "Lesser" Yuèzhi) and Transoxania (the "Greater" Yuèzhi).
The latter eventually descended into India, as the Kushans (1st
century AD). The texts that survive in the Tarim Basin, in languages
usually called "Tocharian," attest this obscure branch of
Indo-European. The Iranian group of languages also includes that of a
people, the Saka, who had previously (1st century BC) also ended up in
India, providing the benchmark historical era for India (79 AD).
Otherwise we see several modern descendants of Iranian languages, from
Modern Persian and Kurdish all the way to the unique survivor of the
North Eastern group, Ossetian, in the Caucasus (though this is now
North West of the others). Iazyges were settled in Britain by Marcus
Aurelius, and Alans spread across Gaul and Spain after crossing the
Rhine in 407 AD. Although students of both Greek and Latin may be
impressed with their similarities, Latin does not have a dual number,
a middle voice, or an aorist tense, which both Greek and Sanskrit
share. These features, and others, draw Greek away from Latin, to be
more closely associated with the Indo-Aryan languages. In general,
this is the most conservative branch of the Indo-European languages.
My Indo-European lingustics professor at UCLA said once that you can
get a sort of "instant Proto-Indo-European" by combining Greek vowels
and Sanskrit consonants.
East of the Caspian Sea, the Indo-Aryan group of languages came down
into the Middle East and India. The furthest penetration west into the
Middle East was by the Mitanni, who provide the earliest texts using
Vedic gods and other Indo-European words. The Mitanni, however, do not
last all that long, and it is Persian and Avestan (the language of the
Zoroastrian book, the Avesta) that produce most of the Indo-Aryan
inscriptions and literature. A difference in pronunciation of the name
of the Vedic god Mitra is indicated in the chart, between India, the
Mitanni, and Persian. Meanwhile, the Ârya had descended into India,
c.1500 BC, the first Indo-European group to do so (before the Sakas &
Kushans). As discussed elsewhere, the Ârya plunged India into its Dark
Ages, until around 800 BC, when an alphabet was borrowed from the
Middle East.

The word ârya, which later simply meant "noble" in Sanskrit, was of
course used in European theories of the "master race," the "Aryans."
This had one curious consequence. Airya was the form of the same word
in Avestan, and Irân is its modern Persian descendant. When Shâh Rezâ
Pahlavi heard that the "Aryans" were supposed to be the master race,
he thought, "Hey! That's us!" The official name of his country was
then changed from Persia to Irân.

In the Indian Dark Ages, a sacred oral literature developed, the
Vedas. The language of the Vedas can then be called the Vedic
language, and Indian history from c.1500 down to c.400 BC can be
called the Vedic Period. Even though the Vedas could be written down
after 800 BC, they were always taught and remembered orally, and were
always thought of as essentially sound -- in contrast to Jewish
beliefs about the Tôrah and Moslem beliefs about the Qur'ân, that they
were essentially written. The Vedas are still taught orally.

Once the Vedas came to be written, a disturbing thing was soon
noticed. The spoken language was diverging from the written language.
Language, indeed, changes all the time, but this may not be noticed in
an oral tradition. When it was noticed, the reaction was horror, for
the belief was that the Vedas had to be remembered with absolute
accuracy for them to be ritually effective. The result was an effort
to describe and fix the language of the Vedas so that it would never
change again. The process culminated about 400 BC with the grammar of
Pân.ini.

The language that resulted was tidied up a bit and not precisely
identical to the surviving language of the Vedas. It was called
Sam.skr.ta, Sanskrit, which means "prepared," "cultivated,"
"polished," "correct." The language based on Pân.ini can be called
"Classical Sanskrit," and that of the Vedas "Vedic Sanskrit."
Classical Sanskrit remained the language of religion, philosophy, and
high literature in India for centuries, and survives today as the
indispensible language of religion and serious scholarship.

