I would like to present here a list of some interesting similarities between Sanskrit and English words which I have collected working on my dictionary. Some of these are genuine cognates, others are just funny coincidences. I have not sorted them out and leave to the readers the pleasure of guessing which are genuine cognates and which are the false ones :). See also the list of Russian-Sanskrit cognate verbs.
Transliteration crash course: ā, ī, ū – long sounds; ṛ = ri (a short i similar to Rus. soft рь/r‘); c=ch; j similar to j in “jam”; ṣ similar to sh; ś a subtler sort of sh, closer to German /ch/ as in ich .
| ass | āsa seat, the lower part of the body, behind, posteriors |
| attic | aṭṭaka an apartment on the roof |
| bumble bee | bambhara a bee |
| char | cūr to burn |
| cruel | krūra cruel, fierce, ferocious, pitiless, harsh |
| dumb | ḍimbha an idiot, an infant |
| estate | astatāti home |
| genuine | jenya genuine, true |
| hunter | hantṛ a slayer, killer |
| cook | kuka a cook |
| litter | lita broken, torn asunder asunder, scattered, dispersed, destroyed |
| little | liṭya to be little |
| look | lok to see, behold, perceive |
| mad | mad to rejoice, be glad,exult, delight or revel in, be drunk (also fig.) |
| mass | masa measure, weight |
| meet | mith to unite, pair, couple, meet (as friend or antagonist) |
| money | maṇi jewel, gem, pearl (also fig.) |
| omen | oman help, protection |
| overlook | avalok to look upon or at, view, behold, see, notice, observe |
| owl | ālu an owl |
| pence | paṇasa a commodity , an article of sale or commerce |
| posh | poṣa thriving, prosperity, abundance, wealth, growth, increase (see more in http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/02/what-is-the-origin-of-posh/) |
| press | preṣ to drive on, urge, impel, send forth |
| proud | prauḍha proud, arrogant, confident, bold, audacious, impudent |
| rite | rīti general course or way, usage, custom, practice, method, manner |
| sad | sāda sinking down, exhaustion, weariness |
| saint | santa true, real, actual, genuine, sincere, honest, truthful, faithful, pure, virtuous, good, successful, effectual, valid |
| scale | sakala consisting of parts, divisible |
| shallow | śarāva a shallow cup, dish, plate, platter |
| shock | śoka sorrow, affliction, anguish, pain, trouble, grief for |
| Sir | sūri a learned man, sage |
| smart | samartha very strong or powerful, competent, capable of. able to |
| spy | spaś one who looks or beholds, a watcher, spy |
| stale | sthālika the smell of faeces |
| stupor, stupid | sthāpita caused or made to stand, fixed |
| swear | svṛ (also written {svar}) to utter a sound, sound, resound |
| jump | jhampa a jump |
| urge | ūrj to strengthen, invigorate |
| use | yuj to make ready, prepare, arrange, fit out, set to work, use, employ |
| wax | vakṣ to grow, increase, be strong or powerful |
| win | van to conquer, win, become master of, possess |
| wish | vaś to desire, wish, long for, be fond of, like |
| toll | tul to lift up, raise |
| toss | tas to throw |
| union | yūni connection, union |
| urgent | ūrjita endowed with strength or power, important |
| vest | veṣṭ to dress, to wrap up, envelop, enclose, surround, cover, invest, beset |
| wage | vāja the prize of a race or of battle, booty, gain, reward |
| wagon | vahana a square chariot with a pole |
| varnish | varṇ to paint, colour, dye. |
| wed | voḍha led home married |
| zebra | śabara variegated, brindled |
borissoff 
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 30, 2012 at 20:57
Maggie G
The Ice Age made Britain a polar desert and there was nobody living here around 13,000 BC until the first settlers came to the British Isles from the Basque country in Spain. Inhabitants of British Isles are Basque DNA. That’s mean that in the past they spoke the same language. English is not aboriginal language of the Isles and Islanders are not descendants of IE speakers. It is language forced by multiple invasions.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/
The English language has been shaped by a number of other languages over the centuries, and many English speakers know that Latin and German were two of the most important. What many people don’t realize is how much the French language has influenced English.
During the Norman occupation, about 10,000 French words were adopted into English, some three-fourths of which are still in use today. This French vocabulary is found in every domain, from government and law to art and literature – learn some. More than a third of all English words are derived directly or indirectly from French, and it’s estimated that English speakers who have never studied French already know 15,000 French words. You can see 1,700 words that are identical in the two languages right here: True cognates. English pronunciation owes a lot to French as well. More than 50% of modern English words are Norman French.
French language, even Norman French, is Vulgar Latin- screwed up latin by slaves, mercenaries, traders- with only less than 300 words from Gaelic. Vulgar Latin was spreaded by Roman Empire military and colonial administration. They have also 2 legal systems: Jus Civicum and Jus Gentium- root of Enlish common law.
Vulgar Latin in France had 3 branches: Norman, Central- Paris, and southern. Southern or Occitan is similar to language spoken in Catalunya. In France and Spain were languages opressed. Today Spanish and French are just one of dialects from past, but remaked. Occitan is then most original and closest to Vulgar Latin. As we know there was Vedic culture in ancient Rome and Greece. Then we can theoretize that Greek and Latin are Vulgar Sanskrit since they lost Sanskrit grammar on their way.
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test3materials/HistEngoverhead.htm
There would be Sanskrit related words even in Esperanto or Yidish
November 30, 2012 at 21:22
borissoff
Thank you for your comment! As I said, this list is a ‘side-product’ of my other research. I never studied this particular area as my interest is mainly in Slavonic – Sanskrit parallels. What you wrote is generally correct but, in my view, a bit simplistic. I also treat assertions like “there was Vedic culture in ancient Rome and Greece” with caution. First one needs to define what is “Vedic culture”.
July 20, 2013 at 11:10
achyut
Respected Sir you have done a wonderful work. How hard you must have worked on the subject can be understood.Sir I bow my head before you.May I use some of the words shown by you for my article. Please give a reply.
thanking you
Your`s truely
A.V.Vishwarupe (retired Head of the department of History, Hoslop College, Nagpur, India
July 20, 2013 at 17:30
borissoff
Dear Mr. Vishwarupe, I thank you for your kind words of support. It is nice to know that my modest work is required. You may use any material published on my site with a proper reference. If you have any particular questions I shall gladly answer them. Best wishes!
November 22, 2013 at 03:28
Hummingwords
Very nice post! there are many more like
Attraction-Aakarshan
Path-path
Near-neyare
In Russian also, there are uncanny similarities with Sanskrit. Infact, fire in Russian is called Agni!
November 22, 2013 at 08:21
borissoff
We need to distinguish between funny coincidences (words sounding similar) and true cognates (words sharing common origin). So the pair ākarṣaṇa `pulling, drawing near, attracting’ indeed sounds a bit similar to attraction but the Skt. word comes from karṣa `the act of drawing, dragging’ + an adjective forming suffix –na (becoming -ṇa due to the preceding r) leading to karṣaṇa pulling to and fro, dragging, tormenting’. The initial ā- is an emphatic prefix. So the structure of this word is ā–karṣa–na. The Eng. attaction comes from Latin attractus – past participle of attrahere `to draw, pull; to attract’ from ad– `to’ + trahere `draw’. Lat. root trah- is probably related to Skt. drāgh `to stretch, lengthen’ but this needs a special research. So, as you see, things are not that simple. As I said, the list I gave has not been sorted out but many of the word-pairs in it are true cognates.
June 4, 2014 at 16:13
Prahlad Nrsimha Das Adhikari
According to Vedic Literature from Akarsana come the word Krsna the most attractive one.
June 4, 2014 at 21:10
borissoff
Yes, indeed this witty etymology is very popular among modern Krishnaits. This is how it was formulated in Rosen, S. 2006. Essential Hinduism, Praeger, p.224:
“Krishna” means “the all-attactive one,” referring to God in his original form. Etymologically, the word krish indicates the Lord’s attractive feature, and na refers to spiritual pleasure. When the verb krish is added to the affix na, it becomes krishna, which means “the absolute person, who gives spiritual pleasure through his all attractive qualities.”
While I treat every religion with respect, as a linguist I can hardly support this assertion. To start with, the oldest attested meaning (Rig-Veda) of the verb kṛṣ (the correct transliteration of Rosen’s krish) was: `to draw, draw to one’s self, drag, pull, drag away, tear’. Its derivatives demonstrate very well its actual cardinal meaning e.g. kṛṣi `ploughing, cultivation of the soil, agriculture’ and, particularly, the guṇa form karṣaṇa primarily meaning `pulling to and fro, dragging, tormenting, vexing’. As you can see, it has little in common with `attractiveness’.
The word kṛṣṇa is Vedic which means that it had existed long before it started to be used as a name of Viṣṇu’s avatar, particularly in Bhagavad Gita. It has a clear and undisputed meaning `black, dark, dark-blue’ with a good Indo-European history. By the way, it explains the particular skin colour of Kṛṣṇa . The reference to the affix ṇa as `spiritual pleasure’ is based on its fictitious association with the post-Vedic term nirvṛti `complete satisfaction or happiness, bliss, pleasure, delight’. This is how it is commented in the authoritative Monier Williams dictionary: “invented for the etymology of kriṣṇa”.
So let us leave the `metaphysic etymology’ to the sphere of religion, where it may be appropriate, whilst keeping it separate from the `scientific etymology’.
November 22, 2013 at 08:42
borissoff
You are right about Rus. ogn’ but even here things are not that simple. Just to give you an idea of the complexity, this the relevant entry from the dictionary I am working on (the # marks are technical and encode italics, pls. ignore):
ogon’ огонь agony agni अग्नि
fire fire, sacrificial fire
Ukr. #ogо́n’ ого́нь#; OCS #огнь#; Bulg. #ògăn òгън#; Srb #о̀gnj о̀гањ#; Sln. #ògǝnj# Cz. #оhеň#; Slk. #оhеň#; Pl. #ogień#; USb. #woheń#; LSrb. #hogeń#
Also #ogn’ огнь#. This fundamental Vedic word, so prominent in Indo-Aryan, Slavonic and Baltic, is virtually non-attested in other IE groups. The only reliable cognate is Lat. #ignis# `fire’ since Hitt. #agniš# is considered an Indo-Aryan loan (ESSJa 32.31). As to its etymology, it was defined as “a big mystery” in ESSJa (idem). Native Skt. grammarians (Uṇādi Sūtra उणादि-सूत्र) derived it from the verb #ag# अग् `to move tortuously’ (MW 4) because of the leaping and flickering (tortuous) movement of fire. However, this may be a case of `popular etymology’. Still this explanation appears more logical than attempts to explain it via a hypothetical IE *#ṇgnis# allegedly being a compound made of *#ṇ-gni# `non-rotting’ and thus connected with the cremation ritual (ESSJa 32.32–33). This controversial theory is based only on the dubious OLith. #ungnis# (Lith. #ugnis#) recorded only once. This could be a case of a co-articulatory nasal infix and, as correctly noted by VAS (3.118-119), it is not sufficient to justify either the hypothetical IE *#ṇgni# or the fictitious `Balto-Slavonic’ *#ungnis# (e.g. postulated in DERK (364)). Notably, USrb. #woheń# and LSrb. #hogeń# give interesting examples of opposite-directional prosthetic processes. Polabian #vid’en# additionally gives a curious example of #g# > #d’# change. GILF 51; VAS 3.118-119; ESSJa 32.30–33; DERK 364. Rating: 6
June 29, 2014 at 15:05
Vladimir Yatsenko
Ukrainian vohon’, and similar derivations such as ‘wohen’ etc., with w/o/u at the beginning of the word, can also be derived from Sanskrit root vah, ‘to carry’, vahni ‘fire’, and not necessarily from ag, and agni.
July 3, 2014 at 00:18
borissoff
Sorry,
I was away. I shall respond in a few days.
July 14, 2014 at 15:01
borissoff
Dear Vladimir, Skt. vah is not related to Ukr. vohen’ вогонь! The addition of v is a typical feature of Ukrainian and some Southern Russian dialects. Also, the letter h in the Latin transliteration of Ukrainian stands for the Cyrillic g (pronounced as [ɣ̞] It is also characteristic of Upper Sorbian (Lusatian). Compare the Slavonic: Ukr. vohо́n’ вого́нь; OCS ogn’огнь; Bulg. ògăn òгън; Srb о̀gnj о̀гањ; Sln. ogǝnj; Cz. оhеň; Slk. оhеň; Pl. ogień; USb. woheń; LSrb. hogeń. In linguistic terms this is called “a prosthetic v“. Note that with Lower Sorbian the prosthetic is h. Also #vah# is securely linked to voz – vozit’ `transport, carry, draw’ and other IE cognates i.e. Av. vaz– Gk. ochéō ὀχέω `carry, drive’, Lith. važiúоti `drive’; Latv. vazat `drag about’, OIs. wagn, Old High German wagan`carriage, cart’, Eng. wagon. You see, one should not treat a word’s etymology without taking into consideration its forms attested in other related languages and also of its diachronic development in time. This is what you call `scientific’ etymology.
However, talking about ogon’/agn’/agni `fire’ its ultimate etymology is still debated. This is how I comment on it in the draft of my dictionary (please ignore ## marks, they stand for italics in my database. Also ESSJa stands for Trubačev, O. N. Ėtimologičeskiy Slovar’ Slavyanskix yazykov. Praslavyanskij leksičeskij fond [Etymological Dictionary of Slavonic Languages. Pra-Slavonic lexical fund] Moskva: “Nauka”, 1974):
“This fundamental Vedic word, so prominent in Indo-Aryan, Slavonic and Baltic, is virtually non-attested in other IE groups. The only reliable cognate is Lat. #ignis# `fire’ since Hitt. #agniš# is considered an Indo-Aryan loan (ESSJa 32.31). As to its etymology, it was defined as “a big mystery” in ESSJa (idem). Native Skt. grammarians (Uṇādi Sūtra उणादि-सूत्र) derived it from the verb #ag# अग् `to move tortuously’ (MW 4) because of the leaping and flickering (tortuous) movement of fire. However, this may be a case of `popular etymology’. Still this explanation appears more logical than attempts to explain it via a hypothetical IE *#ṇgnis# allegedly being a compound made of *#ṇ-gni# `non-rotting’ and thus connected with the cremation ritual (ESSJa 32.32–33). This controversial theory is based only on the dubious OLith. #ungnis# (Lith. #ugnis#) recorded only once. This could be a case of a co-articulatory nasal infix and, as correctly noted by VAS (3.118-119), it is not sufficient to justify either the hypothetical IE *#ṇgni# or the fictitious `Balto-Slavonic’ *#ungnis# (e.g. postulated in DERK (364)). Notably, USrb. #woheń# and LSrb. #hogeń# give interesting examples of opposite-directional prosthetic processes. Polabian #vid’en# additionally gives a curious example of #g# > #d’# change.”
June 30, 2014 at 05:01
Vladimir Yatsenko
The whole approach to etymology today is still in its beginning stage. Of course, scientific approach has its great advantage over ‘popular etymology’ in terms of phonetic and phonemic precision, but has not much to offer in terms of semantic relations. It is believed that phoneme has no meaning, starting from Patanjali 2 B.C. in India and ending with Saussure 20 c. in Europe. Nevertheless, this approach led us nowhere, and in itself is a dead end, one can say, for it has no systematic approach. Such an approach can be founded only on semantic values of etymons. Actually all the meanings are only contextual products of this system of etymons, simple root-sounds ideas, which bear the most general significance and subtly relate to the psychology of articulation of meaning in human apparatus. The contextual meanings can easily develop in time and even overlap with one another based on this ever-present system of etymons as articulatory meaningful units or rather devices. It supports a productive and living process of meaning generating articulations in a systematic way. This system of etymons is to become a major target of etymology as a science, in the similar way as Mendeleev’s table was for chemistry.
Sanskrit alphabet is a key to this system.
July 14, 2014 at 16:07
borissoff
I would not agree that “The whole approach to etymology today is still in its beginning stage”. In fact, great progress has been done in establishing the correspondences of thousands of words in related languages and also on clearing of their origins. Having said this, I do agree with you that for many words we do not know the original or primordial meaning. Take a word like the Eng. sputnik `satellite’ where we apparently know that this is definitely a loan from Russ. sputnik спутник meaning `companion, co-traveller’. We can go one stage deeper and break the Rus. word into three elements (morhpems) s-put-nik where s- is a prefix connected with the preposition s/so `with’, put = put’ `path’ way, road’ and -nik is a productive word forming (nominal) suffix. Going even deeper we may further break the suffix -nik into the adjective suffix -n- (e.g. puten `worthy, good’) + the linking vowel i and the suffix -ka. This is the limit we can go without involving a more ancient source – Vedic (Sanskrit). The prefix s- is obviously related to sa स `prefix – when compounded with nouns to form adjectives and adverbs it may be translated by “with”, “together or along with”‘. The suffix -ka is also clearly related to ka क – originally an interrogative base (what? etc.) widely used as a suffix added to nouns to express diminution, deterioration, or similarity. Armed with this knowledge, we may interpret Rus. sputnik as `one who is accompanying the way, travel” or satellite . Still the ultimate meanings of the elements forming this word are not known. I believe this is what you meant in your comment and I quite agree with you on this. Without knowing this we cannot say that we know the “etymology” of the word because “etymology is derived from the Greek word ἐτυμολογία, etymologia, itself from ἔτυμον, etymon, meaning “true sense” and the suffix -logia, denoting “the study of”. What we do not know is “the true sense”.
This problem is very ancient. Plato marvelled on it in his Cratylus. The idea you offer to move deeper into etymology through some general meaning of certain sounds is also not new. It is termed “phonosemantics” or sound symbolism. For example, it has been generally accepted that, at least in the IE languages, the sound i is often met in words denoting something small, restricted: little, squeeze, Skt. liṭya `be small’, It. piccolo `small’. The sounds u/o, on the other hand, often make part of words meaning `large’ or `horrible e.g. Skt. ugra उग्र `powerful, violent, mighty, impetuous, strong, huge’. I think you can easily find lots of examples. Knowing this one can, for example, guess that out of the two Japanese adjectives tiisai and ookii the former would mean `small, little’ and the latter `big’. Some suggest that the origin lies in the speech physiology. To produce i one has to almost completely close the vocal tract leaving just a small restricted air passage. Contrarily, o/u are very open sounds. This explanation does make sense. We can also tie here the s sound. To make it one also has to almost close the air passage bringing the tongue tip close to the alveoli. It would be natural to assign the general meaning `close to smth.’ to it.
This is very interesting and definitely worth studying although this method is full of controversies. I also agree with you that simple one-sound Skt. radicals may give a lot of insight here. Take the fundamental Vedic ṛ ऋ described by grammarians as “a sound inarticulate or reiterated as in stammering”. “Stammering” may be interpreted as speaking by forcing an obstacle (speaking with difficulty). Now compare the meanings of the verbal root ṛ ऋ `to go, move, rise; to advance towards a foe, attack; to cast through, pierce” all of these meanings fall into the semantic circle of “doing smth. with force, forcing through an obstacle’. Of course this is a highly speculative analogy but it is good enough as an illustration. I believe this is what you had in mind by “productive and living process of meaning generating articulations in a systematic way”.
July 14, 2014 at 20:01
Vladimir Yatsenko
Thank you for this elaborate answer, yes, I mean exactly this, the varnic approach to meaning, varna-sphota, as it were, though it is not considered to be a single meaning bearing unit, but morpheme. I think that it has a particular sense, or general significance, which is grounded in the psychology of articulation. The human apparatus has a particular structure, which can produce certain sounds by certain efforts. The general significance is in this very effort to articulate a certain significant state of being. Your description of etymon ‘R’ is very intuitive, the same of i and u.
Now, to make my point as briefly as possible, if we take all major vowels a-i-R-L-u of Sanskrit we can find a particular movement of articulation. ‘A’ is effortless, only a vibration of the vocal cords, the sound flows freely through the mouth without any obstacle. ‘I’, on the other hand, is pressed by the tongue up to the palate, requires a lot of effort, as if narrowed down ‘A’ pressed to the top. This ‘narrowing down, forceful and directional movement towards the goal, an intention to reach out’, as it were, ‘tendency to occupy a space’ (according to Sri Aurobindo), ‘an actualization of the general, pointing out to the specific, concentrating upon one point, piling up or gathering into one place’ is a general significance of this varna. It adds its ‘color’ to the etymon and gives it this particular significance. U on the other hand is labial, articulated by the two lips closing the passage or creating a tension between them, forming an inner space within the mouth chamber with the resonance. It has a significance of firmly occupied space, medial significance, the connection of the two in one space, duality, you will find duals and second person in IE languages having it, thou, you, yuyam, yuvam, tvam etc. Because the second person has the significance of connectivity with the speaking first one.
So one can say that if ‘a’ can be defined as having an idea of ‘indifferent or rather indeterminable existence’, then ‘I’ is differentiating it, forcing it towards a goal, as it were, whereas ‘u’ is occupying a space, being medial, and ‘R’ is a vibrant state, narrowed forcefully working within a limit, bReaking thRough, as it were. ‘L’ dental vowel is a weakened ‘R’, it has similar but weakened significance (gLiding or sLiding significance), if R is cRushing, L is cLashing, cLapping, clasping etc. etc.
The significance of varnas is rather felt than perceived by the mind. Poets feel it very distinctly, so it must be there. What is a difference between ‘big’ and ‘huge ocean’, for example? So for the feeling these two are different significances, but for the mind they are identical as synonyms.
Varnic significance exists due to the psychology of articulation and influences the development of languages and their vocabularies in a particular way. There is no clear border between them, for languages are rather felt than constructed by the mind; the meanings move from one zone to another. And the meanings of the words are always applied and contextual. The usage of the word in language is secondary to the meaning of the etymon.
Even if originally vohon’ is from ag-ni, its changes are permitted in the direction of other articulatory device in the system and could come to mean similar significance, by associating itself with vah/ vahni ‘carrier’, vaj, ugra, ‘strong’, vas, to burn, shine, usra, etc. etc. The changes of a and ‘I’ are common in Sanskrit, Yaska even speaks of etymologist who believed that agni is based on ‘I’ varna, which makes it interesting for us. ‘I’ was always seen as weakened ‘a’, but not ‘u’. I even thought that aj and ij are the basic roots for agn-i: Aj ‘to drive ‘and ij/yaj ‘to sacrifice’. But how interestingly these all roots relate in one systematic way of meaningful articulation.
So my point was that there is no yet clear science of semantic changes within the system of articulatory devices, etymons. It requires a higher capacity of the mind, I guess. But the subject is fascinating anyhow.
September 22, 2014 at 20:04
Prasanna
Hi, the post is nice in detail..I am not sure whether even numbers like two (dvi),three (thri), penta (pancha), septa (sapta),six(shash,shan),octo (ashta), nine (nava), decimal (dasa),etc..were more common. Also some are some similarities like new-neo (naveen), nose (naashi), eye (aksha), hand (hasth), man (manu).. Even the zodiac symbols used in greek-latin system (aries,taurus,etc..) were strikingly similar with sanskrit zodiacs (mesha, rishab,etc..). probably there were some borrowings from either side or maybe co-evolved together.
Regards,
Prasanna
September 22, 2014 at 20:12
borissoff
Indeed, the numbers are very similar. I shall give you a more detailed answer in a few days.
October 5, 2014 at 11:05
borissoff
Sorry for the delay. Indo-European numerals, generally, show a remarkable similarity. To save time please look at this table comparing numerals in practically all major IE languages. As you can see, there is indeed a great deal of similarity between Rus. and Skt. The cardinals from 1 to 10 are easily recognisable and the difference between Rus. and Skt is less than the diff. between Skt. and the modern Indian IE languages. However, there are two exceptions: `one’ and `nine’. In my view, there is a reason for that. These were numbers having a specific symbolic meaning. Number one was the beginning of all, the symbol of the higher being and also it was used as a taboo word for `God’. This is why Skt. eka `one’ also stands for: `alone, solitary, single, happening only once, that one only; single of its kind, unique, singular, chief, pre-eminent, excellent; sincere, truthful’. English one , in my opinion (not all linguists would agree with this), is related to Skt. ana `he, she, it; this, that’ and Rus. on `he’. The Rus. word for `one’ odin follows the same logic, but it could be related to Skt. ādima `first, prior, primitive, original’ All of these words cold be used as an epithetic replacement for `God’: `He, That one, The First one, The Truthful one etc.’.
Number `nine’ is also special. It is the end and also the beginning of a new cycle of 10. The ancient world-view was completely built around cyclisity. The eternal wheel of time, cycle of birth and death. So the essence of Rig Veda is described by some scholars as: “[…] the ancient nucleus of the RV [Rigveda] is represented by the myths of the cosmogonic theme and the primary meaning of the whole collection was to serve the ritual connected with the change of the yearly cycle which was understood as the destruction of the universe, its sinking into the chaos and its new resurrection i.e. restoring the cosmic order. ” (Elizarenkova, T. J. Grammatika vedijskogo jazyka Moskva: “Nauka”, 1982).
It is not surprising that in Skt. and some other IE languages this number is related to `new’: Skt nava, `new’ and navan `nine’, Latin nŏvus `new’ and nŏvem `nine. Slavonic is an extremely achaic culture and at is base has not only the fundumental idea of the eternal wheel of life and death but also the matriarchal setup and the central role of the Great Mother whose function was “the creation and maintenance of the Universe in the form of the constant cycle of rebirth of life” (Nikolaeva 2010a: 101) and her creative personification Deva `Maiden’ It would be quite logic to presuppose that the divine number symbolising the beginning of the new cycle should be attributed to Deva giving devjat‘ `nine’. The special connection of `nine’ with a maiden is also prominent in other cultures. There is an interesting book The Quest for the Nine Maidens.
King Arthur went to Avalon with Morgan and her eight sisters. In this book McHardy traces similar groups of nine maidens throughout the ancient Celtic and Germanic worlds and far beyond. In Pictland, Wales, Ireland, Scandinavia, Gaul and Iberia the nine Maidens were known in mythology and as practising priestesses. As far away as Kenya the Kikuyu people claim descent from nine sisters, while a cave painting in Catalonia shows nine dancing maidens from almost 15,000 years ago. Weather-workers, shape-shifters, diviners and healers – the Nine Maidens are linked to the Old Religion over much of our planet.
As an Indian you should also be aware of the special significance of `nine’ in the Hindu mythology. A good example is the ancient traditions like Garba — Gujarati folk dance celebrated in navaratri (navarātra “a period of 9 days”), a celebration lasting nine nights.
The word Garba comes from the Sanskrit word for gestation or pregnancy. Traditionally, the dance is performed around a clay lantern with a light inside, called a Garbha Deep. This lantern represents life, and the foetus in the womb in particular. The dancers thus honour Durga, the feminine form of divinity.
Garba is performed in a circle as a symbol of the Hindu view of time. The rings of dancers revolve in cycles, as time in Hinduism is cyclical. As the cycle of time revolves, from birth, to life, to death and again to rebirth, the only thing that is constant is the Goddess (Devi), that one unmoving symbol in the midst of all of this unending and infinite movement. The dance symbolizes that God, represented in feminine form in this case, is the only thing that remains unchanging in a constantly changing universe (jagat). This perfectly agrees with the symbolism of Slavonic `devjat’.
The Garbha Deep has another symbolic interpretation. The vessel itself is a symbol of the body, wherein Divinity (in the form of the Goddess) resides. Garba is danced around this symbol to honour the fact that all humans have the Divine energy of Devi within them.
September 22, 2014 at 20:11
Prasanna
sorry for late update on zodiac thing. i think its rather common visuals(shape of constellations) seen from sky from both indic and european zones rather than language-closeness. so zodiac similarity does not come into account here..
September 22, 2014 at 20:15
borissoff
You are , probably, right here.
March 25, 2015 at 03:14
Bashuli
This, Sir has been a great article to read. Thank you. Man in English and Manush (human) in Sanskrit is another such word.
March 25, 2015 at 08:10
borissoff
Dear Bashuli, you are right. It is such a well known example that I did not even bother to include it into this list. Indeed, Eng. man is related to Vedic manuḥ (manus in the European way of spelling) “man” and also to mānuṣa “a man, human being” and manu “thinking, wise, intelligent; man, mankind; the father of men)”. The root in all these words is believed to be man ” to think , believe , imagine , suppose , conjecture” which is, in my opinion, an extention of a more rudimentary root mā “intelligence” (compare its other extensions mata “thought, believed, imagined, supposed, understood”, mati “thought , design , intention , resolution”). Latin mentio “calling to mind, a cursory speaking of, a making mention, mentioning, naming, mention” and Eng. mind are also related here. Compare also Russian mnit’ “to think, believe” and mnenie “opinion” related to Lithuanian mãnymas “opinion” and Skt. manana “thinking, reflection, meditation, thought”.
April 18, 2015 at 04:14
Bashuli
Mashtick which means brains and Matha which means head must have some bearing too. Thankyou for your kind reply. I would like to use your work for my article on a similar topic, with proper references also. I would also like your view on Proto Indo European Language . I have heard that the PIE langauge has no written records.
April 18, 2015 at 07:52
borissoff
Of course, you may refer to it but web-posts are, generally, not suitable as proper sources for academic papers. Also, the list I give, has not been sorted out and contains both true cognates ans also those having superficial resemblance.
It would not be serious of me to try to explain such a complex issue as “Indo-European” linguistics in a comment. I suggest you read a standard text-book first. The current “main-stream” theory is conveniently explained, for example in Clackson’s “Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction”. If you check the web you will find a free pdf.
As for “Mashtick which means brains and Matha which means head” I am not quite sure about them as I am not a specialist in the Indian vernacular languages. At first glance both words are difficult to connect with man ” to think, believe, imagine, suppose, conjecture”. It is possible that matha could be related to Vedic mati “thought, design, intention, resolution, determination, inclination, wish” but this needs to be properly researched.
April 23, 2016 at 15:52
Mukund
Dear sir, I wanted to know if
1)
“word”
(Old English, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch woord and German Wort, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin verbum ‘word’.)
and Sanskrit are “arth” are false cognates like behatar and better?
2) If all of these (http://) relations are correct?
April 24, 2016 at 09:42
borissoff
Dear Mukund, I have never heard about any linguist trying to link “artha” ‘aim, purpose’ (mentioned only a few times in Rig-Veda but having become very prominent in in the later Sanskr. religious literature as one of the four aims of human life) with “word”. Phonetically it does not make any sense. As for the site that you mentioned, It does have a few correct cognate pairs but has so many mistakes in spelling and transliteration that make it useless. Forget about it. If you are really interested in this subject I suggest you read the introductory part of Burrow’s “Sanskrit”. It contains lots of true and reliable cognates and is also very informative. You can read it here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4NWt-VR39pGck04dExyMTR4RjA
April 24, 2016 at 09:51
Mukund
Thank you very much Sir, I was actually wondering if the origin of “word”, indicates that IE languages are connected to the Proto-Germanic, ultimately forming the Tree of all languages and as a Sanskrit student I have read the usage of word “artha” for the “meaning of a word”, as in “shabdaarth”.
April 24, 2016 at 10:00
borissoff
Dear Mukund, from your expression “indicates that IE languages are connected to the Proto-Germanic” I deduct that you do not know the basics of the I-E theory. Please read Burrow’s introduction. I would also advise you not to concentrate your attention on “proto-Germanic”. It is merely one of the I-E off-shoots which gained undue importance in the initial era of I-E studies driven by the German romantic nationalism.
June 24, 2018 at 17:31
parimal Mondal
I have acquired knowledge.