Why is Sanskrit so similar to Russian

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

According to the story of the now deceased Natalya Romanovna Guseva, in 1964 the famous, according to her, Indian Sanskritologist Durga Prasad Shastri (दुर्गा प्रसाद शास्त्री) arrived in the USSR. After staying in Moscow for a month, the scientist decided that the Russians speak some form of Sanskrit. To this conclusion he was prompted by the many phonetic correspondences of Russian and Sanskrit words, while their meaning coincides.

- Why, for example, some words such as "you", "you", "us", "te", "that", - Shastri wondered, - are simply the same in both languages, and other pronouns are extremely close, and in Russian " your "," that "," this "in sanskritcorrespond to "sva" ("pile"), "tad" ("tat"), "etad" ("etat")? The eternal concepts of life and death also turned out to be similar words: "alive", "alive" - "jivan", "jiva", and "dead" - "mryttya". It also turned out that the Russian prefixes "pro", "re-", "from-", "c (co) -," nis (bottom) - "correspond in sanskrit"Pra-", "para-" (pr), "ut-" "sa (sam) -", "nis (nish) -". And from this follows and the undoubted similarities of many forms. For example, the words "floats" matches in sanskrit प्रप्लवते “praplavate”, and “swims” - परिप्लवते “pariplavate”.

The Sanskritologist observed similar correspondences in the transfer - parade, fart-pardat, drink - prapiti, fall away - utpad (t), open - utkrita, sail off - utchal, coincidence - sampadana, brothers - sabhratri, give - ut (d) yes, fall - nishpad. He even found that the word "family" is comparable to the Sanskrit verb "samya", which in sanskrit means "stick together." After asking other Indians, Natalya Guseva learned that they are also surprised at the similarity of the Russian verbs “to be”, “to wake up”, “to stand”, “to dry”, “to cook”, “to bake”, “to fall”, “to roar” and without difficulty recognize in them the Sanskrit roots "bhu", "budh", "stha", "shush", "var", "pach", "pad", "rav". They are very happy when they hear the word "drying" in Soviet bakeries, since they know its correspondence "shushka", and rusk is translated as sukhan (सूखन).

The words "mane", "spring", "virgin", "meat", "darkness", "mouse", "day" have correspondences in the form ग्रीवा [mane] - 'back of the neck', vsTt [vasanta] - 'spring ', देवी [devi] -' virgin, princess', मांस [mamsa] - 'meat', तम [tama], मूषक [musaka], दिन [dina] …

Since that time, orientalist, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Natalya Guseva, who accompanied Shastri on his trip around the country and helped him as a translator (though not from Sanskrit at that time, but from English), and her Indian friend Amina Akhuja, a professor of Russian literature Delhi University named after Jawaharlap Nehru - they started searching for the "secret sources of visible rivers", that is, the promotion of the Arctic hypothesis of the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans.

This hypothesis was first formulated in 1903 by the famous Indian politician Bal Gangadhar Tilak in the book "The Arctic Homeland in the Vedas." Guseva and her associates decided to find confirmation of this hypothesis in their search for Sanskrit place names in the Russian north. For these searches, supporters of the hypothesis, such as, for example, Doctor of Philosophy Valery Nikitich Demin, Candidate of Historical Sciences Svetlana Vasilievna Zharnikova were declared racists and criticized by the scientific community. Even an outstanding Russian linguist, Slavist, philologist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Oleg Nikolayevich Trubachev, who had nothing to do with the "Hyperboreans", but simply talked about close kinship and the closest contacts between Slavs and Indo-Aryans in the Northern Black Sea region, fell under the distribution. This was enough for the academician to be ranked among the nationalists. The critics argued that nowhere, except in Russia and India, such theories do not even come to mind to anyone.

Nowadays, few people remember that from the end of the 18th century, British scientists, who had not yet become notorious, decided that Sanskrit was the ancestor of all developed languages. This idea first came to an English official in India, William Jones, who published The Sanscrit language in 1788. In it, he launched the idea of the Indo-European language family into the world. After Jones died of cirrhosis of the liver, his work was continued by the German writer Friedrich von Schlegel, who, comparing Sanskrit, Persian, Greek and German, came to the conclusion about their common origin. The first to understand that the Indo-European first language would not be Sanskrit at all was August Schleicher. It was he who began to reconstruct the first language. Starting with Schleicher, Sanskrit was placed in the Indo-Aryan group, but it was still considered one of the most ancient languages. Russian was derived from the Old Slavic, which, according to the majority of foreign linguists, arose in the middle of the 1st millennium AD.

According to Schleicher, the linguistic tree looked like this: the trunk of this tree represented a certain Indo-European language, which was first divided into Ario-Greco-Celtic and Slavic-Balto-Germanic macrobranches. The first was divided first into the Aryan and Greco-Itklo-Celtic direction, and then into the Greek branch and the Italo-Celtic, from which the Celtic and Italic ones emerged. Among the latter was Latin.

The second macrobranch was first divided into the Germanic and Balto-Slavic directions, and only in the last place, according to Schleicher, the Slavic languages emerged from it.