Meanwhile, the spoken language had not only changed but split up into
dialects that eventually grew into separate languages. These new
spoken languages are called "Prakrits," from Prâkr.ta, "natural,"
"ordinary," "common," "vulgar." The first examples of written Prakrit
words are in Sanskrit texts where someone is speaking, e.g. from a
Once Born caste, who is not allowed to speak Sanskrit. Eventually,
however, some Prakrits developed their own literature. When the canon
of essential Buddhist texts was set down in Sri Lanka, the Prakrit
Pâli was used -- hence the "Pâli Canon." That has suggested to some
that the Buddha himself spoke Pâli, but this does not seem to have
been the case. The Buddha probably spoke Mâgadhî.

From the Prakrits, most of the modern languages of India are derived.
The exceptions are the languages of the Dravidian group, largely
spoken in the south. Some examples of Dravidian languages, and
discussion of the relationship of Hindi to Urdu, can be found
elsewhere.

The oldest alphabet used in India was the Brâhmî script. Later, other
alphabets developed, like Kharos.t.hi; but Sanskrit is written in an
alphabet especially designed by the grammarians for it:  Devanâgarî.
This is also used with some modern languages, like Hindi, and is the
source for many more, including the alphabets for Burmese, Thai, and
Cambodian. Actually, Devanâgarî is not a true alphabet but a
syllabary. It writes syllables, and it does so on the basis of a
couple of odd conventions. For one thing, even though Sanskrit has
many consonant clusters, every syllable is written ending with a
vowel. This means that all the consonants, even ones from preceding
words, are piled on to the beginning of the follow syllable.

The word Sanskrit itself has three syllables. Most Devanâgarî letters
have a horizontal line on top and a vertical line at the right. The
plain form for each letter automatically is read with the vowel a. In
the word at right, therefore, reading from left to right, we first
have the letter s, which is read sa. Over it is a dot, transcribed as
an "m" with an underdot, which stands for the nasal sound found as the
"n" in the French word on. This is very common in Sanskrit. The second
syllable in the word is skr., where the r is given an underdot to show
that it is a vowel. Both "r" and "l" can be vowels in Sanskrit --
though no longer in Hindi (r. is prounced ri). The basic form of the
syllable is the letter k. Attached to the front of it is the letter s,
which we've already seen, without its vertical stroke, and under it is
attached a hook that indicates the vowel r.. For the final syllable we
write t, which is given the vowel a. A short final a, it should be
noted, is not pronounced in Hindi:  thus, Sanskrit words like yoga and
names like Arjuna can now actually be found pronounced yog and Arjun.

Another Sanskrit word to consider might be that for the supreme Being
of the Upanishads:  Brahman. Here there are two syllables and a final
consonant. In inflection, the final n is ordinarily going to be lost
or written with the following syllable; but we can add a diacritic to
show that it is without a vowel. In the first syllable, bra, there is
a little complication. R, even when it is a consonant and not a vowel,
is written more like a vowel, with a diacritic. The basic form of b is
a loop with a line through it. The r is indicated with a diagonal
stroke attached to the bottom of the loop. The vowel a is then
understood. An r that precedes, rather than follows, another
consonant, is written with a hook at the top of the letter. The second
syllable, hma, poses another problem. H is one of the letters that
does not have a vertical line at the right, as it is shown written
independently below Brahman. Combining h with m requires running them
together, as shown. The form of this combination is conventional and
cannot always be predicted. It must simply be learned. The full form
of m can be seen in the next example, below. Finally, the absence of a
vowel on the final n is indicated with the diagonal stroke at the
bottom of the vertical line.

Next, we can examine a whole sentence. This is the famous tat tvam
asi, "Thou are that," one of the four Great Sentences of the
Upanishads. This consists of three words, but four syllables, where
the final consonant in the first two words is attached to the first
syllable of the following word. Ta is familiar. The second syllable,
ttva, involves a conventional combination. When two t's are stacked on
each other, one straightens out into a horizonal line. This can be
seen in the tta combination given below the sentence. Va itself is
just a loop, like b without the line through it (the similarity is no
accident; v and b were both recognized as "labials," i.e. letters that
use the lips). The third syllable is ma, where we simply write the
form for m, with the understood vowel. Finally, the form for s is
familar, but this time we must indicate that it has the vowel i rather
than the vowel a. This is done by adding another vertical line to the
left of the letter and connecting it to the letter with the loop at
the top.

Finally, we might consider the sacred syllable Om, as found in the
Mân.d.ûkya Upanis.ad. Here, at left, we have the independent form of
the letter a with a diacritic (vertical line and stroke) indicating
that it has the vowel o (originally au). M follows with the diacritic
indicating no vowel. A more compact form of the word, however, can be
written. If the m is considered to be the nasalized m., it can simply
be written with a dot over the o. The m is a real m, but everybody
knows that anyway, so the more compact form can be written for
convenience.

Since the syllable Om is written down frequently, for good luck and as
a blessing, it is not surprising that abbreviated forms have
developed. In the one at right preserves recognizable parts of the
fully written (though already reduced) form.

Some more examples of Devanâgarî writing can be seen in the essay on
karma.

In many Sanskrit words, like the name of the Mân.d.ûkya Upanis.ad, it
will be noticed that the letters t, d, n, and s may have underdots
(written on the line here, i.e. t., etc.). These are a separate order
of letters from ordinary t, d, n, and s. The ordinary t, etc. are what
in lingustics are called "dentals," because the tongue touches the
teeth. The underdot t., etc., are called "retroflexes," because the
tongue curls up towards the roof of the mouth. This makes for very
distinctive sounds, which Sanskrit and the descendants of the Vedic
language share with Dravidian languages, but not with any other
Indo-European languages. Curiously, t, d, and n in English are not
true dentals. The tongue touches the gums rather than the teeth. In
India, this sounded more like the retroflexes than like the dentals.
English words borrowed into Hindi, like "doctor," are thus pronounced
with the retroflexes -- d.oct.or. At the same time, Hindi has lost
separate n. and s. sounds. N. occurs as a dental n, and s. occurs as
an ordinary palatal sh (often written for Sanskrit as an "s" with an
acute accent on it). The name of Krishna in Sanskrit is Kr.s.n.a, but
this then is just pronounced in Hindi as, of all things, Krishna.

At right is the entire Devanâgarî syllabary. In an alphabet invented
by grammarians, it is not surprising to see it laid out according to
phonetic principles. Thus, the alphabetical order begins with the
vowels, then runs through the diphthongs, the stops, the semi-vowels,
the silibants, and finally h. The vowels, when syllabic, have
independent forms; when not, they are, as we have seen, indicated with
diacritics.

The stops, which means sounds where the vocal tract closes, pose some
pronunciation challenges. K is pronounced as in English skit, and kh
as in English kit. This is the difference between an unaspirated and
an aspirated stop -- one has no breath coming out, the other does.
Similarly, t is pronounced as in English stop, and th as in English
top. The "th" sounds in English "thin" or "that" do not occur in
Sanskrit. P is pronounced as in English spot, and ph as in English
pot. "Ph" is never pronounced f. Sanskrit c is like the ch in English,
but is unaspirated, making it unfamiliar. The voiced stops (g, j, d,
d., & b), where vocal chords vibrate, all also have their
corresponding aspirates. In sounds like gh, jh, etc., however, the
breath coming out is also voiced. Consequently, the voiced "aspirates"
are also called murmur stops, since the sound is more like murmuring
than breathing. These are sounds rarely seen in other world languages.

Several of these phonetic characteristics of Sanskrit can also be
found in the (unrelated) Mandarin Chinese.
_________________________________________________________________

"Knowing" Words in Indo-European Languages

The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe

Philosophy of Science

History of Philosophy

Home Page

Copyright (c) 2000, 2003 Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved