# Chicken or Egg first?



## neonrider

I wonder whether Russian or whether Lithuanian language has formed earlier (first)? Also, could Lithuanian (Litovskij jazyk) language have influence to Russian language to a certain degree in the more distant past? This is a question about Indo-European languages that could be somehow related, especially in the deeper past. I would like to hear opinions and facts of unbiased and professional linguists, as much as possible.


----------



## Sobakus

I'm in no way a professional linguist(not yet at least), but what do you mean by "formed earlier"? How can one decide if a language has formed earlier or later then another language? I mean, the subdivision of a language group into different languages in purely subjective and is dictated by politics mainly. Especially when talking about languages from two different subgroups, even though of a single Balto-Slavic group. The generally accepted point of view is that Proto-Slavic split from the common Balto-Slavic group which in turn split from the Proto-Indo-European language. It was one of the many dialects, but somehow it became the dominant one in the region. Obviously it was more innovative then the Baltic subgroup, which(Lithuanian in particular) now retains quite a bit more archaic features. Of course, languages that are so closely related both genetically and geografically are sure to have influenced one another throughout their history. And please remember that such thing as "Russian language" emerged only after the establishment of the state of Rus'. It was(is) a dialect of a language group called Slavic, so it would be more appropriate not to generalize the whole group under the name of one of it's languages.


----------



## neonrider

I've heard that Lithuanian is more archaic than Russian/Slavic. Some specific questions:

STEKLO (Lit. STIKLAS)
STOL (Lit. STALAS)
GRIB (Lit. GRYBAS)
BEZHATI (Lit. BEGTI)

Did these (and some other) words come to Lithuanian language from Russian or vice versa? I'm sure the words such as "begti" (with -ti) we "always" had, but the other 3, I wonder about those.

Can you also comment on how much percentage-wise Russian language shares its grammar with Lithuanian? I've read somewhere it's 3%. Is that true?

I notice some small similarities between the two languages, yet overwhelmingly they both are completely different too. Yet people would say that to some - Lithuanian sounds like Russian. How about Ukrainian? I find some apparently Lithuanian (by my opinion) words in Ukrainian language.


----------



## Sobakus

Fasmer's etymological dictionary says that "stiklas" might have been borrowed from Slavic, which in turn was borrowed from Germanic; "stalas" comes from Balto-Slavic and the root itself is related to R. stojati, E. stand etc.; "grybas" is said to be borrowed from Slavic; "begti" is also from a common Balto-Slavic root.
Unfortunately, I do not know the exact or approximate percentage of grammar similarities, but I also do not understand what is meant by your sentence. How much Russian shares its grammar with Lithuanian? What does "sharing grammar" mean, how do you translate that into numbers and what would it tell you? A thousand years ago they were practically idenctical in terms of major grammatical categories, but nowdays there's no dual number, nearly no vocative case, simplified verbal system, no distinction between the pronominal and simlpe adjectives and so on. In some other Slavic languages these features are preserved. But if you take into account such things as differences in the usage of conjunctives L. "su" and R. "so", and consider those differences as important as having a case system at all, then that number of yours will be very low indeed.

And your noticing similarities or differences is very subjective. I suspect to you English and French might seem very similar because 60% of English vocabulary consists of words of either French or Latin origin. Yet, from a linguist's point of view, they are very different. Moreover, you try to compare Lithuanian to Russian only and not Lithuanian to Slavic in general. You basically can't do that, because every Slavic lanuage is about as similar to Lithuanian as the other one, with the notable exception of Bulgarian/Macedonian. You may find more Lithuanian loanwords in one of them(Ukrainian, for example, might have more of them, I do not know), or you may find the sound of one of them to be more different from Lithuanian(take Polish), but it won't change the overall picture.


----------



## sokol

neonrider said:


> I've heard that Lithuanian is more archaic than Russian/Slavic.


This indeed is the case, and it is a well-known fact: Slavic languages adopted quite some changes not present in Baltic languages, which means that Slavic is further removed from Indo-European than Baltic.
(No need to stick to "Russian" or "Lithuanian" here as we're talking about a period of time - the early Middle Ages and before - when both languages still, for all we know, were part of the Slavic respectively Baltic dialect continuum.)

However, this by no means indicates that either language (or language branch - Baltic and Slavic respectively) were "younger" or "older". But for that see further below.



neonrider said:


> Did these (and some other) words come to Lithuanian language from Russian or vice versa?


Neither.

Both Slavic and Baltic languages are Indo-European language groups, they're sharing a common Indo-European vocabulary (that is, a certain percentage of their lexicon goes back to the same root), but they're neither derived from Russian nor from Lithuanian, rather they're going back to a common ancestor which in some cases is shared by most or all Indo-European languages while in other cases only shared by some.

Slavic "biti" (several versions in individual Slavic languages) for example is a root shared by many Indo-European langauges - it is present the form of "to be" in English (= infinitive), or "bin, bist" in German (= 1st/2nd present tense singular). However, I think it is not present in Romance languages (essere - various stems but none with a "bi-" element, or nothing comes to mind right now): so this is a case where a suppletive form of a word which is definitely "Indo-European" (and shared by many languages) is not shared by all.

Such words exist plenty - and the "core" lexicon of Indo-European words shared by ALL IE languages actually is rather low (I cannot give a figure but probably only one or two thousand, or probably even less than a thousand).
Slavic and Baltic, to my knowledge, share a relatively large number of words; but relations like that (language groups sharing many words) also exist for other IE languages.

Whether two IE languages share many words or not as such is _not necessarily_ an indicator of closer relationship: even though such a relation _might_ indicate that they're closer than others this also might be due to loan relationships.
Only in case there was a loan relationship it is clear that one word was taken from the other language - which actually might be the case for some of the words you've given above (I haven't checked them in this respect ), but that's beside the point as such a loan relationship would not indicate at all that either language were "younger", or "derived" from the other - in fact neither is the case, or not for all we know in our times.

Unfortunately we only have relatively young written documents of Slavic languages (only beginning in the Middle Ages), and from Baltic languages written documents are even younger (first ones only in the late Middle Ages, I think).
As the history of both Baltic and Slavic languages is relatively poorly documented in their earliest stages of development it is almost impossible to be sure about which branch of IE languages became "independent" from "core" Indo-European earlier.

However, I don't really think that this (their separation from IE) was what you originally wanted to ask - right?



neonrider said:


> Can you also comment on how much percentage-wise Russian language shares its grammar with Lithuanian? I've read somewhere it's 3%. Is that true?


Well, they're both Indo-European languages, of supposedly closer related branches (i. e., Slavic and Baltic) (even though some have argued here on this board already that similarity between both also could go back to some kind of "Sprachbund" - that is, language contact rather than genetically closer relationship).
So it is only to be expected that they share some features; but I have no idea what is given as a percentage, or whether 3% would be "realistic".
However, I don't really see the point you're trying to make here - could you be more specific? 

It is a well-established fact that Slavic and Baltic share some similarities, there's no need to try and find proof for that. 


Anyhow, as you suggested in the title you've given, this indeed is a *Chicken-or-Egg-question*, and the answer to that one is just as easy: neither chicken nor egg were first; what WAS first was the Sarcopterygii - the predecessors (genetically) of egg-laying chicken.


----------



## neonrider

Yes, that's what I mean: Baltic and Slavic languages' separation from IE or PIE.

I'm sure there's been a research done on "haplogroups" genetics, I'm not well-read on that topic, but I read that Lithuanians have about 40-60% Nordic gene (Finland, Sweden etc.) and I can see that in our faces - most look North European or Germanic, while some look kind of Slavic with long noses and small eyes. Yet I can recognise most Lithuanians abroad by their face and their mouth and especially by the Lithuanian accent, which, if you know it well, is very different from Russian one. Again, not trying to distance ourselves from anyone; yet to remain original. I'd like to find out what percentage Lithuanians (and other Europeans such as Austrians, Germans, the French, Poles, Russians etc.) have of a IE "gene" and also "East Asian" (Mongoloid) gene. I've noticed that some (quite many) Estonians, Finns, Swedes, Icelanders and Norges  have some Mongoloid appearance either very little or just a "hint" of it, even if some of them have blond hair and a fair skin. I've seen an Estonian, tall, blond, but with slanted eyes; he looked like a "hafu" - one of those Japanese, that have one of their parents from Europe proper (USA, Australia, NZ etc.).