Why are the keepers of the purity of science so afraid? The fact is that the "Hyperboreans" have come close to solving the Russian-Sanskrit mystery. The only threshold that they could not cross was to publish the conclusion that Sanskrit originated from Russian. For such a conclusion, in Soviet times, they would have been expelled from the party, and in recent years, the triumph of democracy could even have been thrown behind bars. Only unofficially, in a narrow circle, did scholars dare to say that Sanskrit is the development of one of the prevailing Proto-Slavic dialects.

What is the real situation? In fact, Sanskrit has become one of the last dialects to break away from our language. Why not the other way around? Why didn't Russian come from Sanskrit? The thing is that Sanskrit words come from later versions of our words, while Germanic, Armenian, Celtic and even Baltic words come from their earlier forms.

Take the word "snow" for example. On the sanskrit it is called ғima (हिम), that is, almost like the Russian winter. It is known, after all, that in Russian Z was formed from G. Therefore, in words such as prince / princess, these two sounds still alternate. The word हिम is related to Armenian ձմեռն, Lithuanian žiema, Latvian ziema, Latin hiems and ancient Greek χεῖμα. However, in Germanic languages, which split from our ancient linguistic community much earlier, English snow, Dutch sneeuw, Danish sne, Norwegian snø, and Swedish snö all derive from the earlier synonym Snoigos. The basis of this word was syog-, and -os was the masculine ending for the nominative, that is, speaking in Russian, the nominative case. In ancient Germanic Snoigos was called snaiwaz, and -os there turned into -az. The presence of the two-sounding -ai– tells us that the Germanic language separated from ours not only before the loss of -os, but even before the monophtogization of the diphthonic, that is, before the sounding of the two sounds, which occurred around the 20th century BC. In Germanic languages, this very ending -az fell out rather late. So, in Gothic, which existed in the middle of the 1st millennium AD, -az turned into -s, and snow was designated as snaiws. In Russian, synoigos eventually turned into snow, and ima became winter.

The very presence of snow in sanskritcommon in India, where this snow is not observed even in the most severe winter, when the temperature drops at night to + 18 °, indicates that the people who spoke it once saw this snow, and the same sound of this word with ours allows us to say that they saw him not on the peaks of the Himalayas, when they went to India, but watched him with us. If this word had already appeared in India, then the snow in sanskrit Would it be called manku or pani as it is called now, respectively, in Telugu and Tamil, or there would be no word at all, as it is not in such Dravidian languages as Tulu or Kannada (not to be confused with Tula and Canada). By the way, the Aryans used the word ғima for the lotus flower they saw in India.

The presence or absence of palatal consonants in it is also an important indicator of the time of separation of a particular language from the general one. In the course of a process called palatization by the scientist phenom, the back-lingual consonants turned into soft hissing ones. So, "k" went into "h", "j" went into "w", and "x" into "w". Before this transition, for example, the verb "chati", from which today's words "opened", "begun", "hour" and "part", and which in those days meant "cut off", sounded like [katey]. A descendant of this "katey" in English is the irregular verb to cut, which John Hawkins mistakenly considered an element of the pre-Germanic substratum. V sanskrit but this verb sounds like छदि [chati], that is, just like in ours. It also indicates that Sanskrit separated from our language later than Germanic. In addition, the ending "-tei" in this Sanskrit word has already changed to "-ti", which once again testifies to the late separation of Sanskrit.

Another evidence of the late separation of Sanskrit from our once common language is the numeral "four", sounding in sanskrit like चतुर् (chatur). A long time ago, when neither Germanic, nor Romance, nor Armenian, nor Greek had yet separated from our language, this numeral sounded like a quetvor. In Germanic languages, the initial "k" turned into f, in Greek into τ, in Celtic languages into p, and only into sanskrit, in Slavic and Latvian, the initial sound sounds like [h].

The origin of the numeral "seven" is associated with the verb "(na) pour", which then sounded like sntey. And when the container was full, they said "spptn", that is, poured. that is, seven meant full capacity. On the sanskrit seven so sounds like सप्त (saptan), and in Germanic languages "p", according to Grimm's law, turned into "f", as a result of which the Old English "seofon" was obtained. However, when caught between two vowels, "f" turned into "v" as in New English "seven", then into "b" as in German "sieben".

Another justification for the late separation of Sanskrit from the Old Russian language is the word “ child ».

V sanskrit there is a word रेभति (rebhati), meaning to shout and roar. True, in order to roar like an animal, in sanskrit there was the word रव (rava), and in order to weep in an adult way - the word रोदन (rodana). But it was from the verb rebhati that the noun originated रेभ (rebha), that is, roar, and participle रेभण (rebhana), that is, roaring. In all other languages that split from ours at earlier stages of history, the child is called the fruit of the womb and the origin of the words denoting the child is closely related to the vagina. So, everyone knows the English word cunt. It comes from the ancient Germanic kuntōn. From the same p … dy comes the ancient Germanic word kindą, from which all Germanic kinders are derived. Moreover, the Greek γένεσις and Latin gēns, as well as the Latin cunnus, meaning the same female genital organ, come from the earlier version of this word. And only in Russian and Sanskrit, a child comes from a child's roar.

Along with the word “child”, the word “children” is now also used to denote the same concept, having in the singular the now rarely used form “child”. This word comes from dehti common ancestor with the Sanskrit word धयति (dayati), which meant "to suck." From the same ancestral word comes the word "milk".

Articles on this topic:

About the affinity of the Slavic language with Sanskrit

Russian language is primordial in relation to Sanskrit