Talk:Adamic language/Archive 1
Catherine Emmerich's hint for Adamic language (minimal possible Catholic point of view)
As Catherine Emmerich wrote:
"Upon Heber who, as we have said, took no part in the work, God cast His eyes; and amid the general disorder and corruption, He set him and his posterity apart as a holy nation. God gave him also a new and holy language possessed by no other nation, that thereby his race should be cut off from communication with all others. This language was the pure Hebrew, or Chaldaic."
Hebrew cannot be Adamic Language, and because to that, Catherine Emmerich explains below true nature of Adamic language:
"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."
Source: [1]
Indo-Iranian (Bactrian, Zend=Persian, Indian=Sanskrit) = clean offshoots
non Indo-Iranian = dirty offshoots
Latest possible Proto-Indo-* joint between at least clean Indo-Iranian offshoots that are most similar to Adamic language in minimal variant, can be only Proto-Indo-Iranian language, that would be minimal Adamic Language. Earliest Proto-Indo-* languages could be only internal reverse-converting nodes between minimal Adamic and each other non Indo-Iranian language, that were used by God while confusing languages.
-8500 Proto-Indo-Uralic
-6500 Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian
-5000 Proto-Indo-Hittite
-4100 Proto-Indo-European
-3700 Proto-Indo-Hellenic
-3300 Proto-Indo-Slavic
-2800 Proto-Indo-Iranian
-2000 Proto-Indo-Aryan (without Zend=Persian and Bactrian, thus it is rather
ancestor of sacred tongue of India only than common
ancestor of Bactrian, Zend=Persian and Indian=Sanskrit)
Source of above names: [2]
Maximal solution of Catherine Emmerich's hint for Adamic language (maximal possible Catholic point of view)
Thus I finally proposed now for Proto-Indo-European special and maximal Adamic Language position, because Catholic visionary Catherine Emmerich, which was now fully endorsed and declared blessed by Pope John-Paul II, got this conclusional mystical revelation among other mystical revelations, (further solved below by me) from God Himself. Proto-Anatolian is disqualified, because it seems to be halfway between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic, due to its Proto-Germanic-like features such as -z nominative, halfway -š nominative, lack of aspirates and presence of exceeding h consonants, what makes earlier laryngeal/glottal-featured protolanguages fictional as Adamic reconstructions. Thus Proto-Indo-European is still best candidate for maximal Adamic, because it is reconstructed without influences from more-confused languages, using nearly non-confused languages only, by not permitting any revolutional deviation from Indo-Iranian model, such as abovementioned radical feature replacement, while permitting only cosmetic consonant variations, which entry point is known from abovementioned Catherine Emmerich's revelation. Earlier Proto-Indo-* languages are reconstructed with influences from languages confused in higher degree. I used revelation-derived terminology above for better explaining correspondences between Catherine Emmerich's terminology and linguist's terminology. I made such above conclusion only to be in full accord with God's infallible revelation. Proof for this I explain below:
Now I can get over my apparent assumption that Indo-Iranian has in any way a special position in the history of Indo-European, or even in the history of earliest Indo-* languages, but to do it reliably I need procedures as explained below:
As Proto-Indo-Iranian retains -s ending in nominative, [3], retains aspirates and lacks laryngeals/glottals I can eventually consider typing for maximal Adamic language earliest Proto-Indo-* language that will still retain -s ending in nominative from languages listed below and matches abovementioned additional requirements:
Legend: N-nominative, A-aspirate, G-glottal
N A G
Proto-Indo-Uralic si - +
Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian se - +
Proto-Indo-Hittite so - +(because Proto-Indo-Hittite and earlier variants lacks Indo-Iranian aspirates, and introduces non Indo-Iranian glottals,
while earlier variants has -so/-se/-si nominatives, these all pre Proto-Indo-European variants are false, due to lack
of compatibility with even extended Indo-Iranian compliance required for Adamic language)
Proto-Indo-European s + -
Proto-Indo-Hellenic s + -
Proto-Indo-Slavic s + -
Proto-Indo-Iranian s + -
Proto-Indo-Aryan s + -
This earlier Proto-Indo-* language that will match these conditions will be Proto-Indo-European, because this is earlier Proto-Indo-* language, in which nominative singular ending is exactly the same as in Proto-Indo-Iranian, and in which are still presented aspirates, while laryngeals/glottals are still not present. Additionally, nominative -s ending makes Adamic protolanguage, identified now in maximal variant as Proto-Indo-European, an earliest possible language that still is recognizable by Christians as earliest possible ever Classical/Christian-Greek-looking protolanguage. I made chronological order below by medianizing Indo-* hypothesies into consistent hybrid of them all, acknowledging in this way, which earlier protolanguage clearly still has -s ending and aspirates, as is in Proto-Indo-Iranian, but without glottals. Thus earliest reliable theory which still retains -s ending left intact, and matches abovementioned additional requirements can be according to that only Proto-Indo-European theory, and in this way earlier theories, as according to -s ending criterium and additional ones, would be pure speculations only, eventually usable as reverse-converting nodes between this maximal Adamic and each other non Indo-European language, that can be used as cognate reverse-converters.
