Sol Invictus wrote:I didn't say you were. When you are challenging a widely accepted theory, saying that facts prove it wrong then you should be the one demonstrating how it's wrong, but instead, while we have done our best to explain the theory to you, you haven't provided any facts or sources to support your claims that it's wrong.
Varaleiva wrote:Sol Invictus wrote:I didn't say you were. When you are challenging a widely accepted theory, saying that facts prove it wrong then you should be the one demonstrating how it's wrong, but instead, while we have done our best to explain the theory to you, you haven't provided any facts or sources to support your claims that it's wrong.
I would ask you not to distort my sayings.
I will say it again:
1. Indo-European theory has never been proven;
2. Indo-European theory unsupported by any facts;
3. those who will try to find the facts, they will not succeed, because they finds only the opinions and statements without any clear evidence of the correctness of such statements.
4. I can not deny some evidence, which no one can give.
I can add that "widely accepted theory" is accepted only for political and religious reasons and that science has nothing to do with it. Therefore, the Indo-European theory is fiction. And it does not matter how much paper has been written about the Indo-Europen theory.
Varaleiva wrote:The fact is: Indo-Europeans is fiction. There was no Indo-Europeans.
Levike wrote:Varaleiva wrote:The fact is: Indo-Europeans is fiction. There was no Indo-Europeans.
After reading some posts I'm a bit confused at this point.
Are you saying that Indo-European as a language didn't exist?
Varaleiva wrote:Yes, Indo-European as a language never existed.
Levike wrote:Varaleiva wrote:Yes, Indo-European as a language never existed.
So what's your explanation for important words like "to be" being very similar in Russian and Latin?
sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt
есмь, еси́, есть, есмы́, е́сте, суть
(esm', esi, est, esmy, este, sut')
Or the first numbers from 1 to 10 between, let's say still Latin and Russian?
Varaleiva wrote:Second example is not a Russian. Russian is: я есть, ты есть, мы есть, вы есть, они есть.
Second, the linguistic similarities do not necessarily arise from the fact that the languages are descended from the same ancestor.
Levike wrote:Varaleiva wrote:Second example is not a Russian. Russian is: я есть, ты есть, мы есть, вы есть, они есть.
What I wrote was the original "to be" Russian verb, the one that fell into disuse sometime around the 19 century. And "есть" (what you wrote) is a left-over.
Levike wrote:Second, the linguistic similarities do not necessarily arise from the fact that the languages are descended from the same ancestor.
A lot of words can easily be replace/taken from other languages, (like English/French words in a lot of languages), but there is a core vocabulary, that is words that are hard to be replaced, like the "to be" verb or the numbers 1, 2, 3, which are still recognisable in a lot of Indo-European languages.
Levike wrote:And that's the thing, the core vocabulary is similar between the IE languages.
Verbs like "to be" or "to see", the numbers, the pronouns, etc.
Varaleiva wrote:What you have provided is a so-called ancient Russian:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D1 ... 1%8B%D0%BA
Levike wrote:Mainly language is based on phonetics and grammar. These things are the constants for speech and changing the slowest.
Levike wrote:Varaleiva wrote:Levike wrote:Mainly language is based on phonetics and grammar. These things are the constants for speech and changing the slowest.
Phonetics and grammar are important, but the core vocab cannot be disregarded, as I pointed out amongst words some change much slower like pronouns and prepositions which are similar amongst IE languages and others can change really easily.
Levike wrote:Also take a look at the noun declension between Latin and Lithuanian:
mater, matris, matri, matrem
motina, motinos, motinai, motiną
Varaleiva wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_East_Slavic
The presence of such phenomena do not automatically prove the existence of Indo-European languages.
Interesting, but closer to the Latin "mater" by form , is the Lithuanian word "woman"
Well, apparently, these things is too complicated for the Indo-European theory...
Varaleiva wrote:Translation inaccuracies cause misunderstandings. It is important to distinguish. By russian terminology "old Russian" (rus. "старорусский") is the language of 15-17 centuries, and "ancient Russian" ("Old East Slavic", rus. "древнерусский") is the language before.
"these things are too compilcated for X" – Indo-European theory as a rule is limited to the average simplified factors...
I would like to ask, why, you provide examples only of extinct languages?
Varaleiva wrote:"these things are too compilcated for X" – Indo-European theory as a rule is limited to the average simplified factors. Without going into details.
Return to “Lithuanian (Lietuvių kalba)”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests