[language] Sorry for the absence

[H.M. Hubey]

<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>



Last time I posted to Indo-Iranian these lines (more or less):

Sumerian sar  ’schreiben’ (MSL, III, 113), ’to write’ (Grd. 403) ~ šar
id.  Turkic. yaz- ’ şaşmak, yanılmak, çözmek, yazmak’ [to write with
other meanings] (DLT, I, 192; II, 20, III, 59);

Let us look at Karachay-Balkar (a Kipchak Turkic, more or less).

sadır    bog
saz I   1. clay ; 2. fig. yellow, pale; earthy (about a person);
sazlı clay; ~ cer clay ground
sazak Turkish (clay, bog, marsh)

Chuvash  s'ır to write[Krueger61:231];

sız   1) to draw;  2) to write, scribble; 4) fig.  to steal; 5) to throw
tall tales, exaggarate
caz I  to write
caz II 1) to roll  2) to forge, flatten; laminate (iron)
caz  III to calm, to console

And Turkish

Turkish yaz to write;
Turkish çiz to draw;
Turkish ser, to lay flat, to spread
Turkish sar, to wrap

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the explanation, as many of you have already guessed is:


>From Chuvash Turkic we can clearly see the outline of the changes in the
word. The word in Chuvash is s'ır*. With the well known Turkic
equavalence of r and z, we obtain s'ız. The Karachay-Balkar for ‘to
draw’ is  the root sız, which in Turkish is çiz. The roots of the word
for writing in Karachay-Balkar and Turkish are caz and yaz respectively.
If all Turkic c/y come from *d, then this is problematic since the
Sumerian should be *dar. However, the words in Sumerian date from
different times, thus the changes that took place could have already
taken place in the Mideast/Caucasus region before this change. Besides
all this presumably the *d would go back to a *t and we should look for
related words that begin with *t which we have (see the list above.) And
of course, the ptk changes could also show *k.

Phonetically, s' seems closer to c, than to y, therefore if the c/y
changes took place in Turkic, then this is evidence for the c>y view.
Comparison of Chuvash to Common Turkic shows many correspondances of s'
and c.

*Bolgaric (Chuvash) has a three was s(h)ibilance, s, s', and sh. (using
ASCII representations which hopefully will be clear). Obviously this
parallels Arabic s, sh, and s. (emphatic).

Ooops, I almost forgot.

The words bog (where clay may come from), clay (used in cuneiform),
drawing (likely what "writing" was called by those who invented it),
caz/yaz (to flatten viscoelastic materials such as clay, dough, and iron
(after heating)), caz/yaz (to write), sar (to wrap), and ser (to spread,
flatten out) obviously are all (except for 'to write') activities
related to writing. And in all likelihood, those who borrowed the word
would simply have the word "to write" but those
who practiced it and indulged in it would have drawn the word out of the
activities connected with writing. It is clear that Turkic preserves
these words in pristine form.
--------------------------------------------------------

And now let us add some more meat to the stew.' Please pardon my
analogical and metaphorical extensions. Being a real scientist and using
precise words as required whenever I do real science, when I see sloppy
work parading around as science with all the pompous pretensions
inherent in such play-work, I feel the urge to experience the freedom
that one expects from being released of the constraints imposed by rules
and methodology of "real science" and thus feel an urge to indulge in
such freedoms.

Let us now get on with real work.

Sumerian silañ, sila11:  to knead (dough or clay); to slay.
#123.   Hittite   šalk “to knead”  [GH-P:96];
[# refers to the numbering scheme in my upcoming book “ProtoTurkic and
Hittite”.

Let us also note that the second consonant is d, z, r, and t (except for
Hittite and Sumerian sila, salk).. How is this possible? Let us recall
th-->{t,l,s/sh,w} and dh-->{d,r,z,y}. One can now easily see the sound
changes;

th>t in one branch (Akkadian, Hittite, etc), and th>dh>r>z in Turkic.
Let us also recall that  Turkic is circa modern era (5,000 years after
Sumerian), Akkadian is close to Sumerian era thus one change, th>t.
Hittite is also close thus th>t. Now in addition to the problem of
k>s(?) we have one more th>t (?) or t>th (?). This is a deep theoretical
problem for historical linguistics and I do not wish to reveal its
importance right now, but I have been thinking about it about as long as
k>s (?). Let us also recall that Chuvash is in the Ural mountains and it
got tucked away and preserved the words in magnificent isolation.
Karachay-Balkar homeland is near Mount Elbruz, which along with Mount
Kazbek are two of the highest mountains in Europe. Karachay-Balkar also
preserves old Bolgaric words and some of the older words from the second
Kipchak layer, unlike Turkish which got swamped by Farsi affectation by
its upper classes who went thru Iran (Seljuks). Turkish also went thru a
soaking bath of Arabic.


To belabor the obvious, why are these words related?

Anyone who knows anything about the ancient Mideast immediately knows.
Clay was dredged from marshes/bogs or was dug up from the earth, mixed
with water, then kneaded, flattened/rolled (as with a rolling pin), then
written on (drawn on, incized) and then dried. Thus it was either baked
in an oven (cooked?), or sun-baked, heated etc. And that is the obvious
reason why all of these words are the way they are.

 This is obviously further proof (actually "evidence" not "proof", but I
don't want linguists who don't know the difference to assume that if I
use "evidence" my case is weaker)  that the words  go back far since the
first writing was cuneiform, that is scratched/dug onto clay tablets.
Furthermore, the second meaning, that of flattening, rolling is very
strange for having the same phonetic form as writing, unless, it had
something to do with working with a dough-like substance (i.e. clay) and
flattening and rolling it in preparation for incising it. .


Cylinders with engravings were used by Sumerians which they would “roll”
over clay and they would serve as kind of “signature” of the person,
hence the “rolling” and ‘wrapping”, along with “spreading” meanings of
the related words in Turkic. Obviously, bog, marsh, clay etc are related
to the material used, and the “rolling/spreading” being the same word as
“writing” shows that these words were NOT borrowed into Turkic but came
from the very people who were engaged in using this new technology.

Let us continue. Now to add some spice to the meat and stew:

§384. Hatrai* ‘write, send written word (about), report, declare, order,
despatch’ (ŠAP?RU ‘send’ [not ŠATA:RU ‘write’] [Puhvel-3-91:269]; Hier.
Hatur ‘letter’, Hatura(i) ‘write’  [Puhvel-3-91:273];
Hatrai denotes using writing as a form of communication, not as the
physical act of inscribing (the latter being expressed by gulš-,
Hazziya- [s.v. Hat(t)], or Hattarai- [s.v. Hattara]). It is denominative
from a prehistoric noun *Hatra (cf. tarmai ‘to nail’ from tarma ‘nail’)
meaning a piece of writing derived from Hat(t) (cf. e.g. Hupra ‘woven
garment’ from *Hwebh).  [Puhvel-3-91:273];

[Notice how everything is always claimed to be IE. No wonder I am always
ranting
against IEanists!]

[Note: I use UC h i.e H for Hittite laryngeal which is represented by
that strange h-looking letter. I can't find my Pullum et al otherwise I
would have given you its name. HMH]

[The sign § is my way of keeping track from which of the two Hittite
dictionaries the word came e.g. Puhvel or Guterbock et al].

[*The suffix -ra is one of the verbal suffixes Turkic uses. The common
one is actually -lV, but both -rV, and -nV are used and show up in
words, e.g. oyna, kayna, ku're, etc. I hope everyone has noticed the
verbal suffixes of Hittite in this paragraph e.g. Hatra, tarmai.]

Karachay-Balkar xat handwriting, calligraphy (Siunchev and Tenishev).

Wow, Turkic xat! Sounds a lot like Hat, doesn't it? We seem to be really
going
somewhere.

For other words on writing, and its relationship to the Ancient Mideast,
see the beginning. Chuvash has basically conserved Sumerian for writing
intact. Flattening clay in preparation for writing has been preserved in
Turkic caz/yaz (to write) also. We should also note the Akkadian ŠATA:RU
‘write’] [Puhvel-3-91:269];

We have been told by Turcologists (at least some of them) that Common
Turkic (CT also called ş~z Turkic) s changed to h in Bolgaric/Chuvash
(also called l~r Turkic). They also claim that this only happened a
thousand years ago or thereabouts. There is a similar s=h equivalence in
Iranian languages, but they don’t care about Turkic. They don't seem to
care much about
anything else either.

Here we see Hittite (Hat-*) Akkadian ŠAT-, and Turkic xat.

What else do we need? We need to know why these words are the way they
are and where they came from.

[Recall what I posted only a week ago: e.g. the words for fire *athur,
*athar, *adhar (as in adhar patagan (Azerbaijan), and even Egyptian atun
(as in Akhen-atun), and that Turkic as nominal suffixes of the type -Vr,
and -Vn,   etc. and that Hittite paHHur is really pa-aHHur. Thus we see
that Hittite H is magnificently matching the *th I proposed. Furthermore
I also showed that Sanskrit asan (meat) seems to be nothing more than
protoTurkic "as" (Chuvash meat) with the typical old Turkic suffix -Vn
(and also -Vr). There are also -Vm but that for later.And finally recall
that these are merely extensions of Turkic ot (fire) and Sumerian ut(u)
(fire, sun). ]

Let us also recall, that there are claims of k=s, and k>h


So is it true that k>s? Probably not.

Assume that k>s. Then circa 3,000 BC we have s in Sumerian. We also have

Š in Akkadian a little later. And yet circa 1,500 BC we have H in
Hittite. So if
k>s and k>H, and if we have H in Hittite circa 1,500 BC. Hhow long did
Hittite
preserve the H?  Say k>s circa 4,000 BC. Then suppose in Hittite k>H
circa
4,000 BC. How did Hittite preserve H for 2500 years no change? If sounds
can
be preserved for 1500 years right in the thick of the main theater of
history how
can it be said that relationships of languages disappear "after a few
thousand
years"? (For this asinine comment see Larry Trask's post on evol-psych.
The poor slob
has not yet learned not to boast that is background is "quantitive" and
then skip
out on my friendly invitation to join "Language", even after I invited
him at least
twice in front of thousands of readers of evol-psych.] [More on this
later.]

[Digression: What probably happened was t>k>H in one branch, and t>th> s
in another branch. We (reader and writer, not the “royal we”) will leave
this for later. Obviously,
science is a cooperative venture and scientists write this way. That is
how I learned
to write this way. I wish some of the “pompous ignoramii” in linguistics
would learn to write like human beings.]

Well, we need a smoking gun. Actually, I need a smoking gun, and will
keep
looking. That is how science is done. Let’s ignore it for now.


Let us also add in:

satır (line of writing, Turkish < Arabic)

But the word for “writing” in Arabic does not seem to be from the
s-root. It is well known that it is KTB. Aha, the triconsonantal root.
But wait, Clauson, the well-known and respected Turcologist arranged his
book so that Turkic words were written as triconsonantal roots because
according tohim, there is a “bewildering” variety of vowels in Turkic
and very hard to sort out. We can look at Semitic later.

But Akkadian which is much earlier than Arabic has ŠATA:RU which
although sounds a lot lilke satır, is certainly not KTB which is the
root in Arabic (and in many other Semitic
languages). I will post on this later. I am always thorough, just like a
real scientist.

Damn! That k>s problem again. No wonder I have been asking about this
for years. I asked on sci.lang, and on other lists. Still no solution.
No hope from linguists.

I think this is too long already.

A few days is needed to digest.

George, are you still there? How do you feel about an amateur doing
this?


--
M. Hubey

hubeyh at mail.montclair.edu
/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey



---<><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights/"Fair Use":  http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education
about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's
important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express
your own works -- only the ability to express other people's.
Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations.

You are currently subscribed to language as: language at listserv.linguistlist.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-language-4283Y at csam-lists.montclair.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/language/attachments/20020507/033f6128/attachment.htm>