Languages

[sesame]

Early form of Sanskrit or Vedic language is from 2000 BC or earlier.
Early Greek language begins at 750 BC.
Ancient Roman or Latin begins from 100 Bc to 100 AD.

The Nava, Nau, Nauka word meaning boat or navigation is from Rigveda. As it sounds similar and means the same in all other relatively younger languages, it must be the origin of the word. Same goes for "mind".

Same reason goes for Two, three... Ten. I am not sure of the word one. Sanskrit is Ek. Zero and decimal system comes from Sanskrit again.

Second as a unit of time comes from the Sanskrit word, Ksana or Ksanda.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by sesame

Early form of Sanskrit or Vedic language is from 2000 BC or earlier.
Early Greek language begins at 750 BC.
Ancient Roman or Latin begins from 100 Bc to 100 AD.

The Nava, Nau, Nauka word meaning boat or navigation is from Rigveda. As it sounds similar and means the same in all other relatively younger languages, it must be the origin of the word. Same goes for "mind".

Same reason goes for Two, three... Ten. I am not sure of the word one. Sanskrit is Ek. Zero and decimal system comes from Sanskrit again.

Second as a unit of time comes from the Sanskrit word, Ksana or Ksanda.

Last time I checked mana does not sound like gamunđiz. and second as a unit of time comes from French.

Being first does not make it the origin, isolation of the Indian subcontinent from Europe prior to 2000BC makes it pretty unlikely that Ancient greek words could have originated from Sanskrit, a common origin is not the same thing as a derivation, does it make sense to you that a set of people would divide onto different continents, develop thier own languages, then one set of people develops a new language based on the other set whom they have no recorded direct contact with at all? Or is it more sensible that a set of people had one language, they divided and they developed languages based on that one language independently?

The original language was proto-indo-european.



oh and also, in your list baba is not an English word.

[Ogryn1313]

I can only speak English and just enough German that if I was magically whisked to Germany I could get by and still look a fool to the Germans.

[sesame]

Originally Posted by SSAnna

second as a unit of time comes from French.

Many experts think otherwise.
French language is much younger compared to Ancient Vedic Sanskrit.

Ancient Vedic Sanskrit dates from 4000BC to 2000BC. Let Somebody challange me on that.
French:
French language came to being from vernacular Latin used in the Roman Empire. The ancient French were actually Celtic Gauls before Caeser invaded them in 52 BC. Old French started around the 1st century BC to the 14th century AD. Middle French 14th to 16th century. Modern French 16th to Now. Old French was imbibed with many Germanic words when the Roman empire was crumbling under attack from the invaders. ( Hey Anna, I think Darth Vader came from Invader!! It has nothing to do with French though.) If a word is used in different languages, implying the same meaning, then, it must come from the most ancient language. Thats how Linguists determine the origin of words. Some arrogant linguists even go to the length of determining the age of a civilization by sheer guesswork! But I am not doing that, I am providing solid proof. Do you want the exact verses of Rigveda? I can get them too.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by sesame

If a word is used in different languages, implying the same meaning, then, it must come from the most ancient language.

Is that a logical fallacy I see there....

You assume that the oldest recorded language is the oldest there is. Do you think people were just silent before 2000BC?

[ila]

Previously I had posted that European languages derived from Sanskrit. I based this comment on what I remembered from English classes during my high school years. I have recently gone back through some of my reference books to do some research on the origin of English.

European languages did not have Sanskrit as a common source. Rather Sanskrit and the European languages have a common source known as "Indo-European". There is some controversy over where the original speakers of "Indo-European" lived. Some have argued that the original speakers were the Kurgan culture of the Russian steppes. Others have suggested the origin is from a farming culture of the Danube valley. The currently accepted theory is that the language comes from a people who lived in a cold, northern climate. The dates of origin vary from 6000 BC to 4500 BC. Words for snow, beech, bee, and wolf had an important role in this language. Also the prehistoric "Indo-European" language didn't have a word for sea. For these reasons scholars have placed the origin of the "Indo-Europeans" in northern Central Europe.

Source
The Story of English
Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil
Viking Penguin Incorporated
First American edition published 1986
Pages 51 - 53

[sesame]

Yeah Ila, all these Indo-European Ethnic groups making epic journeys across Continents... ... is based on the Aryan Invasion theory and the scholarly fascination for Mesopotemia. Perhaps there was an ancient group, but as science is cleaning up the colonial mist, another scenario is coming to view. There was no Aryan Invasion ever. The British colonials spread the lie to rule and subjugate. The German Nazis spread the rumours to tickle it's citizens and motivate them under one banner by awakening German Pride and the dream of a superior race. This was the tendency of european scholars to show the civilization of Mesopotemia as the point of origin of the Indo-Aryans, Persian-Aryans or Indus Valley civilization. Everything begins in Mesopotemia and ends up in far-off places around the world! Fancy wishful reverse calculators! Is that research to ascertain truth or bending truth to one's prejudice?

Recent satellite images show that the early Vedic people were inhabitants of the now extinct Saraswati basin. You will note that the Vedic civilization shifted from the banks of Saraswati to Sindhu to Ganges. This whole process took thousands of years to unfold. No foreign rivers or steppes or animals have ever been mentioned in all the four vedas. The whole migration theory through Ural and Siberian landscape was just guesswork of idle scholars. And the fixing of Vedic age to 1200 BC by the Germans was the stupidest guesswork of the century.
Prof. Max Muller divided the Vedic literature into four periods Chhanda (rhythm), Mantra, Brahmana and Sutra. Since Vedas came before Buddhism ( which starts at 400 BC), the learned scholar just imagines using his tiny brain. And he then ascribes 200 years to each of those 4 imaginery periods and declares the earliest Vedic date as 400+(200x4)=1200BC!! Isn't that funny?
Then a Chinese scholar Dr. Haug comes along and calculates by assigning each period to be 500 years, because Chinese literature changed in that pace. So he fixed the earliest Veda (Rigveda) at 400+(500x4)= 2400 BC. But Tilak ended all this fancy guessing game by providing astronomical data and pinpointing the Vedic age by science. Through thousands of years, constellations in the sky change position as they rise and set. The stars mentioned in the vedic rituals provide ample proof of that. He fixed the first vedic hymns to be created before 4000 BC.