This is a short list of some most obvious Russian – Sanskrit cognate verbs. Since one should compare similar forms, I give Russian verbs in the same format as Sanskrit verbs are presented in traditional dictionaries (for example in Monier Williams’ Sanskrit-English Dictionary): verbal root – 3rd person, singular, Present Tense form. For a comparison of conjugation paradigms see my other post. See also the Russian – Sanskrit nouns
Transliteration.
Sanskrit: 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 .
Russian: š = sh; č = ch; ž is similar to the g in genre. Vowels generally correspond with the exception of ɨ which is a sort of ‘hard’ i sounding somewhat similar to unstressed i in Eng. it . Stressed vowels are lengthened and resemble Sanskrit ‘long’ vowels.
Russian is a fully Satem language and most of Russian sounds have direct correspondences in Sanskrit. There are a few exceptions, though. Sanskrit does not have the sound z so Russian z corresponds to either Skr. h (Rus. zima = Skr. hima ‘winter’) or j (Rus. znati = Skr. janati ‘to know – (he) knows’). Russian is similar to Avestan in this respect. As it regularly happens in Sanskrit, sounds r and l are often interchangeable : Rus luč = Skr. ruc ‘ray – shine’. Russian shares with Sanskrit such a feature as the iotation of vowels. Any vowel can be iotated by merging with a preceding palatal approximant /j/. Traditionally, Sanskrit iotated vowels are transliterated as ya, yo, ye etc. while their Russian analogues – as ja, jo, je… . To avoid confusion with Skr j (sounding similar to j in jam), I transliterate Rus. iotated vowels here in the Sanskrit way also as ya, yo, ye. etc.
Meaning Rus. Russian Sanskrit Meaning Skr.
to argue, to slander | vad – vadit | vad – vadati | वद्-वदति | to confer or dispute about; to contend, quarrel |
to ask | pros – prosit | prach – prachhati | प्रछ् – पृच्छति | to ask, to question, interrogate |
to bake, cook | peč – pečyot | pас – pacati | पच् – पचति | to cook, bake, roast, boil |
to bark | lay – laet | rai – rayati | रै – रैयति | to bark |
to be, exist | bɨ – budet | bhū – bhavati | भू – भ्वति | to become, be |
to beat, hit | tuz – tuzit | tuj – tojayati | तुज् – तोजयति | to hurt |
to burn, to shine | gor – gorit | ghṛ – ghаrati | घृ – घरति | to shine, burn |
to caress, fondle, comfort | las – laskaet | las – lasāti | लस् – लसति | to play, sport, frolic; to embrace |
to cart, transport, carry, draw | voz – vozit | vah – vahati | वह – वहति | to carry, transport, convey |
to catch | lov – lovit | labh – labhate | लभ् – लभते | to take, seize, catch |
to coddle, pumper; to cherish, foster | lel – lelyeet | lal – lālayati | लल् – लालयति | to caress, fondle, foster, cherish |
to continue to do smth.., to linger on; to delay; to entertain | bav – bаvit | bhū – bhavayati | भू – भावयति | exist, be found, live, stay, abide, happen, occur; to cause to be or become; to cherish, foster |
to cough | kasl – kaslyaet | kās – kāsate | कास् – कासते | to cough |
to dawn | svet – svetaet | śvit – śvetate | श्वित् – श्वेतते | to be bright or white |
to die , decease | mer – mryot | mṛ – marati | मृ – मरति | to die, decease |
to drink | pi – p’yot | pī – piyate | पी – पीयते | to drink |
to dry, desiccate | suš – sušit | śuṣ – śuṣyati | शुष् – शुषति | to dry, become dry or withered |
to exterminate, to make to die | mor – morit | mṛ – mārayati | मृ – मारयति | to cause to die, kill, slay |