Proofs from http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/indo-european.htm , http://dnghu.org/indo-european-schleicher-fable.pdf
Proto-Indo-Iranian minimal example (-s nominative ending exists):
Avis ak’vasas-ka. Avis, jasmin varnā na āst, dadark’a ak’vans, tam, garum vāgham vaghantam, tam, magham bhāram, tam manum āku bharantam. Avis ak’vabhjas avavakat; k’ard aghnutai mai vidanti manum ak’vans ag’antam. Ak’vāsas avavakant: k’rudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāns karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjas-ka varnā na asti. Tat k’uk’ruvants avis ag’ram abhugat.
Proto-Indo-European maximal example (-s nominative ending exists):
Ówis ékwōs-kwe. Ówis, kwésio wl̥̄nā ne (é)est, ékwoms spekét, óinom karúm wóghom wéghontm̥, óinom-kwe mégām bhórom, óinom-kwe ghmónm̥ ṓku bhérontm̥. Ówis nu ékwobh(i)os (é)wewkwét: “Kr̥d ághnutoi moí, ékwoms ágontm̥ wrom wídn̥tei”. Ékwōs tu wewkwónt: “Kludhí, ówi! kr̥d ághnutoi n̥sméi wídn̥tbh(i)os: anér, pótis, ówjom-r̥ wl̥̄nām s(w)ébhi khermóm wéstrom kwr̥néuti”. Ówjom-kwe wl̥̄nā ne ésti. Tod kékluwos ówis ágrom (é)bhugét.
Proto-Indo-European disqualified example with disqualifying presence of non-Indo-Iranian laryngeals (it introduces disqualifying ambiguous abstract laryngeals, and is very similar to glottal early Proto-Indo-Hittite despite of existence of -s nominative ending):
H3ou̯is h1éku̯o(s)es-kwe. H3ou̯is, kwesi̯o u̯l̥Hneh2 ne h1est, h1éku̯oms spekét, h1óinom gwr̥h3um wóghom wéghontm̥, h1óinom-kwe mégeh2m bhórom, h1óinom-kwe dhHghmónm̥ h1oh1ku bhérontm̥. H3owis nu h1éku̯obhi̯os u̯eu̯kwét: kerd h2éghnutoi h₁moí h1éku̯oms h2égontm̥ wiHrom wídn̥tei. H1éku̯o(s)es tu u̯eu̯kwónt: Klúdhi, h3ówi! kerd h2éghnutoi nsméi wídntbhi̯os: H2ner, pótis, h3ou̯i̯om-r̥ u̯l̥Hneh2m̥ su̯ébhi gwhermóm u̯éstrom kwrnéuti. Neghi h3ou̯i̯om u̯l̥Hneh2 h1ésti. Tod kékluu̯os h3ou̯is h2égrom bhugét.
Late Proto-Indo-Hittite disqualified example with disqualifying presence of non-Indo-Iranian glottals (despite of existence of -s nominative ending):
Xowis ʔékwōs-kwe. Χowis, kwesjo wl̥ʔneħ ne ʔest, ʔékwoms spekét, ʔóinom kr̥χum wóghom wéghontm̥, ʔóinom-kwe mégeħm bhórom, ʔóinom-kwe dhʔghmónm̥ ʔoʔku bhérontm̥. Xowis nu ʔékwobhjos wewkwét: “Kr̥d ħéghnutoi ʔmoí, ʔékwoms ħégontm̥ wíʔrom wídn̥tei”. ʔékwōs tu wewkwónt: “Kludhí, χówi! kr̥d ħéghnutoi n̥sméi wídn̥tbhjos: ħner, pótis, χowjom-r̥ wl̥ʔneħm̥ swébhi khermóm wéstrom kwr̥néuti”. Xowjom-kwe wl̥hneħ ne ʔésti. Tod kékluwos χowis ħégrom bhugét.
Middle Proto-Indo-Hittite disqualified example with disqualifying lack of Indo-Iranian aspirates and disqualifying presence of non-Indo-Iranian glottals (despite of existence of -s nominative ending):
ʕweuis iosmi ʕuelʔn neʔst ʔekuns ʔe ’dērkt, tom ’gwrʕeum uogom ugentm, tom m’geʕm borom, tom dgmenm ʔoʔku brentm. ʔe uēukwt ʕweuis ʔkumus: kwntske ʔmoi kērt ʕnerm ui’denti ʔekuns ʕ’gentm. ʔe ueukwnt ʔkeus: kludi ʕwuei, kwntske nsmi kērt ui’dntsu: ʕnēr potis ʕwuiom ʕulʔenm subi gwormom uestrom kwrneuti, ʕwuimus kwe ʕuelʔn neʔsti. to’d kekluus ʕweuis ʕe’grom ʔe bēu’gd.
Terminology equivalents:
Steppe (-si) = Proto-Indo-Uralic (-si)
Proto-Indo-Etruscan (-se) = Proto-Indo-Tyrrhenian (-se)
Broad/Early/Pre/Proper Proto-Indo-European (before Anatolian) (-so) = Proto-Indo-Hittite (-so)
Archaic/Comparative/Middle/Narrow/North Proto-Indo-European (before Tocharian) (-s) = Proto-Indo-European (-s)
Sources:
Language tree equivalents: [4]
Indo-Uralic and Indo-Tyrrhenian hypothesies: [5]
Pre-Proto-Indo-European hypothesis: [6]
Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesies: [7]
Sources of the best grammars and dictionaries of Proto-Indo-European language:
PIE Dictionary with PIE Grammar in Foreword (contains most ever complete PIE treatise, but written in German)
Hints:
Hebrew and Arabic can be converted to Proto-Indo-European by using this book entitled "Hebrew is Greek", described here: [8]