I am surprised, that it reinforces my own discovery of what I call „The Archetypal phoneme, (H)Ai, the root of all human languages, take Chinese for example (as far removed from Armenian as imaginable, yet) is full of this root, and its musical variations, providing the semantics for the most vital concepts of Chinese culture —just 3 examples; “hai” in Chinese = the Sea/ocean — in the
name of the city “Shanghai” Shang=on/above, hai=Sea, because Shanghai is built on the shores of the Sea (and it is sinking … under the weight of its foolish US imitation of Skyscrapers!); Hai-tsi = Child ; Finally, and most amazingly, the Chinese word for „Love“ (the most important concept in any language symbolizing Procreation, the whole purpose of Life itself) is „Ai“, also in the Chinese word ai-ren=husband, literally „love-man“, ren=person, man.
The root of the Hebrew word Yah-wah, for the most sacred appellation of the concept of God, read from right to left (the Indo-European style) is … Hay.-
And „Khai“ in Biblical Hebrew = Life/alive, which again is „Khai“ pronounced in the Van-dialect of the Armenian language meaning „Armenian“, indicating that the Hebrews have originated from the region of Van.
Because of this sensational factual/scientific discovery, anti-Semitic idiots from Yerevan accused me of handing Armenia over to the Jews, as if Armenia belonged to me … they published letters on the Armenian site Louys (should have been called Khavaramid) referring to me as „jhouti dgha“ … Such filthy racist bastards!
But because I am Armenian, and not famous, even an
intellectual friend like you does not wish to know … but if I were a piddly pissy little American nonentity-professor who can’t even speak decent English … like Mr Kissinger, or Mr. Brzesinsky … then the Armenians would lionize me world-wide … same story in Yerevan … We can’t appreciate our own, out of sheer idiotic jealousy … but we foot-lick the „foreign expert“ …
Prof. Hovhanness I. Pilikian
Many origins have been proposed for the birthplace of the Indo-European languages, but only two serious candidates are now under discussion, one of which assumes they were spread by the sword, the other by the plow.
Historical linguists can reconstruct many words of proto-Indo-European from their descendants. For example, there was probably a word “kwekwlos,” meaning wheel, which is the ancestor of “kuklos” in classical Greek, of “kakra” in Old Indic and – because K shifts to H in Germanic languages – of “hweohl” in Old English, itself the ancestor of wheel in modern English.
From the reconstructed vocabulary, the speakers of proto-Indo-European seem to have been pastoralists, familiar with sheep and wheeled vehicles. Archaeologists find that wheeled vehicles emerged around 4000 B.C., suggesting the proto-Indo-European speakers began to flourish some 6,500 years ago on the steppe grasslands above the Black and Caspian Seas. This steppe theory, favored by many linguists, holds that the proto-Indo-European speakers then spread their language to Europe, India and western China, whether by conquest or the appeal of their pastoral economy.
This theory was challenged by Colin Renfrew, a Cambridge archaeologist who proposed in 1987 that the languages had been spread by the Neolithic farmers who brought agriculture to Europe. Under this scenario, the homeland of proto-Indo-European was in Anatolia, now Turkey, and its speakers started migrating some 8,000 to 9,500 years ago.
Dr. Renfrew’s proposal carried weight because the expansion of farming peoples is an accepted mechanism of language spread, and the migration of Neolithic farmers into Europe is well documented archaeologically. Linguists objected that proto-Indo-European could not have fragmented so early because the wheel wasn’t invented 8,000 years ago, yet many Indo-European languages have related words for wheel that must be derived from a common parent. But Dr. Renfrew argued that, long after their dispersal, these languages could all have borrowed the word for wheel along with the invention itself.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com