The two great hoaxes of today:
1. All human life began only in Africa.
2. Language and agriculture were developed in the Middle East.
This book shatters both.

Sample
The Massive Linguistic Ignorance


Almost every dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon and book written in the west state that English language evolved mostly from German and Greek. They proclaim so without studying very ancient languages spoken elsewhere. They state with authority that the very popular prefix poly-, meaning ’very’, ’several’ etc. originates from Greek polys ’several’. They do not know that Greek polys comes from ancient Indian Tamil word ’polivu’ ’many’. Similarly they state in ignorance that English words such as policy, politics, politician, poll (what people think or do) police etc evolve from Greek polis, poleos ’city’ without looking at ancient Indian Tamil word palli ’village’. Similarly every word related to head is credted to Greek kefali ’head’ ignoring the ancient Indian Tamil word for skull ’kapaalam’. Ancient Indian Sanskrit word maatra means ’measure’ leading into the popular English word meter is not at all credited. Instead all these books say that meter evolved from Greek metron ’measure’. Even though ’new’ comes from ancient Sanskrit nava, they proclaim in ignorance that it originates from Latin novus. Ancient Indian Tamil has called earth tharrai for thousands of years. Yet modern linguists say in ignorance that Latin terra is the origin for all earth related words like atterraaneus (earth-borne), conterraneus (fellow countryman), tarmac, termite, terra sigillata(sealed earth), terrace, terrain, terrigena, territory, threshold, tour, detour, tour guide, trace v., track, tractor, traffic, trail, train, tram, transit, trash, travel, travelogue, tread, trench, trespass, trip, trolley, tropics, truck, inter and hundreds of related words. They are all connected with Tamil tharrai in one way or the other.



See attachment link

http://www.geocities.com/kmguru2000/Ignorance.doc

Kmguru:

The similarities of the Tamil words and the Greek/Latin words shows they are both from the same Indo-European stock.

It may well be that some English words trace directly from a Tamil ancestor word, already in the teutonic/early-English roots, rather that from Greek/Latin.

However, much or our English language vacabulary is from the Latin from during the Roman conquest, or from the French version of Latin, during the Norman conquest. The language grammar, and the verbs, are primarily teutonic in origin.

I am thinking the language evolved from Aborigines to Tamil to Sanskrit/Russian/Basque to Greek to Latin to the modern format of many. If that is true, then the Chinese civilization and the Indian civilization are two forks of human development. It seems the original language is common to the location of East Africa, India and Australian aborigines. The problem is these land masses were connected 150 to 200 million years ago. How can that be if language did not originate since 50,000 years ago! By then the land mass has moved. Unless humans have been here since then. Perhaps the whole process needs rethinking...

KM, your book is very poorly researched. Most of the citations given for the origins of English words are absolutely bogus. What they appear to be is clever independent thought by a person who has studied a number of languages but has not actually studied linguistics formally.

No one claims that new is derived from Latin novus. At least not anyone who knows what they're talking about and is respected as an authority, such as a contributor to a dictionary or a textbook. New is related to the Latin word. "New" is one of many words from the original Indo-European language that survived in recognizable form in all or almost all of its descendants. Russian novy, Greek neos, etc.

Other words that are nearly universal in the entire Indo-European family include many family relationships like mother and father, numerals like three and ten, and pronouns like me and thou. The fact that English new, German neu and Danish ny are so similar to the Latin word merely shows that they are related, not descended. These are Germanic languages and this particular word was handed down by the speakers of the original proto-Germanic language who migrated from somewhere in or near upper Asia Minor to Scandinavia around 3,000 years ago during the Indo-European diaspora.

To say that English "evolved" from German and Greek is the kind of mistake that precocious high school students make. It is correct to say that English evolved from a language called proto-Germanic and that many English words have been borrowed from Greek and inserted into our vocabulary by priests and scholars. English did not evolve from German; English and German evolved from a common ancestral language. English did not evolve from Greek, it just contains a lot of borrowed words of Greek origin, and a lot of invented words made up of Greek roots like "petrochemical" and "photosynthesis." These were concepts unknown to the ancient Greeks and these are words made up by modern scientists from Greek roots. Everyone who studies language knows this. The author of this text is not much of a student.

English borrows prolificly and probably has borrowed at least one word from almost every language on earth. I'm sure there's a Tamil word in our dictionary although I couldn't tell you what it is. But English is not descended from Tamil. Both are modern languages, whose ancestors went separate ways long ago.

English and the Germanic languages are in the western branch of the Indo-European language family, along with the Romance (Latin) and Celtic subfamilies and a few singletons like Greek and Albanian. Tamil and the Indic languages are in the eastern branch, along with the Iranic and Balto-Slavic subfamilies and a few singletons like Armenian. The western and eastern branches separated at least 3,500 years ago when the two sets of Indo-European tribes decided to migrate in opposite directions. This is where the name Indo-European comes from. The two branches are, loosely, Indian and European.

No one has ever suggested that Latin terra is the root for all the earth-related words in that list. Either this writer is painfully ignorant or else he is lying to us in order to make a bogus point. Many of them are Latin words, formations on the word terra, borrowed by English directly from Latin through the religious and scholarly connections formed during the Roman occupation of England in the early centuries of the first millennium CE, or assimilated from Norman French (a Romance language, most of whose words are descended from its ancestor, Latin) during the French occupation of England that began in 1066CE. Yet many of those words are not from that source. They simply show that the root TR is common in words of Indo-European origin having to do with the earth, not that the Angles and Saxons who gave us our language were genetically or culturally descended from Tamils through some strange migratory or colonization program that has escaped the notice of several thousand years of history meticulously documented by the people of India, Persia, Russia, Greece, Rome, France and many other locations through which these forces of migration or colonization would absolutely have had to pass.

They are all connected with the Tamil word, as you say. No one is disputing that. But they are not derived from it. They are simply related because all of these languages share a common ancestor.

No one claims that language was developed in the Middle East. There are language families in Polynesia, Africa and the Americas. For that matter there are at least two language families in the Middle East: Indo-European and Semitic. Massively parallel computing has reduced the number of families by uncovering hitherto uncorrelated commonalities among groups. For example the Indo-European, Finno-Ugric-Ural-Altaic, Semitic, Sino-Tibetan, Malayo-Polynesian, Mongolian, Japanese, Korean, and many other groups turn out to be members of one giant Eurasiatic family. It's looking like there are no more than two language families on the planet, and judging from the current state of the research it's a good bet that there is only one. This would mean that language was invented in Africa and is at least a 70,000 year old technology. It suggests that language was the critical technology that permitted humans to successfully migrate out of Africa in the first place, by facilitating a higher level of planning and communication than had ever been needed before.

As for agriculture, that is not my specialty. (I am a reasonably well educated amateur linguist so I have no qualms about calling this guy an idiot when it comes to linguistics.) But the origins of civilization are of great interest to me, and there is no question that, to date, evidence indicates that farming was indeed invented in the Middle East. The oldest cultivated plant that has been discovered is the fig, dating to 9500BCE, and it was found where figs grow naturally, in Mesopotamia (or possibly Anatolia, I haven't got the details handy).

Agriculture in all other regions was developed later. It is, however, fair to hypothesize that not all agricultural societies borrowed the technology from the Mesopotamians. Clearly the Olmecs and Incas did not, for their ancestors had left Asia long before agriculture had been invented there. The Egyptians, Chinese and Indians may very well have invented agriculture independently, just as they did with civilization itself.

Sorry dude, but the only "massive linguistic ignorance" is in the head of this writer. This paper has obviously not passed through a proper peer review process. It's a sad fact of today's communication industry that any book that purports to contradict established science can be published and ignorant Americans will buy it. The same people who believe TV "wrestling" is a sport.

Interesting post. Here is what Wiki says about the origin of language:

The origin of language (glottogony, glossogeny) is a topic that has been written about for centuries, but the ephemeral nature of speech means that there is almost no data on which to base conclusions on the subject. We know that, at least once during human evolution, a system of verbal communication emerged from proto-linguistic or non-linguistic means of communication, but beyond that little can be said. No current human group, anywhere, speaks a "primitive" or rudimentary language. While existing languages differ in the size and subjects covered in their several lexicons, all human languages possess the grammar and syntax needed, and can invent, translate, or borrow the vocabulary needed to express the full range of their speakers' concepts.

So the author presented his views. Now we wait for other experts to review. The flat-earth society not withstanding....:D

More from Wiki:

Out of India Theory (OIT) is the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages (I-E) originated in India, from which they spread into Central and Southwestern Asia and Europe. The theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was Proto-Indo-Iranian (in obsolete or popular terminology, "Aryan"). It suggests the spread of Proto-Indo-European from within Northern India. It uses mainly archaeological and Vedic textual references. This theory is not favored by the Indo-Europeanist community. The majority of the Indo-Europeanist community favours the Kurgan hypothesis postulating a 4th millennium BC expansion from the Pontic steppe. The opposite theory is the Indo-Aryan migration theory which argues the reverse events.

Read the rest at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_theory

The Out of India Theory is widely discreditted and empirically refuted by halotype analysis and linguistics.

Two big reasons:

Finno-Ugric derived words in Sanskrit, but no Dravidian words in the rest of Indo-European.

Haplotypes in India which are also found commonly in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Genesis 10 provides the template for the early migrations.

Does anyone know of a good source which discusses the language affinities between the Basques and the ancient Mexicans? I'm particularly interested in the a-t-l suffix and prefix which are common to these two people groups across the Atlantic from each other.

Genesis 10 does no such thing, IceAgeCivilizations. The Bible is not a linguistic document and is factually inaccurate for all its mythic past.

The Greeks considered Iapeti to be a demi-god, the ancient Hindus called him Pra-japeti, son of Manu, and this was Japheth, Noah's son, the progenitor of most of the Greeks, and many of the Hindus, of course, Cham (Ham) was the progenitor of many other of the Hindus, and some of the Greeks (Chronos, Cham), so we see the Biblical template undergirding these ancient traditions.

That is simply an ad-hoc extrapolation by Flavius Josephus. Like many other early Roman Jewish and Christian authors, he simply fit things in where he thought to.

There is no link with a Titan (not a demi-God) and some son of Noah.

By the way, it is clear that Noah did not exist. Noah is a throwback to the Sumerian mythology which helped spawn the earlier parts of the Bible. The Enuma Elish basically spawned Genesis.

You shall also note that genetic and linguistic evidence discredits any connection with Noah.

And how does it supposedly discredit any connection to Noah?

Genetic evidence places the proto-Indo-Europeans in the Ukraine or Turkey around 10,000 BC.

Sans Josephus, Genesis 10 is the basic template for the early migrations away from Mesopotamia, note Rama, Cush, Elam, Asshur, Javan (Iawan, Greece), Cana'an, Sheba, Dedan, Tarshish (Tharsin, Tartessos, Seville), Sidon (Posidon), on and on, quite remarkable, archaeology confirms Genesis more and more all the time.

So what's to prevent moving that up to around 2500 B.C.?

IceAgeCivilizations:

Actually, archaeology has never proven any of Genesis until one gets farrrr into the later chapters, and only then in minor points.

But no, these sons of Noah are not related to historical figures, nor are they the sires of nations. There is no evidence of that, and indeed, much evidence to suggest that it is plain wrong.

Unless Noah was an Indo-European warrior riding on horses across Western and Southern Eurasia, your argument falls to pieces.

What prevents moving it up to 2500 BC? Science. You know, the thing which is used to make objective claims about empirical observations.

Noah: Manu, Deucalion, Ogyges, Manoa, Mannus, Nu, Nuah, Noe.

Ham: Cham (Cambodia, Khambat), Chronus (against Noah), Chronos (time man, precession mapping), Khem (Khemit/Egypt).

Japheth: Seskef (Norse), Iafeth (Welsh), Pra-japeti (Hindu), Iapetos (Greek).

You do admit that the ancients often worshipped real people as demi-gods?

And what are those constraints for you timeline, or are they "unmentionable?"

IceAgeCivilizations:

Define "demi-Gods"? Does divine ancestry make one a demi-God? Or does only super powers? Whereas I will admit, for instance, that it was held that Aeneas was related to Aphrodite/Venus, I would not call him a demi-God because he lacks the power usually ascribed to such mythic heroes as Hercules and the like.

But really: No linguistic, genetic, or archaeological evidence supports the "sons of Noah" nonsense. It's folk genetics. It is also curious that the Eastern most peoples, unknown to the Jews, have none of these ancestors, including the Americans, the Polynesians, the Aboriginees, et cetera, et cetera.

And the constraints of the timeline are based on the experts of archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis

Ham: Cham, the "Sea Dragon" of the Montagnards of Chambodja, Hampi, the megalithic town of southern India, and the Gulf of Chambay of northwest India, as well as Khem (Khemit/Egypt/Chemistry), and perhaps, Cameroon.

Japheth: Seskef and Iafeth in several ancient European kings lists, Pra-japati (son of Manu in India), Iapetos (Greek demigod patriarch).

Cush (son of Ham): Hindu Kush, Kashmir, Kish (Mesopotamia), Kush (south of Egypt).

Shem seems to have not been much on naming unless, shaman, shamballa, Damascus (Dimachq al shem), but not much on him.

The other names in Genesis 10 come up often in ancient people groups' ancient histories, even in my Dartmouth ancient Greece textbook, it speaks of the ancient Greek ancestor Javan (Iawan, Ionian), who just happens to have been a son of Japheth.

Finno-Ugric derived words in Sanskrit, but no Dravidian words in the rest of Indo-European.

Dravidian= Tamil
Tamil to Sanskrit
Ramil to Indo-European

Hey kmguru, where do you think the ancient Hindus got the idea to have their yugas of time to be multiples of 432,000 years, why the 432?

IceAgeCivilizations:

The etymology you present is laughable. note also the spatial distance between the places you purpose in many instances, as well as the fact that the etymology and the figures you speak of just do not have any historic connection whatsoever.

Please, read a linguistic book and get back to us. Also, look at the latest genetic maps we have devised.

kmguru:

There is no Dravidian influence in any language outside of India, Kmguru. None. At all. Finno-Ugric in Sanskrit, though. And that could only come from modern day Europe.

No historical connection? Ahahahaha.

And the spatial distance, so what's the problem, do you think they couldn't sail the seas?

IceAgeCivilizations:

A handful of people after Noah's ark able to go thousands of miles and establish disparate peoples and kingdoms, with radically different languages, cultural origins, myths, et cetera?

Not likely.

"Radically different languages?" The top of the thread notes that all languages can be traced back to perhaps one initial common language, and "radically different cultural origins?" Read their histories, they have much in common, and one great "myth" that they all have in common is the ancestral knowledge of the Global Deluge.

Here is what Wiki says about the origin of language: The origin of language (glottogony, glossogeny) is a topic that has been written about for centuries, but the ephemeral nature of speech means that there is almost no data on which to base conclusions on the subject. We know that, at least once during human evolution, a system of verbal communication emerged from proto-linguistic or non-linguistic means of communication, but beyond This article is behind the information curve. The results of the massively parallel computing analysis only made it into the popular press about a year ago. Before that there was only speculation that Japanese and Korean are in the Mongolian family and that it is related to Finno-Ugric-Ural-Altaic. The Eurasiatic family had not been hypothesized and the number of language families was large. It was accepted as a limitation of linguistic science that it is impossible to trace origins back beyond about four thousand years, because it was thought that a complete turnover of vocabulary and phonetics invariably occurred during that time. It took contemporary computers to penetrate that barrier.

So what's to prevent moving that up to around 2500 B.C.?By 2500BCE the Greek tribes were arriving in Europe, although they were still a Stone Age people with no gleam of civilization in their eye. The Celtic tribes were already well established and had displaced most of the non-Indo-European societies. The arrival of the Celts in Europe has to be no later than 3000BCE. The precise origin of the Romans is a bit murky; linguistic analysis says they were closely related to the Celts and may have made the migration in their company, and even suggests that they were in fact a Celtic tribe.

Based on Carbon 14 dates, highly inaccurate.

IceAgeCivilizations:


"Radically different languages?" The top of the thread notes that all languages can be traced back to perhaps one initial common language, and "radically different cultural origins?" Read their histories, they have much in common, and one great "myth" that they all have in common is the ancestral knowledge of the Global Deluge.

Actually, the Global Deluge is -not- global knowledge. Most peoples do not have a conception of a global flood, or if there were floods, it is clearly simply a reference to local flood phenomena, which happens virtually everywhere there is a river valley (where most human settlements began).

You will also note that the Indo-European languages, Semitic languages, Chinese languages, Afro-Asiatic Languages, Bantu languages, Cherokee, Navajo, Mayan, Aboriginee....et cetera, have -nothing- to do with one another. They have been separated for at least 200,000 years in some cases - if ever connected meaningfully at all.

"Nothing to do with each other," so the languages sprang up independent of each other, in those disparate parts of the world?

The majority of langauges do not have any meaningful, or any, connection at all outside their family groups.

So you're saying the languages from the various parts of the world came into being in those respective parts of the world, otherwise, the language groups would show interrelationship, right?

For the most part, language is an isolated phenomena.

Again: Outside of the language groups themselves.

You will note that most languages develop in isolation for the most part, also. This is why languages quickly split from the root language. I.E. English from Saxon-German, Italian from vulgar Latin.

But yes, the Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic have barely any connections whatsoever, for instance. Indo-European and Navajo even less.

Almost every dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon and book written in the west state that English language evolved mostly from German and Greek. They proclaim so without studying very ancient languages spoken elsewhere. They state with authority that the very popular prefix poly-, meaning ’very’, ’several’ etc. originates from Greek polys ’several’. They do not know that Greek polys comes from ancient Indian Tamil word ’polivu’ ’many’. I don't get it. The guy is talking about linguistic family history. And he's talking as if the compilers of dictionaries and the like are ignorant of these facts. The compilers of dictionaries are linguistic experts themselves, who know more about the Indo-European proto-language than he does. The fact that the derivation of most words in dictionaries only extends as far back as the late first millennium CE, is pretty much for everyone's sanity. English did not exist in 800CE, so it evolved out of the languages that existed at that time: Old English (Anglo Saxon), Old German, Old High Norse, Norman French and Latin are amongst the influences. The fact that those languages themselves derived from a single prehistoric source is well known to the dictionary-makers, but doesn't help anybody in deducing how the words of English specifically, came to be.

And the other thing is, people only generally make a song and dance about theories like this if they think them up themselves. Did this guy really believe he had independently deduced the existence of Indo-European?? (In which case, sure, I mourn for him, because nothing kills the spirit faster than discovering something unique for yourself, and then finding out that someone got there before you.) If not, then he's just an idiot, who for one thing is patronising his audience as if they're all dummies who know only what they read in dictionaries.

So if the languages appeared independent of each other, then why can etymologists trace all the languages back to one or two early ones?

Clyde Winters has done some great work on the commonalities among ancient languages, as has Barry Fell, google some articles from these fellows, you'll see that the legends, navigation technologies (big ships and precession mapping of the Earth), and etymological commonalities, plainly indicate that the ancients were sailing and settling in disparate parts of the globe (see Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Hapgood).

And don't forget, ancient pyramids all over the world.

IceAgeCivilizations:

No etymologist can trace languages back to "one or two ancient languages". Indo-European goes back to Proto-Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic to Proto-Afro Asiatic, Chinese to Proto-Chinese, Japanese to proto-Japanese, Navajo to proto-Navajo.

You will also note that pyramids are the architecturally simplest buildings to make large. They are essentially raised mounds.

The lead of this thread, or an article cited near the beginning of it, says etymologists may link all back to one original language.

Those languages link in many ways, how else can they say they can link them all back to one original language?

Do you believe the Tower of Babel was a real historic event?

IceAgeCivilizations:

Of course not! It is the worse of the Old Testament myths! God pissed that they are reaching his house in the sky, comes down because he can't see through the clouds? Come now, I don't think ANYONE seriously thinks this pagan-derived myth (if there ever was a limited God it is this one) is real.

And by the way: The text that is linked to is a shitty version of Indo-European linguistics. Which supports the nonsensical "out of India" theory.

You will note it makes -no- mention to Hebrew, Chinese, Navajo, Aboriginee, Bantu...and for damn good reasons.

Google the articles of Clyde Winters on the linguistic commonalities among the languages, Barry Fell also, much evidence in the Americas of the linkages to the "Old World."

I'll take that as a no on the Tower of Babel question, and man, take some valium or something.

There are quite a few legends about the confusion of the languages (at Babel) among the various tribes of the world, you should seek them out.

You do realize that Barry Fell is WIDELY discreditted, yes? The totality of the etymological community refutes every last one of his notions. They are also manifestly false.

Clyde Winters does not stand much better.

Sure.

Prince, you seem to fancy yourself as quite the liguistic expert, so why the a-t-l suffixes and prefixes, which means water (Atlantic) in the Basque and Mexican languages?

And I know of no other myth but the Judeo-Christian one for Babel. I know of no correlate to it in the Germanic, Navajo, Bantu, et cetera, mythologies. If you have information I do not have, please share. Although myths do not equal history.

And last time I checked, "Atlantic" was neither a Basque nor ancient Mexican word. Also, I'd have you give me the information in regards to these similarities in language.

I never said "Atlantic" is a Basque or Mexican word.

"Myths" often are real history, you should know that.

I should know that? Wow, so I guess Odin really made us from ashwood!

Praise be to the One-Eyed Wanderer!

Atlas, Chronos, Iapetos, Posidon, real people, duh?

I am certain that a Giant who held up the Earth and the King of the Titan and master of Time that ate his own children in order to prevent them from ascending to the throneship of the Titans, a demi-God Titan, and an ancient sea God are real people.

What's next? Achilles really was the son of a sea nymph? Julius Caesar was Venus' great grandson?

Posidon (Fathe Sidon) was Sidon, son of Canaan, the Cana'anu as the Phoenicians called themselves.

Chronus (means against nus/noah), Time Man, precession navigator, Ham of the Bible, samesakes Chambay, Cambodia, Chem-istry, Khem, Khemit, Egypt.

Atlas, son of Posidon, Gibraltar area, Atlantic ocean, Atlan of the Mexicans, Atland of the Dutch, Atlantioi to the Greeks.

Iapetos, Pra-japeti, Sesfef, Iafeth, Japheth (son of Noah), Javan (Iawan, Ionian) was Japheths son.

Read "After the Flood" by William Cooper.

Poseidon was no such thing - no etymological connection is there between he and Sidon. Moreover, you will note that Sidon and Poseidon have no characteristics next to one another.

SEriously, do you just go on "vaguest similarities imaginable"?

Chronos does not mean "against noah" it means "time". It is not "Ham". Ham and Chronos have no etymolgical connection at all. Chambay, Cambodia, Chemistry, Khem, and Kemet are non-related.

Atlas: Atlas was not the son of Poseidon.

From the Greek Mythological figure Atlas (see below), meaning "The Bearer (of the Heavens)", from tlenai, (to suffer, endure, bear).

Atlantic does come from this, because the Atlas mountains are the closest to the Atlantic. Moreover, your "Atlan" of the Mexicans has no etymological connection. "Tlan" does not a connection make.

You will also note that your Iapetos connection is utterly discreditted by every source. It comes from crap etymology made by evangelists and nothing more. No scholarly source agrees with it.

You will also note that the Greeks were not Jews. The Greeks are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans do not share an ancestor with the Jews. If anything, they more likely share a closer ancestor with the Turkics, or Finno-Ugrics. The Aryan homeland is the Black Sea.

Ever notice how P.J. starts all His posts with "You will", You do", "You will also".?

Like He thinks he's some kind of a Jedi, waving his hand.....

Got news for him.
You're little minds trick don't work on someone with a soul.
Only equity.....
And that would be the truth......it has a certain "ring" to it.
That's the only true equity there is.

A child of God, will accept no substitute....
"My sheep hear My Voice, anothers they will not follow"

TheVisitor:

I am not a Jedi?

Yoda would say otherwise.

Beam me up Scottie, "Greeks aren't Jews," now that's scholarship, scoreboard Prince James!

TheVisitor:


He split up mankind's belief in the one true God into many false gods, to use men's belief in those different gods as a motivating force for war.

Mankind had no such belief and not all the peoples of the world lived near the tower.


Don't try to make it some ridiculous something, and then dismiss it upon your own observation made out of ignorance...or intentional deception, even worse yet.

My good man, have you -read- the chapter? It litterally says God cannot see through the clouds, and the word "heaven" means "sky" in the story. The story is meant to be a litteral example of God being pissed that humanity is reaching him through building high and he is so impotent he cannot even see through water vapour.


All languages and religions come from one source, and the divergent religions were created as a deception to motivate man to create the first armies used for war...
The proof is available for all to see.
Read on.

The proof is not there because what you are claiming is fantastical.

IceAgeCivilizations:

You are claiming that the Greeks are descendents of Noah. Noah's people went on to beget the Jews, no? Therefore, you are claiming a close proximity of Noah's son who created the Greeks with the Jews. But it is -known that this is not so-.

Here's a suggestion:

Cite mainstream and legitimate sources that back up your arguments. Argue from rigid, academic standards, and put forth mainstream views. Also consider the known origins of the peoples you discuss and throw in some knowledge about the stories of the Bible you reference.

When you do that, we can continue this conversation on a rational level.

The Tower of Babel was a real event.
The "Tower" was a temple with it's "top" Nimrod claimed to "reach" into heaven.
The dimension of heaven, or realm where God exists..
"The Tower" was not claimed in the Bible to be a building, or impossible structure with it's top in outer space.

History states he became the "interpreter" for the gods to all mankind.
He split up mankind's belief in the one true God, handed down from Noah's descendants into many false gods, to use men's belief in those different gods as a motivating force for war.
That's why and when God confounded their language and scattered them abroad.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222882&postcount=104
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222908&postcount=105

You will also note that the Greeks were not Jews. The Greeks are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans do not share an ancestor with the Jews. If anything, they more likely share a closer ancestor with the Turkics, or Finno-Ugrics. The Aryan homeland is the Black Sea.Unlikely. The Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples are Ural-Altaic, colloquially of Mongol descent. The Mongoloid gene pool split off from the Caucasoid about thirty thousand years ago, if I remember correctly. The Semites and Indo-Europeans are Caucasoids and separated more recently.

Of course the proto-Mongols were a prolific lot who intermarried with everyone they met during their migrations, so the Turks, Magyars, Finns, etc., who are the progeny of the Mongolic tribes who migrated westward, have a lot of Indo-European and Semitic blood. To that extent they share a Caucasoid ancestor with the Arabs, Jews, Greeks and Celts.

However, ethnic groups are popularly classified by language rather than DNA. That's why everyone calls the Bulgarians a Slavic people--even the Bulgarians--yet the original Bulgars were most emphatically not Slavs. By this convention the Finns, Hungarians and Turks are Mongoloid, not Caucasoid.

BTW if you question the legitimacy of the Ural-Altaic language family, which also includes Japanese, Manchu and Korean, analysis done by massively parallel computing has already grouped this superfamily into an even larger superfamily that includes Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European and Semitic-Hamitic. The ancestral language goes back before the separation into Caucasoid and Mongoloid tribes and may well go all the way back to our original stock in Africa. Language may be the technology that got us out of Africa successfully.

No etymologist can trace languages back to "one or two ancient languages". Indo-European goes back to Proto-Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic to Proto-Afro Asiatic, Chinese to Proto-Chinese, Japanese to proto-Japanese, Navajo to proto-Navajo.Not true. Well maybe technically true because linguists have not done it, but computers have. The analysis was completed about a year ago and they have indeed found adequate evidence that Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Ural-Altaic, Malayo-Polynesian, etc. comprise one superfamily, tentatively named Eurasiatic.

The roots of Navajo go way beyond "proto-Navajo." It is an Athabascan language, one of the three aboriginal families in the Western Hemisphere, from the second of the three waves of migration.

I haven't seen the details but I'm sure all the Western Hemisphere languages must be Eurasiatic, given the timing of the migrations that brought them here. The only other superfamily is African, and premilinary research suggests that there may actually only be one family, indicating that we developed language before leaving Africa.

My clipping on this topic from the Washington Post hasn't been seen since I moved and it hasn't been easy to google. "Eurasiatic" is not as obscure a term as one would think. If anyone else can find the story please do.

Fraggle Rocker:


Unlikely. The Turkic and Finno-Ugric peoples are Ural-Altaic, colloquially of Mongol descent. The Mongoloid gene pool split off from the Caucasoid about thirty thousand years ago, if I remember correctly. The Semites and Indo-Europeans are Caucasoids and separated more recently.

Of course the proto-Mongols were a prolific lot who intermarried with everyone they met during their migrations, so the Turks, Magyars, Finns, etc., who are the progeny of the Mongolic tribes who migrated westward, have a lot of Indo-European and Semitic blood. To that extent they share a Caucasoid ancestor with the Arabs, Jews, Greeks and Celts.

Do you have any specific references to the dates for the Indo-European, SEmitic, Turkic branch offs? I am having a hard time finding them at the moment.


However, ethnic groups are popularly classified by language rather than DNA. That's why everyone calls the Bulgarians a Slavic people--even the Bulgarians--yet the original Bulgars were most emphatically not Slavs. By this convention the Finns, Hungarians and Turks are Mongoloid, not Caucasoid.

http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/where_do.html - Consider this website on some new findings that suggest that the majority of Finns are of European extraction, but of Finnish langauge.


BTW if you question the legitimacy of the Ural-Altaic language family, which also includes Japanese, Manchu and Korean, analysis done by massively parallel computing has already grouped this superfamily into an even larger superfamily that includes Sino-Tibetan, Indo-European and Semitic-Hamitic. The ancestral language goes back before the separation into Caucasoid and Mongoloid tribes and may well go all the way back to our original stock in Africa. Language may be the technology that got us out of Africa successfully.

Might you provide your sources on this? I'd be fascinated to read them, as I have not heard of thi sstudy.

In regards to your Eurasiatic considerations, apparently they remain very controversial, but yes, of course I was simplifying when speaking of "proto-Navajo".

But in essence: Whereas the languages may be connected in the distant past, it is quite proper to note that any strong connetion was lost then, tens of thousands of years ago. This is was also a natural process based on the spreading of the peoples. This is in direct and utter contrast with the nonsense proposed by IceAgeCivilizations and his Babel theory.

TheVisitor:

Your theological considerations are sorely lacking, both theologically and historically.

TheVisitor:

Your theological considerations are sorely lacking, both theologically and historically
Your constant refute and denial of my theological considerations are sorely lacking, both theologically and historically.

In other words, put up or shut up.

The Tower of Babel was a real event.
The "Tower" was a temple with it's "top" Nimrod claimed to "reach" into heaven.
The dimension of heaven, or realm where God exists..
"The Tower" was not claimed in the Bible to be a building, or impossible structure with it's top in outer space.

History states he became the "interpreter" for the gods to all mankind.
He split up mankind's belief in the one true God, handed down from Noah's descendants into many false gods, to use men's belief in those different gods as a motivating force for war.
That's why and when God confounded their language and scattered them abroad.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222882&postcount=104
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1222908&postcount=105

TheVisitor:

Yes, yes, yes it most certainly was claimed to be a tower.

Genesis 11:

"3And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

God comes down from the sky to see the city first hand, and punishes them for making such a tower.

There is no mention of infidelic beliefs in the text. Moreover, the reality of the Gods of the Semites are far more likely than the reality of the highly changing Hebrew God.

TheVisitor:

Yes, yes, yes it most certainly was claimed to be a tower.

Genesis 11:

"and they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.
and they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
and the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

-God comes down from the sky to see the city first hand, and punishes them for making such a tower.


You're implying that it is a building of some impossible height, it is not.
This is your own private interpretation.

"Top in heaven" refers to it's use as a religious temple to be Nimrod's new center for interpreting the wishes of the "gods" he had just created.

You intentionally mis-interpret without the slightest understanding of the context in order to disprove.

I will not accept any such nonsense, neither is anyone else.

Read My posts linked above.
This shows undeniable proof, for anyone to see.

If you do this pathetic deny, mis-interpret and refute song and dance routine one more time, you will be put on my ignore list permanently.....

Should have had you there long ago, you are a philosophical "lost in space" case.
I guess the spiritually challanged are "fun to watch"....especially when they beleive they are being some kind of serious threat.

Beleive me Sir, you are not.
I only straighten out your ridiculous lies here so others won't be confused.

"You do know"........ a good lie would contain at least some truth, the more truth the better lie.

You could at least try to be convincing.

TheVisitor:


You're implying that it is a building of some impossible height, it is not.
This is your own private interpretation.

My good man, it says -right in the text-. "Let's build a really high tower. Whoaaa, I'm God, and I am pissed, let me go down and beat them up! I have gone down and ha ha ha, they are all over the world without one languag enow!"


"Top in heaven" refers to it's use as a religious temple to be Nimrod's new center for interpreting the wishes of the "gods" he had just created.

This interpretation has no foundation in the text. The story is clear and the wording is also. You do realize that "heaven" litterally means "the vault of the sky" here, yes?


Read My posts linked above.
This shows undeniable proof, for anyone to see.

If you do this pathetic deny, mis-interpret and refute song and dance routine one more time, you will be put on my ignore list permanently.....

There is no irrefutable proof present, as you are -completely pulling it out of your ass-. You aren't even using the text of the Bible now. You are ignoring it for your own interpretation. Give me the texts that say explicitly it is as you are claiming, and I will concede. Until then, it is magnificiently clear that it is as is written: A story about people building up to Heaven, God being pissed, and God punishing people for him being pissed.

You also have a pathetically low comprehension of Indo-European, Egyptian, and Semitic religion. For one, Hermes was a Greek deity - NOT Egyptian. The Egyptians had no conception of Hermes until Greek influence made the syncretic deity of Hermes Trimestigus, Hermes and Thoth combined, who is used in alchemy.

But you don't even have a conception of how polytheism emerged. First off, Indo-European polytheism comes from the proto-Indo-Europeans who lived about 10,000-6,000 years ago. This is why their Gods have a common conception throughout their cultures, from India to Ireland. Secondly, polytheism as a whole is simply a progression of the conception of God. It generally comes once a higher level of civilization is reached, after usually an animistic stage earlier in the progression.

If you're going to make elaborate claims on world religions, please -know what they say- to begin with.

You don't learn about God in a school or from a textbook.
Didn't they say to Jesus; "What school did you ever attend?"
And; "Who gave you this authority?"
He said "neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.
That's what I'm saying to you also.......don't worry about my having to prove to you my claims.
I don't want you to "get it"
Believe what you will.
You've already been struck with spiritual blindness and don't even know it.
To even pray for you would be fighting the will of God.

---------

But to anyone else reading your false claims ....here is a brief explanation of history.

True history...not the lies they teach you in man's institutions, religious or secular.

The promise of a Messiah to come to Earth had been all peoples belief from before the flood.
Even after the flood of Noah, all men were of one language and believed in Jehovah as the one true God, until Nimrod of Babylon started the gods by falsely saying he was their interpreter.
'Man was split up, but took many of these beliefs in the prophecy of the sacrifice that Abel saw in the garden...the Lamb.... and blended them into false gods as they went, spreading out upon the face of the Earth.

TheVisitor:

Spiritual ignorance is a code word you use for "you don't believe my rubbish".

How conveinent that you can use "spiritual blindness" as such a versatile trump card!

You're also quite wrong. Few religions have beliefs in saviours of such a way.

And no, there was neither a flood, nor Nimrod, nor a Tower of Babel.

This is a history forum and, as such, we might expect positive claims (like "the Tower of Babel was a real event") to have some supporting documentation or veracity behind them that goes beyond superstition. Lets keep the supernatural out of this thread and forum and keep it on topic, please.

If you want to discuss spirituality, there are more appropriate places to do so.

This is a history forum and, as such, we might expect positive claims (like "the Tower of Babel was a real event") to have some supporting documentation or veracity behind them that goes beyond superstition. Lets keep the supernatural out of this thread and forum and keep it on topic, please.

If you want to discuss spirituality, there are more appropriate places to do so.

The bible is a historical document that has been proven to be accurate.

If you refuse to accept anything in the bible as proof, and call any reference from it fiction or fantasy, it is you then that have weaved a fantasy to live in apart from reality.

But SkinWalker, despite our different beliefs in some strange way I do have respect for your veiws....

There is a difference between religion and the spiritual.
Many things can be explained no other way.

Einstein said...without faith you can not comprehend reality.

If you limit the discussion to what you can relate with the five senses you are not living in reality but a fantasy land.
A blindman's prison made with bars of logic and reason.

Yeah, yeah. I hear you.

I don't mind using biblical mythology as points of reference for Sryo-Palestinian history any more than I mind using Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to explore the Greek history and the site of Troy. There's much that can be learned. But I won't say that Odysseus actually got a cyclops drunk and slew him is fact. That simply isn't a statement that's tenable.

In this forum, lets avoid making wild claims and speculations that cannot possibly be verified. Or at least ensure that we're not calling them "facts."

TheVisitor:


The bible is a historical document that has been proven to be accurate.

This has never been proven to be so at all.

Do you have any specific references to the dates for the Indo-European, Semitic, Turkic branch offs? I am having a hard time finding them at the moment.Hardly. The whole astonishing "two language families" revelation only came in 2005. I wonder if they'll ever be able to trace the divisions into subfamilies back beyond the 12,000-year barrier, which they surely predate. Considering that they have only found something like a hundred words in common to date, the evidence is probably too slim to analyze in further detail.
Consider this website on some new findings that suggest that the majority of Finns are of European extraction, but of Finnish langauge.That would not be so remarkable. As I've pointed out, the Bulgars were not a Slavic people but they adopted the Old Slavonic language. The Jews are not an Indo-European people but Yiddish is a Germanic language. People are not always quite so fiercely bound to the language of their ancestry as we like to believe.
Might you provide your sources on this? [Eurasiatic language superfamily] I'd be fascinated to read them, as I have not heard of thi study.I have not forgotten your question. As I said the newspaper clipping is buried in the turmoil from my last house move. From my parochial perspective I guess I assumed that such an earth-shattering discovery would be on the late-night talk shows by now. I hope I did a better job filing the more recent clipping on the discovery of the fig as the earliest known cultivated crop, pushing the Dawn of Agriculture back 500 years.

Fraggle Rocker:


Hardly. The whole astonishing "two language families" revelation only came in 2005. I wonder if they'll ever be able to trace the divisions into subfamilies back beyond the 12,000-year barrier, which they surely predate. Considering that they have only found something like a hundred words in common to date, the evidence is probably too slim to analyze in further detail.

If you come upon more regarding this, do tell me.


That would not be so remarkable. As I've pointed out, the Bulgars were not a Slavic people but they adopted the Old Slavonic language. The Jews are not an Indo-European people but Yiddish is a Germanic language. People are not always quite so fiercely bound to the language of their ancestry as we like to believe.

Very true.


I have not forgotten your question. As I said the newspaper clipping is buried in the turmoil from my last house move. From my parochial perspective I guess I assumed that such an earth-shattering discovery would be on the late-night talk shows by now. I hope I did a better job filing the more recent clipping on the discovery of the fig as the earliest known cultivated crop, pushing the Dawn of Agriculture back 500 years.

If you ever find it, do tell me. But do not worry about searching through it endlessly, though. I'd not subject you to that.

Dravidian= Tamil
Tamil to Sanskrit
Tamil to Indo-European

Looking at recent history to project probable ancient history seems like a good strategy to me. Here: http://prodigi.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/record.asp you can find Shakespeare as written in 1600. If I multiplied the differences between that English and current American English times about 5 I might have a language as different from modern American English as current Dutch is from American English. This gives me some idea of the speed at which language changes. Of course I could just trust some experts opinion at the speed at which languages change.

The experts say the the Languages of the Native Americans were much more diverse from each other than Indo-European languages are from each other. Native American languages are from many language groups, where as Indo-European is one language group. The Native American languages tended to change more quickly over small geographic areas than languages in Eurasia do.

My explanation for this is that the Native Americans probably had less people traveling over long distances for trading purposes.

Now, when a Bengali man wants to speak to a Marathi man, what language do they use? Probably English; Maybe Hindi. If a Chinese man wants to speak to an Italian what language do they use? If they can't both speak English they will probably have to use grunts and gestures. Trade can spread languages.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, not because the Assyrians conquered the Jews but rather because Aramaic had been the regional language of trade and was replacing smaller languages as populations that spoke different languages mixed.

The grand children of immigrants to America generally can not speak the first language of their grand parents.

Will Malayalam still be the native language of Kerala 150 years from now or will Hinglish replace Malayalam as the native language of Kerala?

"Hinglish' -- a mixture of Hindi and English widely spoken in India -- may soon become the most common form of the Queen's language, according to a British expert.

Professor David Crystal, author of more than 50 books on English, says 350 million Indians speak Hinglish as a second language, exceeding the number of native English speakers in Britain and the US.

Prof Crystal argues that the growing popularity of Indian culture around the world, including Bollywood movies, means that Hinglish will soon become more widely spoken outside the continent."

What about Thailand? If globalization keeps mixing the world's peoples and If English keeps spreading the way it is will English or Hinglish replace the Thai language without English speakers ever having conquered Thailand?

In my opinion there is no need to presume that some ancient Indo-European people ethnically cleansed or even conquered all the places that now speak indo-European languages.

I think it is more reasonable suppose that livestock herding peoples became the global traders in a world of micro languages and the admixed languages of these livestock herding peoples became the basis of Indo-European with each of the micro-languages giving way to the larger regional admixed language just as all of the Indian languages may give way to Hinglish. It is reasonable assume that the Eurasian people of 5000 years ago who were living lifestyles the native Americans of 400 years ago would have been divided up into micro-languages as the native Americans were. As population densities rose and trade a rose and politics and war required military alliances and governments on a larger scale, the micro languages would have to be replaced by regional languages.

If I was guessing where the Indo-European language group started, then My guess would be Pakistan. I have heard the Tamil, Basque, Berber, Canary Islands, linked language theory. Perhaps there may have been a coastal sea peoples global language long before the other language groups formed.


.................................................. .................................................. ......................
this will took better at:
http://www.zompist.com/proto.html

Proto-Afro-Asiatic Afro-Asiatic *mlg 'suck, breast, udder'
Arabic Afro-Asiatic m-l-j 'suck the breast'
Old Egyptian Afro-Asiatic mndy 'woman's breast, udder'
Proto-Indo-European Indo-European *melg- 'to milk'
English Indo-European milk 'to milk, milk'
Latin Indo-European mulg-e:re 'to milk'
Proto-Finno-Ugric Finno-Ugric *mälke 'breast'
Saami Finno-Ugric mielga 'breast'
Hungarian Finno-Ugric mell 'breast'
Tamil Dravidian melku 'to chew'
Malayalam Dravidian melluka 'to chew'
Kurux Dravidian melkha: 'throat'
Central Yupik Eskimo-Aleut melug- 'to suck'
Proto-Amerind *maliq'a 'to swallow, throat'
Halkomelem Almosan m@lqw 'throat'
Kwakwala Almosan m'lXw-'id 'chew food for the baby'
Kutenai Almosan u'mqolh 'to swallow'
Chinook Penutian mlqw-tan 'cheek'
Takelma Penutian mülk' 'to swallow'
Tfaltik Penutian milq 'to swallow'
Mixe Penutian amu'ul 'to suck'
Mohave Hokan malyaqe' 'throat'
Walapei Hokan malqi' 'throat, neck'
Akwa'ala Hokan milqi 'neck'
Cuna Chibchan murki- 'to swallow'
Quechua Andean malq'a 'throat'
Aymara Andean malyq'a 'throat'
Iranshe Macro-Tucanoan moke'i 'neck'
Guamo Equatorial mirko 'to drink'
Surinam Macro-Carib e'mo:kï 'to swallow'
Faai Macro-Carib mekeli 'nape of the neck'
Kaliana Macro-Carib imukulali 'throat'

.................................................. .................................................. ....................
http://members.aol.com/yahyam/coincidence.html

Amazing Coincidences
Arabic akh 'brother' Mongolian akh 'brother'
Bikol aki 'child' Korean aki 'child'
Blackfoot aki 'woman' Even akhi 'woman'
Arabic ana 'I' Gondi ana 'I'
Arabic anta 'thou' Japanese anta 'thou'
Arabic ard 'earth' Dutch aard 'earth'
Hebrew ari 'lion' Tamil ari 'lion'
Hebrew awir 'air' Welsh awyr 'air'
Kyrgyz ayal 'woman' Parji ayal 'woman'
Ga ba 'come' Hebrew ba 'come'
English bad Persian bad 'bad'
Kazakh bala 'child' Sanskrit bala 'child'
Arabic bay‘ 'sale' Japanese bai 'sale'
Hungarian béka 'frog' Sanskrit bheka 'frog'
Guro buri 'vulva' Sanskrit buri 'vulva'
English chop Uzbek chop- 'chop'
Etruscan clan 'son' Gaelic clann 'sons'
Irish daoine 'people' Navajo dine 'people'
English dog Mbabaram dog 'dog'
Lau dori 'to wish for, desire' Romanian dori 'to wish for, desire'
Japanese haha 'my mother' Onondaga haha 'my mother'
Egyptian hati 'heart' Malay hati 'heart'
Elamite hih 'fire' Japanese hi 'fire'
English hole Yucatecan Maya hol 'hole'
English I Brahui i 'I', Onondaga i 'I'
Japanese i- 'go' Latin i- 'go'
Japanese ii 'good' Turkish iyi 'good'
Arabic kana 'to be' Santal kana 'to be'
Hindustani kutya 'dog' Hungarian kutya 'dog'
French lai 'song' Urdu lai 'song'
French le 'the' Samoan le 'the'
Burmese lu 'human person' Sumerian lu 'human person'
Arabic ma 'what' Chinese ma 'what'
Hawaiian mahina 'month' Urdu mahina 'month'
English many Korean mani 'many'
Chinese mei 'beauty' Tamil mey 'truth'
(Cf. Keats, "Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty")
Hungarian mell 'breast' Kota mel 'breast'
Estonian mina 'I' Zulu mina 'I'
Arabic muna 'wish' Quechua muna 'wish'
Khmer ñam 'eat' Wolof ñam 'eat'
German nass 'wet' Zuñi nas 'wet'
German nehme- 'take' Manchu neme- 'take'
Chinese ni 'thou' Tamil ni 'thou'
Basque ni-k 'I' Berber nik 'I'
Cantonese nöi 'female' Hungarian nöi 'female'
Urdu nosh 'eating' Yiddish nosh 'eating'
Greek paid- 'child' Telugu paida 'child'
Greek palai- 'old' Tamil palai- 'old'
English pay Chinese pei 'pay'
Mordvin pey 'head' Nahali pey 'head'
English post Turkish post 'post'
Georgian puri 'bread' Hindustani puri a type of bread
Egyptian ra 'sun' Maori ra 'sun'
Italian sala 'hall' Sanskrit Sala 'hall'
Malay se- 'one' Nahuatl se 'one'
Korean se- 'three' Persian seh 'three'
Italian sette 'seven' Sakha (Yakut) sette 'seven'
English show Pashto Show- 'to show'
English sign Hindi sain 'sign'
English slick Uyghur s'liq 'slick'
English so Japanese sô 'so'
English soup Hindi sûp 'soup'
Finnish tippa 'drop' Hebrew tippa 'drop'
Toda tal 'head' Welsh tal 'forehead'
English two Ainu tu 'two' — Korean tu- 'two'
Hebrew ur 'town, village' Tamil ur 'village'
Sumerian uru 'town, village' Telugu uru 'village'
English well Nahuatl huel 'well'
Czech já 'I' Old Tamil yâ 'I'
Hebrew yam 'sea' Samoyed yam 'sea'

Near Misses
Hebrew avir 'air' Tamil avi 'breath'
English better Persian behtar 'better'
Turkish bir 'one' Tarahumara biré 'one'
French ça y est 'that's right!' Urdu sahih hai 'that's right!'
English curl Tamil kuruL 'curl'
Greek, Latin duo 'two', Pushto dwa 'two' Malay dua 'two'
Amharic gara 'mountain' Georgian gora 'hill'
Konda goro 'hill, mountain' Russian gora 'mountain, hill'
English haunt Malay hantu 'ghost'
Arabic kalafa 'to be reddish-brown' Sanskrit kapila 'reddish-brown'
Tamil karu 'black' Turkish kara 'black'
Finnish maa 'earth' Tamil maN 'earth'
Arabic malad 'youth' Czech mlada 'young'
Arabic mata 'to die' Malay mati 'to die'
Scottish mickle 'much' Tamil mika 'much'
Cree mot(w) 'moose' Evenki (Tungus) moti 'moose'
English occur Japanese okoru 'occur'
Finnish pää 'head' — Lakota pa 'head' Hawaiian po‘o 'head'
Tamil pillai, Kannada pille 'child' Nahuatl pilli 'child'
Greek pneu- 'to breathe, blow' Klamath pniw- 'to blow'
Hawaiian pua 'flower' Tamil pu 'flower'
Eskimo qayaq 'small boat' Turkish qayiq 'small boat'
English receipt Persian resid 'receipt'
Lithuanian rumai 'house' Malay rumah 'house'
Etruscan sek 'daughter' Tlingit sik 'daughter'
Arabic shakala 'to shackle' English shackle
Urdu shadi 'wedding' Zulu -shado 'wedding'
English sun Manchu shun 'sun'
Arabic suwar 'walls' Tamil cuvar 'wall'
Nahuatl tepec 'hill' Turkish tepe 'hill'
Greek theos 'god' Nahuatl teo 'god'
Irish tine 'fire' Lenape (Delaware) tindey 'fire'
English tone Tamil toni 'tone'
English whole Greek holos 'whole'
Old English ure 'our' Korean uri 'our'
English woman Old Japanese womina 'woman'
Japanese yabanjin 'person from the wilderness' Turkish yabanci 'person from the wilderness'

Yin/Yang reversals
Catalan alt 'high' Turkish alt 'low'
Dutch beter 'better' Turkish beter 'worse'
English black Old Chinese bhlak 'white'
Mongolian bog 'demon' Russian bog 'god'
Kashmiri ded 'grandmother' Russian ded 'grandfather'
English he Hebrew hi 'she'
Coptic i 'come' Japanese i-, Latin i- 'go'
Mongolian ir- 'come' Spanish ir 'go'
Hebrew ish 'man' Jacaltec Mayan ish 'woman'
English lumbar (back) Pashto lumbaR 'front'
English mama 'mother' Georgian mama 'father'
English nay 'no' Greek nai 'yes', Korean ne 'yes'
Basque ni 'I' Chinese ni, Tamil ni 'thou'
English no Hawaiian no affirmative
English papa 'father' Old Japanese papa 'mother'
Arabic dialect rah 'go' Hindustani rah 'stay'
Hindustani rog 'disease' Pashto rogh 'healthy'
English sad Turkish sad 'happy'
English server 'one who serves' Ottoman Turkish server 'one who rules'
Italian si 'yes' Swahili si negative
Arabic su’ 'evil' Sanskrit su- 'good'
Basque su 'fire' Turkish su 'water'
Malay tak 'no' Polish tak 'yes'
French toi 'thee' Vietnamese tôi 'me'
Mordvin tol 'fire' Nivkh tol 'water'
Mayan yum 'father' Tibetan yum 'mother'
Italian va 'go!' Tamil va 'come!'

If I multiplied the differences between [Shakespeare's] English and current American English times about 5 I might have a language as different from modern American English as current Dutch is from American English. This gives me some idea of the speed at which language changes. Of course I could just trust some experts opinion at the speed at which languages change.The rate of change of language varies dramatically. Most of the change between Shakespearean English and today's English occurred within the last century. The very grammar of our language is changing, something that does not occur often. The Paradigm Shift makes it necessary to describe new types of relationships, and the old Stone Age list of prepositions and conjunctions is inadequate. So we've suddenly begun coining new compounds like "user-friendly," "cable-ready," and "computer-literate." Chinese freed itself from the "parts of speech" paradigm thousands of years ago and is way ahead of us. Basically there are only nouns and verbs in Chinese so it's very easy for them to talk about new ideas.

The biggest change in English was during the early years of the last millennium after the Norman invasion. Thousands of new words were absorbed from French, including everyday words like "very," "use," and "question." That is the reason for the big difference between Modern English and Modern Dutch. Dutch is much closer to German than it is to English, because neither language has been as perturbed by foreign influences as English has.

A Greek with a university education can almost puzzle his way through a page of ancient Greek. An Italian with a university education cannot read Latin although he can make out large bits of it. We can barely recognize Anglo-Saxon as the ancestor of our own language.
The experts say the the Languages of the Native Americans were much more diverse from each other than Indo-European languages are from each other.Umm... The languages of the Native Americans have had 15,000 years to diverge, if you're talking about the main Amerind group that was the first one to come over and is the ancestor of most of the New World peoples. The Indo-European diaspora only goes back five or six thousand years. That's closer to the second wave of Native American immigration, now represented by the people west of the Rockies and south of the Arctic. I'm sure you'll find that the relationships between their languages are much easier to identify.
Native American languages are from many language groups, where as Indo-European is one language group. The Native American languages tended to change more quickly over small geographic areas than languages in Eurasia do.All of this is behind the information curve. Even in the 1990s the New World languages had been classified into only three families: Amerind, Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleut.

But more interestingly, massively parallel computing has found relationships among the world's languages that were once thought impossible to determine. All of Europe and Asia is one family now, based on about a hundred common words whose phonetic changes were possible to trace once we had the computer technology that can beat the world's chess champion.

It's very likely that there is only one language family. This suggests that language may be the key technology that made possible the migration out of Africa in the first place.
My explanation for this is that the Native Americans probably had less people traveling over long distances for trading purposes.Actually, the language of people who stay in one place tends to change more slowly than that of people who move around. Also the language of expats changes more slowly than that of the people who stayed home. When relations with the Iron Curtain warmed and America's huge Czech community began traveling to their ancestral homland, the Czech they spoke was humorously archaic to the people of Prague.

Almost every dictionary, thesaurus, lexicon and book written in the west state that English language evolved mostly from German and Greek.

Show me one.

Fraggle Rocker:

Actually, reading Anglo-Saxon is not hard at all. One need only resort to pronouncing the words inwardly as they are written. Much of what we get from that is intelligible.