# Etymology : B-H-M - involving Sanskrit, Persian and Arabic.



## yields

Allright,

So I began by noticing that the Sanskrit word Bhumi (भूमि) that stands for the goddess of EARTH (or mother Earth or other things), then the Persian word (Bumi) "بومی" meaning Native, or "landsman" (correct me if I am wrong) which is also related then somehow to Earth, and finally the arabic word for beast, Bahima بهيمة (plural Baha'im بهائم) which is basically related to cattle or beasts that are on the ground, hence earth.

There is also the hebrew Behemoth, which stands for a powerful beast (maybe far fetched but, I guess, walking on land / earth). Could also be linked ?
Let me quote Wiktionary on Behemoth :
From Hebrew בהמות (bəhēmōth), either an intensive plural of בהמה (bəhēmāh) 'beast', from Proto-Semitic (compare Ethiopic _bəhma 'dumb, speechless', Arabic ʼabham (declined as bahma(t), bahīma(t)) 'animal'), or borrowed from Ancient Egyptian p-ehe-mau 'hippopotamus', literally 'water-ox'._

My question is, do you think the Arabic Bahima might be related to the Sanskrit word ? Also feel free to debate or bring you own input to this, especially persian,sanskrit and hebrew speakers. (or other indian languages too maybe ?) Thanks.

The motive behind this link is basically the same like which is made between the English Ignite and the god of fire, Agni.


----------



## Ben Jamin

You can't use the three consonants root principle for the IE languages to prove an etymological connection. The three consonants root works only in Semitic languages. For IE languages you must find a plausible phonological development, following the phonological laws of every particular language.


----------



## Abu Rashid

yields said:


> and finally the arabic word for beast, Bahima بهيمة (plural Baha'im بهائم) which is basically related to cattle or beasts that are on the ground, hence earth.
> 
> There is also the hebrew Behemoth, which stands for a powerful beast (maybe far fetched but



The Hebrew & Arabic are the same (ie. cognates), so if one is far-fetched, then they both are.


----------



## Phosphorus

yields said:


> Allright,
> 
> So I began by noticing that the Sanskrit word Bhumi (भूमि) that stands for the goddess of EARTH (or mother Earth or other things), then the Persian word (Bumi) "بومی" meaning Native, or "landsman" (correct me if I am wrong) which is also related then somehow to Earth, and finally the arabic word for beast, Bahima بهيمة (plural Baha'im بهائم) which is basically related to cattle or beasts that are on the ground, hence earth.
> .
> .
> .
> My question is, do you think the Arabic Bahima might be related to the Sanskrit word ? Also feel free to debate or bring you own input to this, especially persian,sanskrit and hebrew speakers. (or other indian languages too maybe ?) Thanks.
> 
> The motive behind this link is basically the same like which is made between the English Ignite and the god of fire, Agni.



The similarity between them all seems to be only in the outward, that is to say no etymological connections. However the Indo-Iranian words do not even share enough outward resemblance with the Semitic words here, since the "h" in Sanskrit "Bhumi" as far as I am concerned is not pronounced.

By the way English "ignite" is a Latinate word derived from "ignis" ~ "fire", itself being a cognate of Sanskrit "agni" in the same sense. Namely their etymological connection is not ambiguous, but is rather clear.


----------



## yields

I see. Well, one of those little things I notice from time to time, quite interesting for me.



Abu Rashid said:


> The Hebrew & Arabic are the same (ie. cognates), so if one is far-fetched, then they both are.


When I said far fetched I was referring to the exact meaning of Behemoth in hebrew, which I don't know for sure (where its really a land or sea creature).


----------



## Lugubert

yields said:


> So I began by noticing that the Sanskrit word Bhumi (भूमि) that stands for the goddess of EARTH (or mother Earth or other things), then the Persian word (Bumi) "بومی" meaning Native, or "landsman" (correct me if I am wrong) which is also related then somehow to Earth, and finally the arabic word for beast, Bahima بهيمة (plural Baha'im بهائم) which is basically related to cattle or beasts that are on the ground, hence earth.


Your theory immediately fails, because there is no letter/phoneme "h" in Bhumi. Bh is an aspirated "b", so there is no separate "h" in Sanskrit or Persian, which makes a connection to a word containing an "h" rather improbable.

As Ben Jamin remarked, already trying to fit an IE word into a Semitic-like three consonant pattern is doomed to fail, not the least because vowels play a very different part in IE than in Semitic languages.


----------



## kephalian

""h" in Sanskrit "Bhumi" as far as I am concerned is not pronounced"- Sorry the H is pronounced, not aspirated and the words are very similar, Bhima is a half monster in Hindu mythology (Mahabharata), who was a cattle man. _In fact aspirated h sound differentiates Aryan versus Non-Aryan words in India. _Bh-umi in Sanskrit while Bu-mi Tamil (h is absent)
Arabic and Sanskrit are extremely similar, I do not know how you can ignore the similarity based on some funny roots which you have invented, Language is like life, it is spoken and lives in the speech of people, it is not a mathematical theorem.

Look at same words..
Sahala(Arabic) Saralam.(Sanskrit)
Haran (war)    Haar (war)
Kam(What)     Kim(what)
Naam(Name)  Naam(Name)
Ish(Master)    Ish(Lord)
Vav(And)        Va(And)
Maut(Death)   Mrit(Dead)
Mal(Rub)        Mal(Rub)
Maal(Salt)        Maal(Salt)
Fakth(Only)      Fakth(Only)
Sapth(Seven)   Sapth(Seven)
Shad(Witness or faith)  Shrad(faith or testify)
Sa(Interrogative yes?) Sa(Interrogative yes?)
And the list goes on...
Please tell me these two are unrelated, unconnected languages?


----------



## kephalian

Lugubert said:


> Your theory immediately fails, because there is no letter/phoneme "h" in Bhumi. Bh is an aspirated "b", so there is no separate "h" in Sanskrit or Persian, which makes a connection to a word containing an "h" rather improbable.
> 
> As Ben Jamin remarked, already trying to fit an IE word into a Semitic-like three consonant pattern is doomed to fail, not the least because vowels play a very different part in IE than in Semitic languages.


"H" is separate and the words are same and have same meaning. I am a native speaker of Sanskrit and leaning Arabic.


----------



## ahvalj

_H_ in _bhūmī_- is not a phoneme, i. e. not a separate sound that can be detached from _b_, unlike in the Arabic words. In fact, we are dealing here with a latinization based on Greek examples, where the Greek monophonemic _φ_, _θ_ and _χ_ are transliterated since the Ancient Roman times as _ph_, _th_ and _ch:_ the first Sanskrit researchers in Britain in the end of the 18th century just decided to follow this practice. Modern editions often prefer the variants _bʰ, dʰ, tʰ_ etc.

The Sanskrit _*bʰ*ūmī_- is derived from the _set _root _*bʰ*av_-, originating from the PIE _**bʰ*eu̯hₓ-,_ which has cognates in virtually any Indo-European branch, e. g. English *b*e, Old English *b*ūan, Latin *f*utūrus, Greek *φ*ῡ́ναι/*ph*ȳnai etc. and nowhere is there any trace of a sound between components of _bʰ_.


----------



## entangledbank

Speaking of invented, none* of those 'Arabic' words are ones I recognize in those meanings. You need to use real Arabic. Then it's not so similar.

* Oh wait, _mawt_ "death", I'll give you that one. It would be vaguely similar to the Indo-European if the [r] wasn't there.


----------



## berndf

kephalian said:


> Please tell me these two are unrelated, unconnected languages?


You can easily find several dozen or hundred "similarities" between any two languages. Without an explanation of how they evolved into the forms they says in itself very little.

Especially, if you use such coarse, sometimes even outright wrong transcription as you did. E.g. the Arabic word for salt is_ milḥ_ or in some dialects _malḥ _and not_ maal _and the word for _seven _is _sab3a_ or, in constructed state, _sab3at-_ and not _septh_.



kephalian said:


> "H" is separate and the words are same and have same meaning.


I suppose you can argue for ages, if _bh_ is a consonant cluster or a single consonant, like people debate about English _wh _(in dialects where _which_ and_ witch_ are audibly distinguishable words). In the end it doesn't matter. The two belong together and it is a very different think from B-H-M where the the three root consonants are independent and can stand in different syllables.


kephalian said:


> I do not know how you can ignore the similarity based on some funny roots which you have invented, Language is like life


Well, this is how Semitic languages *do *live. semantics evolves around the, usually three-letter, consonant roots. If you are learning Arabic you should know that.


----------



## bearded

kephalian said:


> I am a native speaker of Sanskrit


I thought that Sanskrit was an extinct language...?


----------



## fdb

kephalian said:


> Look at same words..
> Sahala(Arabic) Saralam.(Sanskrit)
> Haran (war)    Haar (war)
> Kam(What)     Kim(what)
> Naam(Name)  Naam(Name)
> Ish(Master)    Ish(Lord)
> Vav(And)        Va(And)
> Maut(Death)   Mrit(Dead)
> Mal(Rub)        Mal(Rub)
> Maal(Salt)        Maal(Salt)
> Fakth(Only)      Fakth(Only)
> Sapth(Seven)   Sapth(Seven)
> Shad(Witness or faith)  Shrad(faith or testify)
> Sa(Interrogative yes?) Sa(Interrogative yes?)
> And the list goes on...
> Please tell me these two are unrelated, unconnected languages?




Apart from nām (Persian, not Arabic!), which is indeed an Indo-European cognate of Sanskrit nāman, every one of your “examples” is wrong.


----------



## Abu Rashid

kephalian said:


> Sahala(Arabic) Saralam.(Sanskrit)


They're not the same. Unless you can find a regular correlation between Arabic h and Sanskrit r, and show that the final m is not part of the Sanskrit root, then these two have no possibility of relation at all.



kephalian said:


> Haran (war)    Haar (war)


Perhaps you mean Arabic harb?



kephalian said:


> Kam(What)     Kim(what)


Kam means "how much?" in Arabic, not "what?"



kephalian said:


> Naam(Name)  Naam(Name)


Name in Arabic is "ism".



kephalian said:


> Ish(Master)    Ish(Lord)


Lord in Arabic is "rabb". All I can imagine is you've mixed this up with Hebrew "ish" (meaning man), but the cognate of that in Arabic is "ins".



kephalian said:


> Vav(And)        Va(And)


The v sound doesn't exist in Arabic, "and" in Arabic is wa.



kephalian said:


> Maut(Death)   Mrit(Dead)


Any evidence of a regular shift Sanskrit r = Arabic w? Given you've above suggested Sanskrit r = Arabic h, one of them at least is wrong.



kephalian said:


> Mal(Rub)        Mal(Rub)


Not sure what rub is in Arabic, so can't comment on this one.



kephalian said:


> Maal(Salt)        Maal(Salt)


Arabic for salt is "meleh".



kephalian said:


> Fakth(Only)      Fakth(Only)


FaqaT, it might look a little similar to you, but I assure you it sounds very different.



kephalian said:


> Sapth(Seven)   Sapth(Seven)


Saba3, not even close.



kephalian said:


> Shad(Witness or faith)
> Shrad(faith or testify)


Shahid (witness), Imaan (faith). This could backup the sahala = sarala(m) claim above though.



kephalian said:


> Sa(Interrogative yes?) Sa(Interrogative yes?)


Na3m.



kephalian said:


> And the list goes on...


Does it? If they're even less authentic than these ones, then the list really doesn't go on.



kephalian said:


> Please tell me these two are unrelated, unconnected languages?


They are very unrelated and unconnected languages.


----------



## marrish

Abu Rashid, you haven't said anything new but I congratulate you for having so much patience and courage to address these things. For many people they seem real so I hope your efforts are not lost but can be accessed in the virtual world (virtual for you for virtus and for the rest let them speak and think for themselves).


----------



## origumi

In regard to the Hebrew word bahamoth / behemoth, I like the following explanation in Strong's concordance H930:


> perhaps an extinct dinosaur;  a Diplodocus or Brachiosaurus, exact meaning unknown


I guess that's what linguists call humor?


----------

