The roots of the proto-language. RA vocabulary

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-01-16 18:34

Fragment of an interview with Fyodor Izbushkin, one of the authors of a linguistic study on RA-lexics. This study has already been reported on the pages of the Kramola portal in the article "What is RA?", Here are some answers to readers' questions on this issue.

If we talk about scientists, living representatives of linguistics, then nothing. Experts do not recognize discoveries made not by them, but by amateurs. If we talk about pure science, then something has been done here. The root of the everyday speech of an ancient ancestor - the so-called root of Ra - was revealed.

The definition of "so-called" is not accidental. On the one hand, there is no Ra root in Russian. Linguists do not recognize his right to exist. On the other hand, in practice, this root is very common, moreover, not only in Russian, but also in other languages of the planet.

At the same time, Ra is a common place of the sought-for basis in the words that we called for simplicity ra-lexics, constituting the so-called solar semantic clusterwords similar in meaning: deity, power, elevation, burn, mountain, heat, burn, dawn, star, sun, colors of the sun: gold, red, orange, white, yellow.., boiling water, ray, sky, fire, joy, early, dawn, zeal, shine, passion, morning, hurray, color, bright … Only about 50 units.

For linguists, the concept ra-lexics - from nonexistent. Moreover, its wide distribution and omnivorousness is evident. As part of our research ra-lexics, as the name, has shown its effectiveness: convenient, capacious, intuitive. We made sure that the circle of the mentioned solar cluster can include any ra-lexics of the languages of the world of any available historical period. The labels for it are only two main criteria: the dominant in the considered word of the sound "R" and the belonging of the word itself to the solar cluster. Having this simple key at hand makes it easier to search and organize the options you are looking for.

Really sound "R" in international ra-lexic is usually framed by vowel sounds - before "R" or after "R". This is from six to ten units of variant vowels, depending on the phonetic features of the language. For example, for a Russian it can be: Rainbow, Jealousy, Roar, Wheeze, Discord, Swearing, Lever, Zeal, Ryuma, Cartilage. In this regard, A. Zaliznyak's sarcastic hairpin that the graphic name of the sun god Ra is a conditional European phonetic transmission and could actually be pronounced by the Egyptians as Re, Ru, Ro, Px … fully fits into the concept under consideration. Separately, it should be noted that there are well-established samples ra-lexics and without frames (vocalizations). For example, for Russian: RMs, Rput, Rnav (metathesis from temper), Rthread (get annoyed), Rgrind, Rvat, Rquieter, Rtut and some. others, but their number is relatively small.

This is probably what prevented linguists from seeing ra-lexics, as a phenomenon, scattered in abundance in "cities and towns." Indeed, without skill, it is not easy to immediately find and isolate in languages ra-containing word, which itself is hidden by frames in the form of "side letters or sounds." And since there was no appropriate identification method in linguistics, there was, therefore, no skill. And so, if these "additional sounds" or morphemes are not etymologized by national linguistic schools, or are interpreted incorrectly by them, then so far nothing remains but to recognize them as such, say, extra-etymological support or transitional sounds in the composition of the root. For example, knowing that in the Nenets language the word Nara carries the meaning of "spring", we, thanks to the now available simple method, find our relative Yar (spring). However, we cannot substantiate the initial "additional" Н- in the Nenets language or, conversely, the absence of this Н- in Russian. Nobody can do it yet. Since we are considering in general everyday life vocabulary rooted in antiquity, the question of the appearance of incremental "extra" sounds in this case should be addressed to the ancestors of the Nenets ethnos. And this is fair to do in relation to a native speaker of any language around the world: in English fry (to fry) and ra ge (rage), in Greek oris (early) and χ αρά (joy), in Spanish ra o (morning) and hirviendo (boiling water), in Catalan d ' hora (morning) and forn (oven), in Albanian drita (light) and zjarr (fire), in Galician verán (summer) and cor (color), in French bord (edge) and brasser (brew), in Pashto ri tya (bright) and kor (main), etc. It does not matter which nation and in what historical period - for any language of the world there will definitely be a corresponding ra-lexics with their own national "additional sounds", in the aggregate constituting (in the modern sense) the root of the word. In the study of this widespread world phenomenon, we have given a conventional name - "national phonetic characteristics." Over time, linguists will find a more accurate name for it (prosthesis, metaplasm, or something else).

After the publication of the article, we received several reviews from professionals, and almost all of them are negative in the spirit of "this cannot be" and "an amateur is not capable of doing this kind of research." But there are also exceptions, which are too early to talk about.

What prevents to say now?

The issue has not yet been finally resolved. We have recently discovered that among linguists there are also decent and canon-independent people. We value equal communication with them. After all, this gives us a rare opportunity to calmly state our arguments, consistently show problematic aspects that, for some reason, could have been missed by the reader in the head article, or were not clearly spelled out. The so-called point communication takes place, allowing you to take your time to sort out specific issues on ra-lexics. If we recall how other professionals, whose names we have published more than once, “communicated” with us, it is difficult not to notice the difference between the normal human approach, which clarifies the positions of each other, and the not quite normal, which reveals deliberate one-sided aggression.

To be judged on a suitable / unsuitable basis, you need to understand what you are evaluating. To deny a phenomenon simply because you don't like it is unscientific. However, the reluctance of the overwhelming mass of linguists to delve into the problem of the existence of the "solar prakorn" is understandable to us. Which professional would dream of participating in a demonstration of their own deliberate loss? When we ask specialists to point out mistakes to us, we get an excuse in the form "they are everywhere, they are in everything."

Yes, according to the type - "you are a complete fool, therefore there is nothing to talk to you!" Conveniently.

Of course have. In addition to purely statistical analysis and the method of continuous sampling of the semantic range simultaneously for hundreds of languages, you can refer, for example, to Academician A. Zaliznyak. We were able to show that the method of isolating the statistically stable phoneme "R" corresponds to a similar approach of the respected academician. With the only difference that A. Zaliznyak voiced only three possible variants of words (feast, fat, gift), isolating in their composition the “intra-alien” suffix “r”, while hinting in passing that there are plenty of similar words in the Russian language, and we, in turn, just presented the most complete lexical spectrum of the problem, giving this phenomenon its own name: ra-lexics and prakoren.

In polemics, linguists behave selfishly, like children, not at all wanting to leave the zone of their usual comfort. When they are faced with generally harmless questions “from the audience”, they answer with enthusiasm and knowledge of the matter. As if schoolboy Vasya Beilis from the bottom of his heart declared to the class a passage from Borodin, memorized a week in advance … Remember our questions to Svetlana Burlak in Anthropogenesis, where the honorary professor brilliantly answered the most innocuous of them, bypassing the really problematic ones. And when we pointed this out to her, the doctor of sciences simply “disconnected from the air”. The linguist does not want to bother with complex and dangerous problems. It is much safer to deviate. However, which of us is without sin?

The answer is in the question itself. The difference is huge. After all, the argumentation of both disputing parties was based then only on two "facts": on the Egyptian god and the ancient name of our Volga river, i.e. on Rha. However, even then, in 2008, it was clear that overcoming scientists with such a meager ra- Mikhail Zadornov would not have been able to do it with luggage. All he could show was his intuition, multiplied by a list of Russian examples such as Rainbow, Nora, Joy, Pora, Ur, Reason, Early. But this is ridiculous nothing for the venerable specialists I. Danilevsky and V. Zhivov. Zadornov was laughed at and scientifically spat upon. However, today M. Zadornov would have easily won. Having in hand no longer a dead couple of dubious arguments, but a serious arsenal of linguistic evidence, it would not be difficult for a satirist to do this. If you compare these two points in time, it is like comparing the efficiency between a pneumatic pestle and a Kalashnikov assault rifle.

This is obvious if we take into account even one single multilingual statistics. ra-containing words denoting the Sun itself, not to mention the semantic cluster. No matter how specialists try to write off such a regular recurrence as random coincidences, the dominance of “ Ra For many languages of the world, geographically and chronologically separated from each other, suggests the opposite. A person who has tried to thoughtlessly refute this fact will look ridiculous, in the worst case, he will be considered not quite in harmony with his health.

These are two different questions, albeit close ones. Speaking for ra-lexic, then in its root basis in different languages it is found in either of two directions. For example, in Russian it can be Yar-Ra / w, Or-Ro / y, Ru / x-B / ur, etc.

If we are talking about shape-shifting words in general, words that never existed for Svetlana Burlak, then there is no shortage of relevant examples here either. However, it seems that this question has not really been put on a scientific basis by linguistics. In any case, none of the linguists ever speaks seriously about this, limiting themselves either to individual piecemeal examples (Cossack, flew, income, flood), or joking with a shape-shifter from the well-known phrase: "smiles-you-grandfather-M about car." But since we are not just talking about puns, but about historically established vocabulary, it is worth mentioning, for example, such variants of root upside-downs, which not only became entrenched in oral speech, but were also recorded in various written sources and national lexicons:

abrfrom - lat. orbis, barquea - box(Greek βαρκα), г Nilea - d lina, dlan / d olon - lodon /harmonyon, ze lma - ze mlI am, zlI am - lzi, s vernet - z roaret, zupyeah - grooveear, same owak - same lvak, nraw - phav, bundleha - chepHa, pchate - chapa, ra vze - ra stare, ralb - larb, rtduck - trduck, that relka - ukr. that lír, blr. that lerka, tòrvog - creatureog, tuffyak - fityak, frkty - rufyou…

Foreign options:

English sLOW (slow) - SLEEP (LOW-SLEEP), Greek. BLAKas - STUPID (BLAK-STUPID), lat. ROGus (bonfire) - BURN, Italian. VOSsa - LIPS (VOS-GUB), it. SCHULD (responsibility) - DEBT (SHULD-DEBT), eng. GUILT (wine) - DEBT (GUILT-DEBT), it. ROUTe (route) - TOOR (ROUT-TOP), eng. ROAD (road) - TOP (ROAD-TOP), lat. LUGeo (to mourn, sadness) - Pity (LUG-STING), lat. OMINOSus (threatening) - BANNER (MINS-ZNAM), Andean groin (lepo, good) - Türkic-Arabic hop, hup (okay, good), (Russian paki (more), Alb. Paki - good, good), Hungarian oud - yes, English. to teach - teach, uzb. aralashtirish (mix, stir) - Abkhaz. áilarsh (liquid mixture), russ. genus - tour. tür (something strong, eternal, lit. - stop, stand), Jap. rīdo (to drive) and dōro (road) - Russian. road, Old English brid (bird) - New English. bird, Czech. mžourati - screw up your eyes, Russian. cor (root) - horn (English CORNEAL, anat. related to the cornea, corneal) and many others. dr.

The total number of shape-shifters who have become everyday codified vocabulary in various languages is in the tens of thousands. In Russian alone (for example, according to the popular Vasmer dictionary), you can find several hundred desired variants.

The single language was once divided into dialects. Therefore, any modern language is in the past a dialect. The search for and fixation of prakorn as a global feature allows us to conclude that initially this language was one, and, therefore, it had a certain geographic focus. We do not know whether the first speakers of this language were alien beings, or were created directly on Earth as a result of the evolution of species or a one-time qualitative transformation of the pressure of Nature, as taught, for example, by S. Aurobindo. And one must keep looking for prakornis. But not behind the scenes, like Illich-Svitych with his international colleagues, but with wide publicity in scientific circles and with obligatory discussion in society. As for the huge number of languages, this is the result of "spiritual darkness." Therefore, they were no longer friends and loved, but quarreled and killed. Disunity gives rise to its own traits and norms, different from the neighbor, including languages.

Only when linguists do not want to answer on the merits of our arguments. But at the same time, we are not ignorant, as we are exposed. This is nonsense - it is enough to read our research, say, the last three to five years. We get along well with all the most important teachings and methods in linguistics, and, if necessary, always use this undoubted baggage. It is another matter that we, without asking anyone, sometimes find gaps in the historical aspects of this science; linguists prefer not to argue with us about them. It is here that we get to the full: “an amateur is not able to determine the adequacy of his methods, because he does not know how to conduct scientific research,” “an amateur does not want to study, believing that he will manage with general erudition,” “for reasoning about language and linguistics, an amateur does not you need to learn, you do not need to acquire special knowledge "," the amateur professes the principle "with a mustache", interprets the opposite, in order to please his desire to be right: it is not he who does not know something, but scientists have missed, or even deliberately do not say “… Therefore, when we are faced in a discussion with such a flurry of unreasonable labels, we reduce the degree of our requirements for answers to specific questions posed, softening or replacing them with more neutral or abstract ones. And only when the linguist "relaxes" again and begins to conduct an equal conversation on "harmless topics", we again carefully bring him to the main question. This can be repeated many times, because almost every new turn of the conversation on the required subject causes irritation in our scientist opponent, expressed in accusations of ignorance of the subject and standard labeling. For example ra-lexics such behavior of linguists is especially indicative. And the point is not in our mistakes, which we could not prevent in the study (they are not systemic and cannot in any way affect the final conclusion), but in scientific cowardice and an elementary inability to play.

If you approach the issue creatively and with interest, then within 100-150 years. According to the calculations of the mathematician A. Fomenko, developing a new chronology to the detriment of the old, if most of Western Europe, even in the 14-15 centuries.was relatively poorly populated, did not have the most important national-state characteristics, known to us at least in the 19th century, and was mainly engaged in agriculture and cattle breeding, then it was quite simple to influence the language of such an unorganized population.

In the article, we gave examples of especially ra-lexics. Some of them turned out to be "unwittingly" registered as ra-lexics by A. Preobrazhensky, M. Vasmer, Pavel Chernykh and some even later etymologists. When linguists accuse us of ignorance, they themselves do not know that some part of their zealously denied ra-lexics is spelled out in these explanatory and etymological dictionaries. There was no time to look, find and compare. Of the most obvious examples for the Russian language, examples that need not be commented on are:

brew, v epx (in eptire), g opnet (g opbarniness), g opa, f ar (f ara), h ari (az art), to rath, k rasleepy (to ragray), m op (m epwhip, m eptsat), n opa (n yryat, opth), ranzhevy (rang, ranzhir), radost (radi), rany (rabut), raWith/raz (prefix), ryov (Rvat, Rvenie), rost (st rast, rasthene), ut ro, at ra, yara (yarb, yarcue, yarsilt).

They all carry their own characteristics of the so-called solar vocabulary.

We know that linguistics positions itself as a science, that is, as a bearer of an objective view of the phenomena it studies; however, the original source of its dynamics and worldview is in ideology, within which, as they say, “you can create anything scientifically”. Therefore, when some competent “false linguist” (and who else, if not him?) In an amicable way tries to shake the linguist out of his worldview zhupan, instead of a healthy dialogue, he begins “for some reason” to show signs of insanity. Yes, linguists themselves may not understand that they are in the grip of tendencies and dependencies both on the current ideology and on the ideologemes that have been instilled in science by politicians of the past centuries. And this, by the way, is a very fragmented and motley view of the history of language, which gradually developed into a doctrine called linguistics. It could not but appear as a science. At the same time, linguistics is the queen of history. She sits high on the throne, and from there she points with her finger. We cannot ignore this when we conduct discussions on historical topics. And so, today, after as if 200 years have passed, we have a kind of hodgepodge, in the broth of which someone is constantly adding more and more new ingredients, but which still cannot be cooked to become food suitable for a healthy society. In many ways, the well-known Russian disorder, lack of culture, the impossibility of loving a neighbor are the result of the disorder in these two socially important disciplines: linguistics and, in fact, history. Our people intuitively have always experienced this decomposing flaw, at a subconscious level making us not “loving neighbors”, but cannibals, not the sons of a fatherland that is brilliant in its potential, but temporary workers on our own land. Although scientific linguistics serves society, the state and itself, but these are three different ministries.