I also often wonder how German language is different from Russian, yet they live so close to each other. They must have lived further apart and moved to the area.

Speaking of Germanic languages, I find some very close matches between English and Lithuanian. How do you explain this?

PERSECUTE (EN)
PERSEKIOTI (LT)

I know that persekioti is not a modern word (per + sek + ti) and it was definitely not borrowed from English. It looks like English has some verbs that end with -te which is similar to Baltic -ti. Then the English dropped the "i" and transformed the "-ti" into "t" or "d" or "g", so the very early "English" would be "bringti" vs. "bring" or "cheindzhti" (from 'keisti') vs. "change". For example: "to paint" could have derived from "painti" and "to donate" from "duoti" (doti, dati). Then the Romance "-re" probably replaced "t" in "-te" with "r" to make it a "-re". Cantare - to sing, early version prolly was "kantati". In fact, "kenteti" (to suffer) is a Lithuanian word and some folks would really suffer from a loud opera aria singing, if you know what I mean. These are only my observations and thoughts.

Regarding similarity of languages, linguists-scientists know better, of course. Yet I like to observe it in my own way. I have the feel that LT vs. RU have about 1% to 5% in common (words and some sentential structure). This is the issue about how far Slavs have come from their Mother tongue IE and also the root and branch of its early development - Lithuanian. I bet the early Slavs (before Tshingis Chan) were very similar to early Balts and to early Germanics.

Now regarding the term Europe and IE. Finns claim that they lived in Europe much before the IE arrived, this they probably are the native and the true Europeans, and the rest, the IE, are Europeans by later establishment and culturally. Yet some Finns have a slight hint of "Asian" appearance/features. Some Lithuanians too. I know some Russians do too, but theirs is probably a more recent mix with the Chingis Khan's invaders and the local natives, such as Mordvin, Bashkir, Tatar, Buryat, etc. I also noticed some of that East Asian gene surprisingly in Switzerland and even in Germany, but not much in Southern Europe. Although some Italians sometimes remind me of some not so typical Japanese.

Regarding the chicken/egg issue: I think chicken came first, but it was born from an egg....  Still, the chicken came first, and it purchased eggs on the market, yet no one knows what the expiration date was on those eggs, so the eggs could have come first after all.


----------



## bibax

> Speaking of Germanic languages, I find some very close matches between English and Lithuanian. How do you explain this?
> 
> PERSECUTE (EN)
> PERSEKIOTI (LT)


First, the English word *to persecute* is from Latin, precisely from the supine stem: persequor, persequi, *persecutus* sum.

Second, the infinitive suffix *-ti* is common for the Baltic and Slavic languages.

In Czech we use the same Latin verb in the form *persekuovati* (infinitive).


----------



## sokol

Neonrider, one needs to be extremely careful when trying to link genes with linguistic branches. Especially so in Europe, where so much mixing (both linguistic and genetic) occurred, and in such a "chaotic" pattern. 

About the parallel you're trying to make with English, again you must be careful here: the English word is a Middle French loan (or so etymonline says; and if not Middle French then of course Latin, or another Romance language), so if anything both Lithuanian and English word could go back to the same Latin root - which however one would have to establish first, as far as Lithuanian is concerned.
(Possibly the Lithuanian word is NOT a Latin loan, in this case the similarity could be either pure coincidence or else one of those rare cases when fairly distinct IE languages share a word going to the same root which has almost the same phonological shape in its modern form.)

So please let's try and keep it as "scientific" here as we possibly can - wild guesses won't lead us anywhere. 
If you want to establish etymological relations it is by no means sufficient to compare modern forms of words - well, one is restricted to this method in case no written documents of older forms exist, but as far as IE languages are concerned there are plenty of documents of older language stages (if, unfortunately, only rather few for Baltic languages).


----------



## neonrider

bibax said:


> First, the English word *to persecute* is from Latin, precisely from the supine stem: persequor, persequi, *persecutus* sum.
> 
> Second, the infinitive suffix *-ti* is common for the Baltic and Slavic languages.
> 
> In Czech we use the same Latin verb in the form *persekuovati* (infinitive).



Interesting. Russians use: *presledovati*, which does not seem to have derived much from Latin. I suspect that Lithuanian *persekioti* is not from Latin. For "persecution" we say "*persekiojimas*" (not _persekucija_ unfortunately), so i believe ours did not derive from Latin.

Here are some other words that I found similar to English (not claiming any similarity with English, although "soul" in Lithuanian is "siela" and in Old german is "sela"):

AR (or)
JUS (you)
BET (but)
TILTAS (bridge), yet English "TILT" means "slope, slant" while old bridges are usually sloped or tilted.
GRINDINYS (pavement) reminds of English GRIND (ground) which looks like ground stones.
GRIEBT (to grip; to grab)
GRIEZT (to grit)
GROTOS (grid)
PERKA, PIRKT (buys; to buy) = perk = to become more interested (to buy?)
BITE (a bee)

*Lithuanian: Ar jus perkate?
English: Are you perking (interested to buy)?*

How old is Czech language? How do you say "persecution" in Czech?


----------



## bibax

> How old is Czech language?


1150 years.



> How do you say "persecution" in Czech?


For many Latin words we have Czech variants of the Slavic origin (sometimes created artificially as calques from Latin).

_to persecute:_ proná*sled*ovati = persekuovati;

_persecution:_ proná*sled*ování = persekuce;

The Slavic root is *sled-* which is related to Lithuanian *šliedas*;


----------



## neonrider

bibax said:


> 1150 years.
> 
> 
> For many Latin words we have Czech variants of the Slavic origin (often created artificially in 19th century).
> 
> _to persecute:_ proná*sled*ovati = persekuovati;
> 
> _persecution:_ proná*sled*ování = persekuce;
> 
> The Slavic stem is *sled-* wich is related to Lithuanian *šliedas*;



Word "šliedas" is clearly a borrowed word. It's not originally Lithuanian. In Lithuanian to follow is "sekti" (-sek-) which also is used for "next" and "following". "Sled" or "slied" in Lithuanian is "pedsakas" which is constructed from "peda" (foot) and sekti" (to follow). Again, we came back to the same -root -sek-.

I must get down to the ancient words only, otherwise we will be discussing the modern borrowings (skoliniai). In fact "skola" is a Lithuanian word for "debt" and I believe the word "school" derived from it. Kids used to borrow books etc. to go to school and the school education is being borrowed to pay back with work later in life. Actually the modern Lithuanian word for "school" is "mokykla".


----------



## neonrider

I think, by my "wild observations" many languages created illusions, smoke & mirrors around themselves, in order to "sound cool" and sound attractive and to be different than others. Slavs probably were trying to "get away" from Balts and French from other Latins, while Poles created their own westernised Slavic language style with words such as "propozycja" and "spedzic wakacje" (to spend vacation time), yet the word "stok" (as in Bialystok) is actually a Lithuanian/Baltic word: stogas (roof). So Bialy + Stok = White Roof.

Lithuanians also created some words, such as "baznycia" from Slavic "boznica", because Lithuanians were the last pagans of Europe, and still are in some sense, so they did not have churches, and they prayed against "aukuras" - a big stone or pile of stones and fire on top of it or simply in the outdoors anywhere. Also "lektuvas" (airplane; Czech "letadlo") was created instead of using "aeroplanas" and many other, such as "saldytuvas" (refrigerator, literally: "the chiller" or "the freezer" although literally "one that makes things cold"). But some of these words were smart newly created words and some just international words adopted for that particular language, perhaps to sound different, perhaps more "cool" than others. Which is good, of course, in most cases. So Russians loved to cite and use French language; this is how Russian got its numerous Germanic and Francophone words, while Finnish linguists created their own original words, and to some degree Japanese did too. I say things how they are, how I see them, in your face. Smoke and mirrors often make languages unrecognisable yet they still, at least for some centuries, remain within the same language family or group. That's how Slavic languages were not able to get away from sounding Baltic, for many centuries.


----------



## neonrider

Also, please allow me to post the following "no comment" observations of mine, which were not posted anywhere in English language yet:

English: Boy
Lietuviu: Bernas, berniukas
Hebrew: Ben

English: I am
Lietuviu: Esu, esmi
Hebrew: Shmi
Arabic: Ismi

English: Shade
Lietuviu: Shesheelis
Hebrew: Tsel
Arabic: Dzill

English: Week
Lietuviu: Savaitee
Hebrew: Shavua

English: Writing (book)
Lietuviu: Knyga'
Hebrew: Ktiva
Arabic: Kitaba

English: Year
Lietuviu: Seniai (long time ago)
Hebrew: Shana
Arabic: Sana

English: Six
Lietuviu: Shaeshi
Hebrew: Shisha

With this I partially "prove" that HUMANS in the past had one language - PHL (Proto Human Language). Then they decided to spread and create each others own cultures. That's how wars started - because of all the differences. Good or bad. This is all about Eurasia, because African languages are way too old and way too far remained back from all others and this seems where we all came from - from a tree in Africa.


----------



## berndf

We had this topic many times here. Collections of superficial similarities is not a method in historical linguistics. The probability of chance coincidences is simply too high (see e.g. this links in post #8 here). As a hint, take two obvious goofs in your list: Hebrew "Ben" does not mean "boy" but "son". Hebrew "Shmi" does not mean "I am" but "my name" ("shem" mean "name" and the suffix "-i" means "my"). The copula "is" is not used (though the verb "to be" exists). If you want to say "I am David" you say "shmi David", literally "name-my David" meaning "my name is David".

There might well be a common ancestor of Indo-European (English and Lithuanian belong to this group) and Semitic (Hebrew and Arabic belong to this group) languages. But such a common ancestor lies in to distant a past. With today's means of comparative linguistics it is not yet possible to identify this common origin.


----------



## Frank06

> Also, please allow me to post the following "no comment" observations of mine, which were not posted anywhere in English language yet


Do you ever wonder why it wasn't posted in English yet (or French, or German)?



neonrider said:


> With this I partially "prove" that HUMANS in the past had one language - PHL (Proto Human Language).


You fully proved that you can type a post and that you are able to make a very random word list based on very random criteria. And "random criteria" is the same as "no criterium" at all.
You didn't prove anything else, certainly nothing in the field of linguistics.

As Bernd and many others pointed out, this kind of collections of "similar words", which at a second glance aren't that similar at all and which can only be compiled if one stretch the semantics up to a point it breaks, see the Hebrew example 'ishmi/I am', can be made for any given languages. So, that's no surprise.
This already has been discussed in EHL ad nauseam.

What really would be a surprise is that we would _not_ find any pair of similarly looking words at all for any given languages. 

We can discuss the age of language(s), but let's accept, for the sake of this debate, that language is 100.000 years old. If there would have been a Proto-Language, which isn't and cannot be proven at all, then that would be 100.000 years old.

Now, if you think that you can find reflexes of a 100.000 year old language through a limited list of randomly collected contemporary words, then I think you need to do something about your understanding of linguistics, history and reality.
Even serious proponents of the highly debated Nostratic theory (10.000 BC) wouldn't come up with a list of _contemporary _words. They'd go for the oldest attestations or reconstructed forms.

And that's one of the many problems with many of the people who come up with the kind of lists you compiled and presented: a complete lack and disregard for dates (of the oldest forms or the first attestations). That would be the same as e.g. rewriting Roman history without bothering about one single date, one single fact.  

Another problem is that this kind of "novel" pseudo-linguistic lists always seems to involve the native languge of the maker of the "new" theory. I wonder why... 



> Then they decided to spread and create each others own cultures.


Like? On May 3, 3056 BC, at 10.34pm after a long discussion and a highly disputed vote, the Celts decided to start and spread their own culture?


----------



## Sobakus

neonrider, sorry, but it hurts my eyes to read what you write. The way you compare some words which look similar and draw some horrible logical chains to explain their nonexistant changes of meaning is absolutely ridiculous. The way you stick Balto-Slavic suffixes to English words and try to derive something from it doesn't make any sense at all. You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, yet you make some guesses about things that have been established long before you. I heartily advise you not to do so, because this looks as if I, having forgot half of my school math course, would try to invent new theoremas based on my knowledge of 2*2=4.
Moreover, you make statements. You shouldn't make statements about things you don't know, instead you should look it up. Both sljed(which means footstep) and šliedas stem from a single I-E root, as does Engilsh sled/sledge. It can't be a borrowed word because it has š where slavic has s. As if it wasn't enough, you try to prove the Nostratic theory in a way which make one stop dead in one's tracks. It's just too unbelivable to even try to explain that there are words in Japanese which sound very similar and have the same meaning to Lithuanian ones, and that 2 thousand years ago they looked nothing similar and probably meant something different. But hey, they do now, so it must mean that Japanese spoke Lithuanian!
As a conclusion, trying to invent a wheel not knowing that it has already been invented and not knowing how to make a stick hasn't helped anyone yet. If you're interested in something, at least read something on the matter instead of betting and making ridiculous statements that make no sense to anyone who has any idea about the subject. There's Wikipedia full of answers to most of your questions, you know.


----------



## neonrider

Frank06 said:


> Do you ever wonder why it wasn't posted in English yet (or French, or German)?
> 
> *No I don't, because I haven't posted in those languages of your neighbours, neither I posted in Chinese, Swahili or Russian or another language except my own. What I meant was, that I posted this issue only in Lithuanian so far and now in English. French or German has nothing to do with it, unless you are biased towards western part of Europe.*
> 
> You fully proved that you can type a post and that you are able to make a very random word list based on very random criteria. And "random criteria" is the same as "no criterium" at all.
> You didn't prove anything else, certainly nothing in the field of linguistics.
> 
> *Do you mean that Hebrew "shisha" is no match to Lithuanian "sheshi". Hmmm, something new here. Yes these could be random, yet is this forum just for professional linguists?*
> 
> As Bernd and many others pointed out, this kind of collections of "similar words", which at a second glance aren't that similar at all and which can only be compiled if one stretch the semantics up to a point it breaks, see the Hebrew example 'ishmi/I am', can be made for any given languages. So, that's no surprise.
> This already has been discussed in EHL ad nauseam.
> 
> *It should not nauseate you nor anyone else. It's a discussion and sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong. Who can confirm, that the current status of the science is the right one? It's a norm, but not necessarily the truth.*
> 
> What really would be a surprise is that we would _not_ find any pair of similarly looking words at all for any given languages.
> 
> *Shisha/sheshi can not be a coincidence. Yet you support that Turkish "dort" could be related to Japanese "yon" somehow? *
> 
> We can discuss the age of language(s), but let's accept, for the sake of this debate, that language is 100.000 years old. If there would have been a Proto-Language, which isn't and cannot be proven at all, then that would be 100.000 years old.
> 
> Now, if you think that you can find reflexes of a 100.000 year old language through a limited list of randomly collected contemporary words, then I think you need to do something about your understanding of linguistics, history and reality.
> Even serious proponents of the highly debated Nostratic theory (10.000 BC) wouldn't come up with a list of _contemporary _words. They'd go for the oldest attestations or reconstructed forms.
> 
> And that's one of the many problems with many of the people who come up with the kind of lists you compiled and presented: a complete lack and disregard for dates (of the oldest forms or the first attestations). That would be the same as e.g. rewriting Roman history without bothering about one single date, one single fact.
> 
> *I took old words, yet not the most ancient ones, such as for instance - VANDUO (Lith.: water), which is in fact similar to Swedish VAND and Russian VODA. Or UGNIS which is very similar to Sanskrit AGNIS and Russian/Slavic OGONJ.*
> 
> Another problem is that this kind of "novel" pseudo-linguistic lists always seems to involve the native languge of the maker of the "new" theory. I wonder why...
> 
> *Hmm, I wonder why Dutch moderators are usually so picky and strict? I hope you don't have set personal preferences for cultures. Lithuanian is one of the oldest European language and I happen to be a Lithuanian (and proud of it not because of the language) and I like to discuss the languages that I know best: Lithuanian, English, Russian, Japanese, Slavic languages and a few more.
> *
> 
> Like? On May 3, 3056 BC, at 10.34pm after a long discussion and a highly disputed vote, the Celts decided to start and spread their own culture?


----------



## neonrider

Sobakus said:


> neonrider, sorry, but it hurts my eyes to read what you write. The way you compare some words which look similar and draw some horrible logical chains to explain their nonexistant changes of meaning is absolutely ridiculous. The way you stick Balto-Slavic suffixes to English words and try to derive something from it doesn't make any sense at all. You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, yet you make some guesses about things that have been established long before you. I heartily advise you not to do so, because this looks as if I, having forgot half of my school math course, would try to invent new theoremas based on my knowledge of 2*2=4.
> Moreover, you make statements. You shouldn't make statements about things you don't know, instead you should look it up. Both sljed(which means footstep) and šliedas stem from a single I-E root, as does Engilsh sled/sledge. It can't be a borrowed word because it has š where slavic has s. As if it wasn't enough, you try to prove the Nostratic theory in a way which make one stop dead in one's tracks. It's just too unbelivable to even try to explain that there are words in Japanese which sound very similar and have the same meaning to Lithuanian ones, and that 2 thousand years ago they looked nothing similar and probably meant something different. But hey, they do now, so it must mean that Japanese spoke Lithuanian!
> As a conclusion, trying to invent a wheel not knowing that it has already been invented and not knowing how to make a stick hasn't helped anyone yet. If you're interested in something, at least read something on the matter instead of betting and making ridiculous statements that make no sense to anyone who has any idea about the subject. There's Wikipedia full of answers to most of your questions, you know.



Sobakus, štormas (Lith: borrowing; orig: audra) also has a "š", yet it definitely is a borrowed word, so is "špaga", "šarlatanas", "švancas", "šlangas", "šarzas" etc. And even "šeši" I believe could be an ancient borrowing from Iranians or Semits.

I post on this forum in order to learn, not only to discuss. No statement is ridiculous. It may hurt your eyes more. Thank you for your kind comments, I do learn from all of the posts.

P.S. UPDATE: Sobakus, please direct me to a source where it would "prove" that "šliedas" is  an original Baltic word? Yes, English sled, sledge sounds like almost a proof, yet I'd like to see the source of the article.


----------



## Frank06

Neonrider said:
			
		

> _No I don't, because I haven't posted in those languages of your neighbours, neither I posted in Chinese, Swahili or Russian or another language except my own. What I meant was, that I posted this issue only in Lithuanian so far and now in English. French or German has nothing to do with it, unless you are biased towards western part of Europe._


Aah, the linguist as the Lonely Rider, the Galileo of Pseudo-Science, the brave Luke Skywalker fighting the Evil Language Empire.



> _Do you mean that Hebrew "shisha" is no match to Lithuanian "sheshi". Hmmm, something new here. Yes these could be random, yet is this forum just for professional linguists?_


Even if it would be, then it can hardly be considered as "proof" of your Proto-Language fantasies.



> _It should not nauseate you nor anyone else. It's a discussion and sometimes it's right sometimes it's wrong. Who can confirm, that the current status of the science is the right one? It's a norm, but not necessarily the truth._


And every scientific theory can be replaced by a better one, not by a silly one.



> Shisha/sheshi can not be a coincidence.


Then convince us. Give, for a change, arguments in stead of merely repeting a claim.


> _Hmm, I wonder why Dutch moderators are usually so picky and strict?_


Antwerp, _Belgium_.


> _I hope you don't have set personal preferences for cultures. Lithuanian is one of the oldest European language and I happen to be a Lithuanian (and proud of it not because of the language) and I like to discuss the languages that I know best: Lithuanian, English, Russian, Japanese, Slavic languages and a few more._


Lithuanian language and culture deserves much much better than yet another fringe theory.


----------



## neonrider

Frank06, thanks for your comments. I do not claim to be a certified linguist nor a language scientist, a very amateur indeed, yet discussing things keeps the world turning and not standing still. Even some provoking thoughts and ideas, that may look like totally bizarre and laughable, will wake up some folks to reassure they are in their right seats. God forbid me from challenging the established religions, they would come and get me 

Also, it's very pity you don't have a "Linguistic Humour Forum".


----------



## sokol

neonrider said:


> Also, it's very pity you don't have a "Linguistic Humour Forum".



Moderator note:

It is correct that we do not have a "Linguistic Humour Forum".
Humorous side-marks are tolerated to a degree (as long as it does not lead off-topic, so as long as they're not misleading other contributors and leading to chatty discussions).

Please read or re-read the EHL Forum Rules post, especially the first one: while EHL forum definitely is _*not*_ a scientific forum - that is, "naive" opinions and questions are of course perfectly acceptable -, we are still trying to keep threads focussed.

And while it is of course not only okay but even _*appreciated*_ to challenge existing linguistic theories it is still _*necessary*_ to quote sources and to try to do one's best to give serious arguments.
Wild guesses won't lead us anywhere, except to even wilder guesses - which is not what EHL is about. 

So I am sorry but EHL is not the place to chat about linguistic humour, or promoting novelty theories, nor is it a folk-etymology forum. 

Thus I must ask you to try and stick to the topic of the thread, and try and give sources for your claims. Please take a look at our online resources which you might find useful. 

Thank you!
Cheers
sokol
Moderator EHL


----------



## XiaoRoel

La teoría del "*nostrático*" no es nada ingenua, en tal caso difícil, de escasos resultados, casi imposible de demostrar en lo específico, pero los _lingüistas_ que se dedican a su estudio (bastantes en _Rusia_) ya han identificado _unas sesenta raíces_ que se pueden adscribir a ese primer lenguaje común.
Desde el famoso acuerdo de la sociedad de lingüistas de París en el s. XIX por la que se desterraba este tema del mundo de la ciencia lingüística, hoy en día ya no parece correcto: con los medios actuales tecnológicos y con la información acumulada por generaciones de lingüistas parece posible una investigación en este sentido. _No es una ridícula ingenuidad_.


----------



## sokol

XiaoRoel said:


> La teoría del "*nostrático*" no es nada ingenua, en tal caso difícil, de escasos resultados, casi imposible de demostrar en lo específico, pero los _lingüistas_ que se dedican a su estudio (bastantes en _Rusia_) ya han identificado _unas sesenta raíces_ que se pueden adscribir a ese primer lenguaje común.
> Desde el famoso acuerdo de la sociedad de lingüistas de París en el s. XIX por la que se desterraba este tema del mundo de la ciencia lingüística, hoy en día ya no parece correcto: con los medios actuales tecnológicos y con la información acumulada por generaciones de lingüistas parece posible una investigación en este sentido. _No es una ridícula ingenuidad_.



De acuerdo  - but we weren't confronted with the Nostratic theory, not in particular.  (Hebrew, after all, isn't included there, as far as I know.)

Also, when talking about such broad relations which indeed are only hypothetical for now (this, hopefully, might change, but for the time being nothing's sure about this) we - especially we amateurs (that is, I include me here, while I think you're a pro in this field ;-) - need to be very careful indeed.


----------



## sokol

Moderator note:

Sigh. (3x)

It seems the original poster intended to create a thread to only discuss humorous side-marks on linguistics, and despite the best tries of several foreros it seems we aren't able to get this thread back on track (on some track, _any_ track).
Therefore I'm closing here.

Neonrider, it is perfectly okay to discuss and criticise and scrutinise science, but as has been explained we need to keep it focussed on _*some*_ topic, and whatever that topic may be - it shouldn't be "chatting about linguistics". 

If anybody would like to have this thread re-opened, please PM a moderator of EHL forum and we will discuss the option.
Cheers
sokol
Moderator EHL


----------

