A New Language Classification on the Vedic Model

It has been demonstrated indisputably (cf. “Veda vs. Tetragrammaton” IJSR, 3(1), 2017), the genetic relationship between Biblical Hebrew and Vedic Sanskrit and other so-called Indo-European languages, inclusively of ancient Egyptian and Chinese as
of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  ~ 25 ~ International Journal of Sanskrit Research2015; 1(3):0712 International Journal of Sanskrit Research 2017; 3(2): 2531           !  "#!    ć $!%& '( )*( )%+,( - Correson!ence   ć $!%& '( )* )%+,( - " #e$ %an&ua&e Classification on the 'e!ic o!el ilora! Iankoi* "+stract It has been demonstrated indisputably (cf. “Veda vs. Tetragrammaton” IJSR !("# $%"&# the genetic relationship bet'een iblical )ebre' and Vedic Sans*rit and other so+called Indo+,uropean languages inclusively of ancient ,gyptian and -hinese as 'ell. This ne'ly recognied reality re/uires a completely ne' classification of 'orld languages especially the languages of the ancient 'orld. 0nli*e modern currently adopted linguistic theories 'hich are based on 1rbitrary Reconstructions and 2ictitious Inventions of the self+styled 3roto+Indo+,uropeanist scholars the present paper provides a ne' classification on the Vedic 4odel formulated by the incomparable une/ualled unparalleled unrivaled unsurpassable superior Vedic ,tymologists 5rammarians and 3honeticians. ,e- .or!s: Vy6sas 1n6sas 3r6*rit 3ai76c8 S0+family )u+family Intro!uction In Vedic classifications ('hether linguistic religious or philosophical# the main distinction  bet'een phenomena appears to be perceived and formulated in the form of inary 1lgorithm (e.g. bright+dar* celestial+terrestrial divine+humane etc.# reflecting Reality as the 0nity of opposite but complementary principles. /he our ain Classes of istinction: ") '-sas s "nsas In the Rig+Veda there is a clear and strict distinction bet'een the 1ryan spea*ers and the non+ 1ryan spea*ing tribes the latter being called anāsas. The term is derived from Sans*rit ās (a*in to 9atin os, and Slavic usta “mouth“# 'ith negative prefi: an, meaning “voiceless speechless dumbs“ (see ;ote "#. The famous seers 1tri and Vasistha (Rig+Veda V $<."% and VII =.!# particularly emphasied the 3ani+tribe as “crudely+spea*ing“ ( mrdhavācas) “dumbs“ (anāsas #. The  Paṇis 'ere an ancient Iranian tribe *no'n to the 5ree* historian Strabo as  Parnoi.  ;ote that the Vedic retrofle: “n“ in 3anis is pronounced as “rn>> in ,nglish 'ords  burn turn learn 'hich gave the analogous plural form  Parnoi in 5ree*. In the Vedic au:iliary te:ts (see ;ote $# there are some more elaborated comments on 3anis e.g. “3ani calls himself  pumān (vi. a man#”. ut 3ani is not a man because he does not spea* li*e a man. 1nalogously 5ermans call themselves  Deutsch vi. “people“ (derived from 5othic thiudisk “belonging to the people“ from theod “people race nation“# and is further related to the )ittite tuzzi 4 army“ Slavic tudji(n) meaning “foreign(er#“ (depending on different dialect it is  pronounced either tuyi or tudźi #. ut as )illebrandt correctly noticed all Slavic nations to this day use the term “?umbs“ (or  Nmci in Slavic to denote ethnic 5ermans the term being derived from @ld Slavic nmu “speechless mute dumb“ semantically identical 'ith Vedic anāsas . Thus from the previous e:position it is absolutely clear that both Iranians and 5ermans 'ere considered by ancient Vedans and Slavs as “dumbs“ and not 1ryans at all. This is another proof that 5ermans and Iranians have never belonged to the 1ryan family proper. Incidentally 5ermanic blac* ;ai  s!astika (depicted on red butcherAs cloth+li*e flag# is not 1ryan at all since authentic  svastika  being symbolic of the beneficient po'er of the Sun must have been “ arya hiranya svastika 4 vi. ;oble 5olden Svasti*a. Bhatsmore this ancient terminology has been applied not only to 5ermans proper but also to the ethnic name “1nglians or 1ngles“ (vi. ,nglishmen# 'hich is of the same semantic srcin being derived from "n #$e%s or "n #$o%s (from Slavic C ne$o%s via metathesis C ne$%as #  International Journal of Sans*rit Research meaning “no+voice no+speech speech+less“ hence “dumbs or mutes“. There is still an ancient district in the 5erman  province Schles'ig called “1ngeln“. In medieval times < D "$ c. -,. the province and the 'hole northern part of the present+day 5ermany 'as populated by the Slavic people 'herefrom came the name “1ngeln“ vi. E?umbs“ (cf. )elmoldi &hronica '%avorum, ""=&#. The 'ord “dumb“ itself is Slavic in srcin meaning “oa*+tree“ and is connected 'ith the ancient Slavic saying “)e *eeps silent li*e the tree“ (said of somebody 'ho is uns*illed in conversation#. Such person *no'ing not 'hat appropriately to say usually Fust s'allo's his saliva and *eeps silent and that s'allo'ing vi. the act of gulping and the 'ord gulp itself in Slavic (via metathesis vi.  $%up) came to denote “a stupid person“G The opposite Vedic term of the anāsas is vyāsas (derived from viās) literally “dia+lectician vi. s*illed in debate or conversation hence elo/uent one“G In this connection the legendary compiler of the Vedic te:ts called eda yāsa (to 'hom is ascribed the authorship of 4ahabharata ,pic hagavad 58t6 and also h6gavata 3ur6Ha the te:ts composed 'ithin the span of time of at least t'o thousand years# actually does not represent one particular person but rather authentically denoted “a 'hole class of ancient elo/uent individuals 'ho had Sans*rit language under their complete command“ comparable to the ancient 5ree*  omer 'ho 'as Fust one in the long lineage of blind poets ()omer is supposedly author of Iliad and @dyssey delineating the TroFan 'ar 'hich happened five centuries before his birth#. 1nalogously it is absolutely impossible for one man to be the author of the te:ts composed 'ithin the span of $%%% years as credited to Veda Vy6sa. In Slavic tradition the same distinction is made the same 'ay as the Vedans did though the ancient Slavs did not simply borro' or plagiarie Vedic terms yāsas and  *nāsas,  but they used their o'n creativity and inventiveness and created the ethnic name '%ovni to designate themselves meaning “those 'ho have  s%ovo, vi. 'ord“ in contrast to the 5ermans 'ho did not *no' ho' to spea* properly hence being designated  Nmci vi. “?umbs“G )o'ever the distinction bet'een yāsas vs.  *nāsas does not cover all distinctive differences bet'een languages e.g. Iranian and 5ermanic languages differ distinctly by their habits of pronunciation especially of authentic 1ryan Voiced consonants vi. 'ith respect of Voicing and de+Voicing of consonants. Therefore additional distinctive classifications are needed to cover all such varieties among various groups of languages. )   Sanskrit s 6rkrit The ancient 1ryan grammarians made a strict distinction  bet'een normatively highly certified Sans*rit and all those non+certified vernaculars that sprung from it in Vedic times hence called 3r6*rits vi. “vulgar or natural dialects“ comparable to the 'ell+*no'n distinction bet'een -lassical 9atin and Vulgar 9atin. 1mong the 3r6*rit tongues of utmost importance for further classification of distinctiveness  bet'een various groups of ancient languages is the one called  Pai+āc  . C)   "r-an s 6aic8ton&ues The 3ai76c8+group of languages is named after an ancient 1ryan classification of Indian vernaculars or vulgar tongues *no'n as 3r6*rit of 'hich 3ai76c8 shares the main common  phonetical features 'ith Sumerian 1ltaic ,truscan 1natolian 5ermanic ancient ,gyptian -hinese -retan 4ycaean but also common 5ree* in some instances. 1)   /he 6ro+le9 of Correct 'oicin& 1ll the languages in this group as a rule used to substitute the 1ryan V@I-,? phonemes (especially plosives# by their de+ voiced (unvoiced voiceless# counterparts then the 1ryan 0nvoiced 3losives by their 0nvoiced but 1spirated counterparts and the 1ryan 0nvoiced 3losives by 0nvoiced 2RI-1TIV, substitutes thus giving a 'eird acoustic impression to the audience hearing it as of listening to the frea*y voices of the  Pi+ācas or “demons”. Such phonetic mutations re/uire specific systems for the representation of proper phonological distinctions bet'een  phonemes. asically there are t'o different systems for representation of the 3ai76c8+tongue phonemes in script a)   "+stract 6hone9ic Reresentation or "6R   in 'hich the distinction bet'een phonemes is made on an abstract level as they are distinguished in the mind of the spea*ers using the 'hole spectrum of alphabetic signs regardless of actual pronunciation including the signs for non+e:istent V@I-,? phonemes the e:emplary model  being ancient Sumerian system and analogous modern 3inyin Romaniation for transcription of -hinese and +)   Real 6honetic Reresentation or R6R   in 'hich the distinction bet'een phonemes is made on 3honetic level as they are actually pronounced vi. bet'een 0nvoiced  ;on+ 1spirated vs. 0nvoiced 1spirated phonemes the e:emplary model being ancient 1**adian system for transcription of Sumerian and analogous Bade Romaniation for transcription of -hinese e.g. 2)   6honetic utations ,ven the languages 'ith correct 1ryan V@I-I;5 li*e )ebre' -eltic Iranian and surprisingly 9atin all display various  -types o- phonetic mutations  e.g. the f+type of  phonetic mutation featuring the f+phoneme (derived from  p common to 3ai76c8+ tongues for e:ample Sans*rit  pardate vs. 5erman  -arzen and ,nglish  -art, etc but in 9atin it derived from 1spirated 3losives only vi. from  ph, h, dh, $h! # 'hich is non+e:istent in proper 1ryan languages such as Sans*rit and Slavic and altic tongues either (other'ise 9atin sho's no other types of mutations and is most close to Sans*rit and Slavic and along 'ith them belongs to the '/  -ami%y of languages see section ? belo'#. 3)   Rou&hin& an! S9oothin& ?espite their correct Voicing altic tongues are e:aggerated  by vo!e%rou$hin$ or overdiphthon$ization  in contrast to Vedic and Slavic vo!e%smoothin$ or monophthon$ization, e.g. Vedic sacred syllable 0m, a*in to @ld Slavic 1mu  modern Slavic um “reason intellect mind brain common sense” but 9ithuanian has aumuo “ibid.”. )ence altic  ~ 27 ~ International Journal of Sans*rit Research tongues too cannot be considered the members of the 1ryan languages proper. )   erfricatii<ation 1dditionally @ld Iranian as 'ell as -eltic and 5ermanic languages too have developed a full range of 2RI-1TIV, interdental and velar harsh phonemes non+e:istent either in Vedic or Slavic (represented in transliteration by the 5ree* letters th +eta d  +elta  $  +amma kh +i etc.# the process termed succinctly and precisely by one 'ord as over-ricativization, vi. substituting the authentic 1ryan Voiced and 0nvoiced 3losive 1spirate sounds beside a set of truly 'eird Vo'el  phonemes and ?iphthongs non+1ryan in srcin. 5)   =/-e 6honetic utation 1ncient ,gyptian and 1natolian )ittite display   type  phonetic mutation derived from authentic t  phoneme > 'hile iblical )ebre' as 'ell as 5erman display the  type mutation that sprung from s  phoneme. The most illustrative e:ample of K+ type phonetic mutation can be observed 'ithin the various forms of symbolically very important ;umber S,V,; presented belo' @ne of the special features of the )ebre' scriptures is the symbolism   of    number    Seven.   The   )ebre'   'ord    2ia   3   h   vi. “seven   (masculine   cardinal   number#”       24    5       vi.   “seventh ( masculin e ordinal number#“ is phonetically closest to the 5ermanicL5othic  siun 6 5erman  sieen > and )ittite  2ipta “seven” (featuring both “  27 and “ 7 # G The 'ord for number seven is actually derived from the refle:ive pronoun “  se ? (self# but first it is necessary to e:plain the evolution of the term denoting number “seven”. In ancient times man used his fingers of both hands to present visually to his partners or associates 'hat number he actually meant. This conclusion can be deduced from the term used to denote number “eight” 'hich is represented by the dual form a89au in Sans*rit related to the @ld Iranian a2ti meaning “the 'idth of four fingers“. Thus a89au undoubtedly means “t'o times four fingers“ vi. four fingers of one hand plus four fingers of the other hand (e:cept the thumbs 'hich are distinguished from other fingers#. )o'ever 'hen man 'ished to indicate number “seven“ 'ith his fingers to onloo*ers then he had to detract one of his fingers so that only seven remained. )e did that by retracting one of the fingers (usually the little finger on one hand# into his palm thus hiding it from the vie' of onloo*ers. In other 'ords he used to “spare or save“ one of the eight fingers for himself by bending one of them in'ardly into his palm so that only seven fingers 'ere visible out'ardly. Thus actually number seven 'as defined as one “spared or saved for oneAs self“ as can be deducted from the 5ree* variants hedomos and hedemos > as 'ell as Slavic  sedmi from the authentic C  sedimi, all containing the refle:ive pronoun  seh as the first member of these compound terms. This authentic meaning of the term denoting number seven vi. “sparedLsaved for oneself” is 'ell preserved in the )ebre' ible. Bhatsmore the author of the oo* of 5enesis chapter $ played paronomastically on this authentic meaning of the 'ord claiming that 5od rested from all his 'or* on the seventh day 'hich he had ta*en e:clusively for himself as an )oly day. The term denoting “seventh day” vi.  2aāt  :  morphologically is close to the Slavic  soa vi. “room authentically a separate space devoted for one person i.e. for oneAs o'n self” related to osoa (variant osea ) 4  person self” derived from the refle:ive pronoun  se, see. In 1**adian  see alone denoted number “seven” G 3honetically the )ebre' term ('ith doubled voiced consonants “b”# matches e:actly the Sans*rit  sahā “a place vi. room chamber or hall for public meeting authentically a space set apart per se for a special purpose a place allocated for a particular use” the term of the same srcin as Slavic and )ebre' terms mentioned previously. ;ote that the doubling of )ebre' voiced plosive consonants “” corresponds to the Sans*rit aspirated voiced plosive “)” (analogously as the )ebre'  2adday 'ith doubled “??” corresponds to the Sans*rit “?)” in  sādhaya  for 'hich refer to “Veda vs. Tetragrammaton”#. It is further related to the 5erman ethnic term 'ch!aen 'hich means literally” those being or living on their o'n terms vi. free people” and the Slavic  svooda ('ith the variant  s%ooda in South Slavic  ) “freedom liberty R,9,1S,” all derived from the refle:ive pronoun  se%- (se,  sehe, svoho). 1nd again 5erman form matches the )ebre'  both displaying = type phonetic mutation. The etymological connection bet'een all these 'ords is evident from the ?euteronomy chapter "M. “1t the end of every S,V,; years you shall ma*e a R,9,1S,.>> (It is referred to human beings and land (soil ground# e/uallyG# etc. @)   f/-e 6honetic utation The most significant e:ample is the common 'ord for “offspring” vi. )ebre' ne-e2, 5erman  Ne--e, @ld ,nglish ne-a,  modern nephe!, etc. 1nd though )ebre' and 5ermanic share the same   type and  type phonetic mutations  )ebre' in contrast 'ith 5erman displays the correct 1ryan Voicing of consonants being much closer to the authentic 1ryan pronunciation than 5ermanic languages. 2rom the evidence collected and e:pounded previously it is absolutely clear that 5erman tongue and 5ermanic tongues generally contrary to the accepted vie's of 1dolf )itler and most of 5erman Sans*ritists and @rientalists have never been a part of the 1ryan family proper but the members of the “demonic” 3ai76c8+group of languagesGGG 7)   /he 9utations of rhone9e 1nother feature of the authentic 3ai76c8 resembles -hinese for its analogously substituting the 1ryan vibrant continuant li/uid r+phoneme (considered by ancient Vedic 1ryans and Slavs as the mar* of manly or adult tal*# by the non+vibrant lateral li/uid l+phoneme (considered the mar* of infant or  baby tal*#. Sometimes the r+phoneme is substituted in -hinese by the vocalic glide “y” 'hich is also a mar* of infant tal*. ;ote that as a rule all polysyllabic 1ryan 'ords are do'nsied to monosyllables in order to conform to the monosyllabic structure of the -hinese language by 'ay of apheresis syncopation contraction elision and metathesis. Thus for e:ample the 'ord  *merica is shortened by apheresis “r” is substituted by “y” to form a diphthong and the adFectival termination  ;ka is dropped since it resembles -hinese 'ord  $uo (pronounced k!o) for “landLstate” giving the form (a)me(y)i   <ei N  $uo meaning “eautiful land”.  ;. 1mong the Slavic people small infants use to pronounce the 'ord  *merika almost identically as adults -hinese do vi. as  <e(y)ika, featuring r  y changeG A)   /he ri&in of the /er9s 46icas? an! 46aic8? The Sans*rit term  Pi+ācas  Fudging from 3honetical point of vie' is most li*ely related to the Slavic 'ords  pisak (undoubtedly of imitative onomatopoeic srcin# denoting “a strident harsh screechy shrie*y shrilling sound or 'histle  ~ 28 ~ International Journal of Sans*rit Research  blo'”  piskavac and  pi2=enac “a small chic*en 'hich usually  produces such unpleasant high+pitch sound“ and verbs  piskati>pi2tati “to produce such ear+irritating sound resembling chic*enAs voice“. B)   /he istinction +et$een "r-an s 6aic8ton&ues in 6ractice The distinctive differences bet'een 1ryan vs. 3ai76c8+tongues can be observable most plainly and conspicuously by trac*ing the development of the greatly diverse and multifarious forms of the oldest common 'ord for “)eaven S*y“ 'ith the e:planations found in the Vedic te:ts concerning its evolution. The term Veda has t'ofold meaning as a verb it means “I *no'Lhe she it *no's“ and is semantically e/uivalent to the 9atin “scio“ 'hereas as a noun it means “science“ and is e/uivalent to the 9atin term “scientia (vi. science#“. In spite of its some'hat metaphorical language Veda is essentially  ;atural Science and is obFective attestable and verifiable as natural science should be. Vedic te:ts are indispensable for the hermeneutics of these ancient linguistic forms since they have preserved the initial stage of evolution of the common term for E)eavenS*y“. In the oldest Vedic philosophical te:t vi. rhadaranya*a 0panisad V II !. it is 'ritten 4 evais Oa daiv vā$ anuvadati  stanayitnur Da Da Da iti...“ vi “The )eavenly Voice of Thunder repeats the same ?uh ?uh ?uh...“ 2rom the above passage it becomes perfectly clear that the sound “?“ 'as selected by the ancients on its resembling acoustic properties as the signifier of Thunder(ing )eaven#G The short vo'el “a“ is considered by Sans*rit grammarians as an inherent part of every consonant so only the plosive consonant “?“ is to be counted as bearing the distinctive feature of the sound of Thunder. 4an has five senses three short+range (touch smell taste# and t'o long+range ones (sight and hearing# the latter t'o  providing long+distance perception hence they are most important in perceiving the 'orld around. The perception of sound (especially lo' and loud# has the most dramatic  psychological impact on man because it e:erts po'erful effects not only to the sense of hearing proper (vi. ear# but onto entire body (vi. abdomen and inner organs# of living  beings. 9ong before the invention of cannons and e:plosives the thunder of )eaven 'as almost the only natural source of e:plosions (and rarely earth/ua*es and volcanoes# so that ancients developed /uite a dramatic perception of its manifestations. 2rom the natural association of thunder 'ith light(ning# sprung a primitive erroneous 5eocentric notion of Thunder+god as the creator of 9ight and ?ay independently and prior to the e:istence of the Sun as is delineated in the oo* of 5enesis "."+"=. “In the beginning 5od created heaven and earth. The earth 'as formless and void and dar*ness covered the face of the deep. 1nd the Spirit of 5od hovered upon the 'ater. 1nd 5od said 9et there be light...and 5od divided the light from the dar*ness...and 5od called the light ?ay and the dar*ness he called ;ight...“(on the first day then he made the firmament on the second day# and only Fust on the fourth day “5od made the t'o great lights the larger light (vi. the Sun# to rule the day and the smaller light (vi. the 4oon# to rule the night.“ 1nd 'hile the authors of the ible ceased to evolve from this erroneous geocentric notion the Vedic seers 'ere 'ell a'are of the error in the earliest layers of the Vedic te:ts so they developed a superior 4eno+)elio+centric system of the universe in 'hich the 4oon and the Sun 'ere considered the creators of )eaven and ,arth (e.g. Rig Veda II P% etc.#. The other vocalic constituents of the term for “)eaven“ had  been selected on the ground of their acoustic properties vi. the vo'el “i“ (spelled as the ,nglish “ ee4 # displaying acoustically highest fre/uency formants among vo'els (as high front close vo'el# being phonetically associative 'ith 9ight and )eight (vi. 'ith )eaven from 'hich thunders and lightnings come do'n#. Therefore the root'ord di in Sans*rit verbal forms came to mean “to shine be bright“ (vi. ddeti “he shines“ etc.#. )o'ever the same root'ord di is preserved in Slavic compound du?di in its authentic sense vi. “)eaven S*y“ 'hereas the prefi: du? denotes “altered non+authentic state of something (derived from the 'ord du “t'o secondary not srcinal one”# hence meaning “bad 'orsened” being semantically analogous to ,nglish prefi: mis “'rong bad erroneous” derived from 3roto+5ermanic C missa @ divergent astray” or literally “in an altered or changed manner”. The compound as a 'hole appears to denote “rain (sc. rainy s*y#” in its modern variants spelled variously as e.g. da?d, da?dA, deszcz, de?, de2tA, do?dA etc. 'ith final short reduced unaccented vo'el “ i7 of the authentic root'ord di (authentically mid central neutral unrounded unmar*ed non+labialied vo'el# no' pronounced as mid+ central vo'el “Q” but is omitted in 'riting 'hereas the accented reduced short vo'el @u7 of the prefi: du? (authentically mid central rounded vi. labialied vo'el# mutated and is no' spelled either as the short vo'el “ a ” or “ e7 #. Since the thundering )eaven represented phonetically  by the root'ord di  brings rain do'n to earth it ac/uired the meaning “life“ in Sumerian 'ith obligatory de+voicing of the initial voiced plosive into ti (as by all 3ai76c8+tongues#. The earliest recorded derivative from the root'ord di denoting “)eavenL5od“ e:tended by the nasal ending  ;n is Sumerian compound term din.$ir literally “moving (  $ir) across )eaven ( din), hence 5od“ (as opposed to kin .  $ir “moving upon earth vi. men“ derived from ki “earth land“ a*in to classical 5ree*  $e  ?oric  $a, 4ycenaean 5ree*  <a ka “4other ,arth“ sho'ing genetic connection bet'een ,arth and 4an as her offspring the same concept is observable in ?oric  Damater   and common 5ree*  Demeter “,arth+ mother“ from 'hich derived demos “people“ see ;ote !#. Its cognates found 'idespread among 1ltaic languages e.g. eltir Bin$ir  > 4ongol Ben$ri, uryat Ben$eri, Tatar Ban$ere > a*ut Ban$ara > etc. displaying de+voiced initial consonant as  by all 3aisaci+tongues are the proofs that Sumerian  Din$ir 'as also pronounced 'ith de+voiced initial (authentically voiced plosive in Vedic Sans*rit as the signifier of thundering )eaven#G It is also found in ,truscan Bin “Jupiter“ and 5ree* dialectal variant forms of eus vi. -retan Bin, Ban, Ben ( 'ith de+voiced initial as by all 3ai76c8+tongues# as 'ell as ?oric Can and Cen,  pronounced  Dzan>Bsan and  Dzen>Bsen  C  Dian>Bian and  Dien>Bien  of 'hich cognate is the -hinese Bian (pronounced B  h ien, 'ith de+voiced aspirated initial a hallmar* of 3aisaci+tongues# meaning “day s*y heaven“ (see  ;ote P#. ;. The distinction bet'een nominative and accusative of the 5ree* nasal ending forms 'as made by accent vi. the acute in the nominative vs. the circum-%e in the accusative. There can be no doubt that the forms 'ith nasal ending are older than ?yaus ?yava ?yavi as 'ell as eus Iove ah'eh etc. since they are found in Sumerian ,truscan and 1ltaic tongues 'hich apparently lost their close ties 'ith the advanced Vedans and ceased to evolve. 1s for -hinese terms > Uong ing ?a a noted scholar from the Tang dynasty &th c. -,. clarified their meanings as follo's “  Di (E " Bi$s), Bian ye, Bian shen, Bian di. ”    ~ 29 ~ International Journal of Sans*rit Research vi. “?i and Tian ()eaven# are the same )eaven is Spirit )eaven is ?ivinity”. S*y or )eaven is li*e a natural giant screen on 'hich all the changes during the course of time  become clearly visible day into t'ilight into night into dus* etc. 1s Jesus said in 4atthe' chapter "=."+! “In the evening you say It 'ill be fair 'eather because the s*y is red. In the morning you say It 'ill be foul 'eather today because the s*y is red and lo'ering. ou can forecast 'eather by Judging the appearance of the s*y.“ )ence the same term for “)eaven“ came to denote “day“ too e.g. Sans*rit dina, @ld Slavic dini  modern variants dan, den, dzien, etc. 9atin nun+ dinae (ninth day# etc. )o'ever the ancient Vedans became a'are that )eaven besides its right ?iurnal aspect also has ?ar* ;octurnal aspect. 4oreover )eaven or S*y changes even throughout the day and though usually it is Sunlit right and lue during the day it may turn ?ar* 4ur*y 5loomy -loudy and Rainy 'hen atmospheric pressure is do'n lo'. -onversely if atmospheric  pressure is high S*y or )eaven may appear -lear 4oonlit and Starry by night 'hen it is usually ?ar* so it may appear as the Slavs use to say that “4oonlight shines li*e the ?ay“G Therefore they added the dar*est of the vo'els vi. vo'el “u“ (spelled as the ,nglish “oo“# (displaying acoustically the lo'est fre/uency formants among vo'els as lo' bac* rounded vo'el# in order to indicate the ?ar* appearances of )eaven thus created the term reflecting Reality as the unity of t'o opposite but complementary principles (vi. Bhite+ lac* vi. right+?ar* and ?iurnal+;octurnal in Sans*rit termed  +uk%akr  # 8ṇa  or in its older form  +ukrakr  # 8ṇa from 'hich the -hinese terms  yan$yin evolved see ;ote M# in other 'ords the concept of Integral ?ualism ('hich is fundamental to Vedism# as can be observed in the Sans*rit root form for )eaven vi. C diu  pronounced div or dyu (depending on the  place of accent#. That the Vedans 'ere fully a'are of )eaven>s dual (rightL ?ar*# aspect is clearly evident from the Rig Veda  =W."" 'hereby the ?ar* ;octurnal aspect of ?yaus is pictured as a lac* Steed vi.  +yāva “dar*+colored“ a+va “horse“ kr  # +anehih  “adorned 'ith pearls“ in contrast to its ?iurnal right aspect pictured as a red ull vi. usriya vr  # s :aha  (cf. Rig Veda V !=.M and V MW.=#. This Vedic concept of “)eaven S*y“ disavo's the commonly adopted erroneous vie' 'idespread among modern contemporary self+styled 3roto+Indo+,uropeanists according to 'hich the 3I, form of the 'ord for “)eaven“ denoted li*ely “the ?aylight S*y“ (and that only in their futile -onstructions and fictitious Inventions# proving indisputably that the srcinal designation of the term denoting )eaven in fact covered both ?iurnal and ;octurnal as 'ell as right and ?ar* (vi. Bhite and lac*# aspects of )eaven. The same forms are observable in 9atin dium “open s*y“ @ld Slavic divu “an ominous bird symbolic of the dar* inauspicious aspect of )eaven“ )ittite Fiu X C Biu “(Sun#+ god“ ancient ,gyptian Fy! (pronounced Fyu E "Byu “the god of atmosphere”# @ld ,nglish Bi$ (modern Bues day or the day of )eaven again 'ith de+voiced plosive initial as by all 3aisaci tongues etymologically related not to the day of 9atin god 4ars (the god of 'ar# but to Italian Giovedi X 9atin  Hovedies “the day of Iove vi. Jupiter“G The old form C Bi!az or thundering )eaven 'as substituted by Bhorr, a specifically 5ermanic god of thunder from 'hich derived ,nglish Bhurs + day# @ld )igh 5erman Ciu or Cio (pronounced Bsiu>Bsio from 3roto+5ermanic C Bi!az  #. The ancients undoubtedly perceived the thunder of )eaven as yelling vi. commanding and threatening supernatural voice of )eaven personified. )ence 4andarin -hinese term  Di (3inyin Romaniation# or Bi (Bade Romaniation as is actually pronounced# derived from @ld -hinese C Bi$(s) matching e:actly the 1nglo+Sa:on Bi$ (or Bi!  genitive Bi!es  Bues +day# ac/uired the meaning “emperor“ besides authentic “)eaven god supreme ruler“ (see ;ote =# (both -hinese and @ld ,nglish being the closest cognates of the 1natolian forms e.g. 3alaic Biyaz, 9ydian Biv  9uvian Bi!at “Sun+(god#“ but 'ith semantic shift in meaning from “)eaven“ in favor of the “Sun+(god#“ and also )ittite  2i!at “day“ see ;ote &#. The thundering )eaven as a rule 'as often associated or even identified 'ith the light of the Sun itself e.g. 5ree* eus )ebre' ah'eh altic 3er*unas Slavic Ja*o+bogu and his Vedic cognate Indra+bhaga as the successor of ?yaus. There is also @ld ;orse Bivar “gods (plural#“ matching the 9uvian Bi!ari(ya) “pertaining to Sun+ god“ 'hich confirms 5ermanic genetic ties 'ith ;ear ,ast languages (naturally including )ebre'#. The ancients also noticed that bet'een those t'o sharply opposed aspects of )eaven there is a transitional phase neither bright nor dar* (in ,nglish called appropriately “t'ilight“ vi. t'o lights a blend of both# hence they selected vo'el “a“ (as neutral one bet'een bright and high “i“ and dar* and lo' “u“# to designate that aspect of )eaven. Therefore the vo'el “a“ had to be inserted in bet'een di and u  thus forming the diphthong stem of the 'ord vi. C  Di N a N u   Dyau  (the medial “ i “ had to change into glide bet'een consonant and follo'ing vo'el# 'hich became authentically  Dyau(s). @n the other side the ancient 5ree* form for )eaven vi. Ceu(s) E "Dieu(s), displays the flagrant 5ree* change from authentic “a“ into “the %eatin$ e+vo'el“ of the sheep and goats (Fust in the same 'ay as the vo'el “a“ is  pronounced in 4odern ,nglish see ;ote W#. This %eatin$ of the 5ree*s permeated all aspects of life in ancient )ellas as it 'ere the goat their tribal totem in anti/uity (cf. Sans*rit mātar   9atinLSlavic mater>mati, -hinese ma, Sumerian ama for “mother“ but the common 5ree* mI(tIr) li*e the “ me@ cry of the sheep and goats though ?oric 5ree* had (?6#+ mā(tIr), and 4ycenaean 5ree* ma  and ;@T me)J They even conceived the 1ll+5od 3an (related to Vedic 3YZan# as having hind/uarters legs and horns of a goat (due to their erroneous interpretation of the Vedic symbolic designation of god 3YZan as one “having 5oats instead of )orses yo*ed to his chariot“ namely the goat symbolically represented the god 1gni or the sacred 2ire# so their speech seemed to reflect such an erroneous attitude (subse/uently the un'ise medieval -hristians even e/uated the 5ree* god 3an superstitiously and nonsensically 'ith biblical Satan#. 1ncient 5ree*s had much difficulties in grasping commonly inherited Vedic ideas and concepts because of their inferior intellectual capacity 'hich they tried to overcome by superstition and inflated imagination. This 'as actually responsible for developing a notion of eus as primarily “daytime (daylight# S*y“ (opposed to his spouse )era 'ho impersonated “night+time“ and ?ar* feminine or yin principle# 'hich eventually led the self+styled 3roto+Indo+,uropeanists to the ,rroneous -onclusion (mentioned previously above# that it must have  been the srcinal authentic 3roto+Indo+,uropean concept of the 5od of )eavenLS*y. The final D  s termination in the nominative case 'as intended to indicate closing of the day in the evening naturally 'ith sleep  svapna in Sans*rit hypnos in 5ree* 'hich spread from that onto other nouns and 'ords as the common nominative termination. In Sans*rit the final  ;s alternate 'ith  ;h analogously to human breathing during sleep vi.  so (for inhaling or breathing in# versus ham (for
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks