Relationship between languages

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Khalid
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:23 am
Contact:

Relationship between languages

Post by Khalid »

I'm going to write some vocabularies in some different languages and show you something .

English -Arabic -Italian -Spanish -German -French
Cave - Kahf - Caverna - Cueva - Kaverne - Caverne
Noble - Nabile - Nobile - Noble - Nobel - Noble
Castle - Kaser - Castello - Castillo - Kastell
Just Qest - Giusto - Justo - Juste
Sugar Sokar - Zucchero - Azúcar - Zucker - Sucre
Earth - Ard - Erde
Alcohol - Alkohhol - Alcool - Alcohol - Alkohol - Alcool

The question here is which language is the origin of all languages ? in simple words who has taken from whom? shall we consider history in this issue , I mean shall we search which language is the oldest one to conclude the original source of names and vocabularies . For example the word Cup, is Coop in Arabic , Coppa in Italian , Copita in Spanish . What language is the origin of this word ?
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

Khalid wrote:I'm going to write some vocabularies in some different languages and show you something .

English -Arabic -Italian -Spanish -German -French
Cave - Kahf - Caverna - Cueva - Kaverne - Caverne
Noble - Nabile - Nobile - Noble - Nobel - Noble
Castle - Kaser - Castello - Castillo - Kastell
Just Qest - Giusto - Justo - Juste
Sugar Sokar - Zucchero - Azúcar - Zucker - Sucre
Earth - Ard - Erde
Alcohol - Alkohhol - Alcool - Alcohol - Alkohol - Alcool

The question here is which language is the origin of all languages ? in simple words who has taken from whom? shall we consider history in this issue , I mean shall we search which language is the oldest one to conclude the original source of names and vocabularies . For example the word Cup, is Coop in Arabic , Coppa in Italian , Copita in Spanish . What language is the origin of this word ?
It's from an ancient word that means skull. From which we get cap(hat) or italian capo (as in capo de tutti capo)
Before pots were invented water was drawn with skull 'caps'. This is long beofre any of the above languages were recognisable. But your problem is that you believe in Adam and Eve, which means you have already rejected 95% of archaeology. You have already tied your hands to be able ask this question.
Thundril
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:37 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by Thundril »

Your interesting observations about language point to an academic discipline, which sees in the development and differentiation of languages, a model of evolution. What works is passed on, what doesn't work dies out, what is newly-introduced either survives or doesn't.
Amost all European languages (except for a few oddities) , together with most Indian languages, including Sanskrit, have common roots (called Indo-European). Most African languages belong to a common Bantu root. Some, like Swahili (the language of the East coast of Africa) are a mix of Bantu and Arabic. And so on. It's unlikely that anyone will ever get to an idea of the 'original' language, but if they did, it's unlikely to have the qualities of richness, variety and complexity of modern languages like English, French, Arabic, Swahili or Hindi. Cross-breeding of tongues is the source of this richness.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

Thundril wrote:Your interesting observations about language point to an academic discipline, which sees in the development and differentiation of languages, a model of evolution. What works is passed on, what doesn't work dies out, what is newly-introduced either survives or doesn't.
Amost all European languages (except for a few oddities) , together with most Indian languages, including Sanskrit, have common roots (called Indo-European). Most African languages belong to a common Bantu root. Some, like Swahili (the language of the East coast of Africa) are a mix of Bantu and Arabic. And so on. It's unlikely that anyone will ever get to an idea of the 'original' language, but if they did, it's unlikely to have the qualities of richness, variety and complexity of modern languages like English, French, Arabic, Swahili or Hindi. Cross-breeding of tongues is the source of this richness.
There is an interesting book called the Archaeology of Language by Colin Rentfrew. It traces linguistic roots back to primitive ancestor languages. I think it makes the mistake of having to assume an original root language, which is a false. You can just as easily see language not as a root system but as a series of converging branches.

For example.

The roots of European language come from a non existent language we like to call proto Indo-European. It is little more than a convenience to help visualise similarities in modern language. No one ever spoke it.

The brachial system would take a single modern language thus. English. This is the result of a range of convergences and borrowings - Latin, French, Old English, Ancient Greek, a little Norse, a pinch of Celtic, and even some Hindi.

The fact is that all languages including dead ones, old ones and progenitor ones can be viewed in both contradictory ways because all languages have a multiplicity of roots, and most influence and lead to the formation of other more mature languages.

The origins of language have been lost in time. They go back at least 100,000 years, and even more when you consider that Neanderthals and home erectus were also able to speak to some degree.
Written evidence, our only source of linguistic history can only be traced back to around 3000- 4000 years. This does not always give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken.

I'm puzzled why Khalid has asked this question because it is clear enough from his silly books that God dispersed the inhabitants if BABEL, and this accounts for all languages. Maybe he thinks that is not actually the word of god?? Or maybe he is just ignorant of the content of his own books.
User avatar
Khalid
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:23 am
Contact:

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by Khalid »

chaz wyman wrote: But your problem is that you believe in Adam and Eve, which means you have already rejected 95% of archaeology. You have already tied your hands to be able ask this question.
Why? What could make collision between believing in Adam and Eve and archaeological discoveries ?
think it makes the mistake of having to assume an original root language, which is a false. You can just as easily see language not as a root system but as a series of converging branches.
If there are branches , then there is a root .
I'm puzzled why Khalid has asked this question because it is clear enough from his silly books that God dispersed the inhabitants if BABEL, and this accounts for all languages. Maybe he thinks that is not actually the word of god?? Or maybe he is just ignorant of the content of his own books.
Mankind were inhabitants of Babel ? I actually didn't stumble this information before .
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . Firstly, Arabic is possibly the richest language in vocabularies . For example , the word 'Lion' , let's see how many vocabularies for the lion in Arabic , (Asad , Hizabr , Layeth , Sabaa , kaswara , ghadanfar , reabal , dergham , daygham , ward) . You see how many vocabularies for one thing ? I don't think such richness of vocabularies can be found in any other language . Secondly , the richness in words' derivation , for example the word "Good" in English , it's only derivate or branched to 'Goodness' , now let's come to the derivation of such a word in Arabic . Good means Gayed in Arabic (Do you also the similarity between Good and gayed?) , it can be branched into gayed (good) - agada (has done well) , yogedo (to do well) , egadatan (doing well) , gawda (goodness) , Gawad (generous) , Geyad , Al-Godo (generosity) .
Such richness of derivation gives a special richness in the ability to express when you use Arabic . Finally , Arabic has 16000 linguistic root . So I think this language is likely the closest language to be the root or atleast the biggest root of all spoken languages today .
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

Khalid wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: But your problem is that you believe in Adam and Eve, which means you have already rejected 95% of archaeology. You have already tied your hands to be able ask this question.
Why? What could make collision between believing in Adam and Eve and archaeological discoveries ?

Where do I start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


think it makes the mistake of having to assume an original root language, which is a false. You can just as easily see language not as a root system but as a series of converging branches.
If there are branches , then there is a root .
I'm puzzled why Khalid has asked this question because it is clear enough from his silly books that God dispersed the inhabitants if BABEL, and this accounts for all languages. Maybe he thinks that is not actually the word of god?? Or maybe he is just ignorant of the content of his own books.

Rest of moronic shit deleted.

.
PS No western languages have ANY Arabic roots dickwad.
lennartack
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by lennartack »

Khalid wrote:
Mankind were inhabitants of Babel ? I actually didn't stumble this information before .
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . Firstly, Arabic is possibly the richest language in vocabularies . For example , the word 'Lion' , let's see how many vocabularies for the lion in Arabic , (Asad , Hizabr , Layeth , Sabaa , kaswara , ghadanfar , reabal , dergham , daygham , ward) . You see how many vocabularies for one thing ? I don't think such richness of vocabularies can be found in any other language . Secondly , the richness in words' derivation , for example the word "Good" in English , it's only derivate or branched to 'Goodness' , now let's come to the derivation of such a word in Arabic . Good means Gayed in Arabic (Do you also the similarity between Good and gayed?) , it can be branched into gayed (good) - agada (has done well) , yogedo (to do well) , egadatan (doing well) , gawda (goodness) , Gawad (generous) , Geyad , Al-Godo (generosity) .
Such richness of derivation gives a special richness in the ability to express when you use Arabic . Finally , Arabic has 16000 linguistic root . So I think this language is likely the closest language to be the root or atleast the biggest root of all spoken languages today .
I believe the oldest writings found are from Mesopotamia. Arabic must have been developed later in the same region and should be related to this language, I think. European languages though are not considered by linguistics to be related to Arabic, they are from the Indo-European language family.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

lennartack wrote:
Khalid wrote:
Mankind were inhabitants of Babel ? I actually didn't stumble this information before .
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . Firstly, Arabic is possibly the richest language in vocabularies . For example , the word 'Lion' , let's see how many vocabularies for the lion in Arabic , (Asad , Hizabr , Layeth , Sabaa , kaswara , ghadanfar , reabal , dergham , daygham , ward) . You see how many vocabularies for one thing ? I don't think such richness of vocabularies can be found in any other language . Secondly , the richness in words' derivation , for example the word "Good" in English , it's only derivate or branched to 'Goodness' , now let's come to the derivation of such a word in Arabic . Good means Gayed in Arabic (Do you also the similarity between Good and gayed?) , it can be branched into gayed (good) - agada (has done well) , yogedo (to do well) , egadatan (doing well) , gawda (goodness) , Gawad (generous) , Geyad , Al-Godo (generosity) .
Such richness of derivation gives a special richness in the ability to express when you use Arabic . Finally , Arabic has 16000 linguistic root . So I think this language is likely the closest language to be the root or atleast the biggest root of all spoken languages today .
I believe the oldest writings found are from Mesopotamia. Arabic must have been developed later in the same region and should be related to this language, I think. European languages though are not considered by linguistics to be related to Arabic, they are from the Indo-European language family.
True enough.
But whatever proto Indo-European was it was also a collection of many other influences as all languages are, and each one of it progenitors have derived from a long history of linguistic development which the advent of writing can only be the thinest veneer as the family of languages has to have developed over at least 100 thousand years before it.

As with most topics, Khalid makes an arse of himself in his ridiculous claims.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by Arising_uk »

Khalid wrote:...
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . ...
What do you think those squiggles upon your Ancient Egyptian monuments are Khalid?
User avatar
Khalid
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:23 am
Contact:

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by Khalid »

chaz wyman wrote: PS No western languages have ANY Arabic roots dickwad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ar ... in_English

I can also add something to Wiki's list . The word 'Camera' comes from the word 'Komra' , the invention which was made by a famous Tunisian optics scientist 'Ibn Khaldon' and that was later developed by the west into the camera .
User avatar
Khalid
Posts: 293
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:23 am
Contact:

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by Khalid »

Arising_uk wrote:
Khalid wrote:...
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . ...
What do you think those squiggles upon your Ancient Egyptian monuments are Khalid?
I don't understand the question . the word squiggles is not familiar , sorry .
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

Khalid wrote:
chaz wyman wrote: PS No western languages have ANY Arabic roots dickwad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ar ... in_English

I can also add something to Wiki's list . The word 'Camera' comes from the word 'Komra' , the invention which was made by a famous Tunisian optics scientist 'Ibn Khaldon' and that was later developed by the west into the camera .

LOAN WORDS are not the roots of a language. We also have Jodpur, Bangalow and Moccasin - that does not mean that the root of English is 18thC Hindi or Souix.

Maybe you could list the words Arabic has Loaned from English, but that does not mean that Arabic has English roots.

Ibn Kaldun did not invent the camera.
Camera comes from the phrase camera obscura. Camera is Latin for an enclosed space like a room.
The comes down to English and Arabic FROM the Greek kamara "vaulted chamber," from PIE root *kam- "to arch.". It is NOT from Arabic TO English.

You might be thinking of Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham - or whatever his names was. But he did not 'invent the camera' either, though he was a keen scholar of the ancient Greeks' work on optics, from which he wrote is book.

The CAMERA was invented by the Chinese c 500BC and was also mentioned by Aristotle - when your people were still illiterate living the the desert trying to domesticate the camel.



Your idiocy is fast becoming legendary.
Last edited by chaz wyman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
chaz wyman
Posts: 5305
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by chaz wyman »

Khalid wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:
Khalid wrote:...
I started this question as I heard an information saying that the oldest manuscript in the world was found in a mine in Egypt and it was in Arabic language which goes back to 4000 years , and the first idea came to my head is that Arabic might be the oldest language and might be the mother of all languages then but you are saying that written evidence does not necessarily give reliable information on how language was pronounced/ spoken . I don't understand how is that but anyway I still give Arabic the biggest possibility to be the origin of all languages for many reasons not just the ancient manuscript found . ...
What do you think those squiggles upon your Ancient Egyptian monuments are Khalid?
I don't understand the question . the word squiggles is not familiar , sorry .
Those squiggles are Hieroglyphics and Cursive ancient Egyptian - writing in a language that PREDATES any form of Arabic by thousands of years, and is proof that Arabic is not the mother of all languages . You are a bloody fool.
It is embarrassing to read your ideas. Your mind is poisoned by Islam.
User avatar
LuvPimpinYou
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by LuvPimpinYou »

The first language was a series of grunts, hoots, hollars and hand gestures by our ancient ancestors.
Study how chimps communicate, there you will find the roots of language.

From there, just like life, language has evolved to be specific to the region it lives in.
RickLewis
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:07 am
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Relationship between languages

Post by RickLewis »

chaz wyman wrote: The CAMERA was invented by the Chinese c 500BC and was also mentioned by Aristotle - when your people were still illiterate living the the desert trying to domesticate the camel.
Are you sure about that? :shock: A reference would be handy. The Chinese invented many things, but surely a working camera requires chemically sensitized paper. Or do you mean a camera obscura?
Post Reply