to fall | pad – padyot | pad – padyate | पद् – पद्यते | to fall |
to fart | perd – perdit | pard – pardati | पर्द् – पर्दति | to break wind downwards |
to fear, be afraid | boya – boitsya | bhyas – bhyasate | भ्यस् – भ्य्सते | to fear, be afraid, tremble |
to give away | otda – otdayot | uddā – uddadāti | उद्दा – उद्ददाति | to give away |
to give to drink | po – poit | pa – pāyayati | पा – पाययति | to cause to drink, give to drink, water (horses or cattle) |
to go, walk | i – idyot | iṭ – eṭati | इट् – एटति | to go |
to happen, to be present, to frequent | bɨv – bɨvaet | bhū – bhavati | भू – भ्वति | to happen, occur |
to knead | mes – mesit | miśr – miśrayati | मिश्र् – मिश्रयति | to mix, mingle, blend, combine |
to know | zna – znaet | jña – jānāti | ज्ञ – जानति | to know, have knowledge |
to lick | liz – ližet | lih – lihati | लिह् – लिहति | to lick |
to live, dwell | živ – živaet | jīv – jīvati | जीव् – जीवाति | to live, be or remain alive |
to lock; to hide (dial.) | ver – veraet | vṛ – varati | वृ – वरति | to cove, screen, veil, conceal, hide, surround, obstruct, to close (a door) |
to love, like | lyub – lyubit | lubh – lubhati | लुभ् – लुभति | to desire greatly or eagerly, long for, be interested in |
to make come back, turn around | vorot – vorotit | vṛt – vartayati | वृत् – वर्तयति | to cause to turn or revolve |
to make warm, to melt | top – topit | tap – tapati | तप् – तपति | to make hot or warm |
to measure | mer – merit | mi – miroti | मि – मिरोति | to measure, meter, out, mark |
to milk | do – doit | dhe – dhayati | धे – धयति | to suck, drink |
to overturn, pull down, to drag down | val – valit | val – valiti | वल् – वलति | to turn, turn round |
to praise | slav – slavit | śram – śramyati | श्रम् – श्राम्यति | sound, shout, loud praise |
to pull, stretch | tyan – tyanet | tan – tanoti | तन् – तनोति | to stretch (a cord), extend |
to push away, to cast (an arrow etc.); to flow or run quickly (usually down), to fall down | ri – rinet | rī – riṇāti | री – रीणाति | to release, set free, let go |
to revolve, rotate | vert – vertit | vṛt – vartate | वृत् – वर्तते | to turn, turn round, revolve, roll |
to roar, bellow, howl | rev – revyot | ru – ravīti | रु – रवीति | to roar, bellow, howl, yelp, cry aloud |
to roll, turn around | val – valyaet | val – valate | वल् – वलते | to turn, turn round |
to see; to know how to do smth.. | vid – vidit | vid – vidati | विद् – विदति | to notice, observe; to know, understand, perceive, learn, become or be acquainted with, be conscious of |
to seek, search; to wish | isk – iščet | iṣ – icchati; eṣati | इष् – इच्छति; एषति | to seek, search; to desire, wish, long for, request |
to sell | proda – prodast | pradā – pradatte | प्रदा – प्रदत्ते | to give away, give, offer, sell |
to separate (off), to detach | oddel – oddelyaet | uddal – uddalati | उद्दल् – उद्दलति | to split away, break away |
to shake | tryas – tryasyot | tras – trasyati | त्रस् – त्रस्यति | to tremble |
to shine, glitter | bles – bleščet | bhlāś – bhlāśate | भ्लाश् – भ्लाशते | to shine, beam, glitter |
to sit | sid – sidit | sad – sīdati | सद् – सीदति | to sit upon or in or at smth. |
to sleep | spa – spit | svap – svapiti | स्वप् – स्वपिति | to sleep, fall asleep |
to sob | rɨd – rɨdaet | rud – rodati | रुद् – रोदिति | to weep, cry, howl, roar, lament, wail |
to squeeze, pinch | klešč – kleščit | kliś – kliśnati | क्लिश् – क्लिश्नाति | to torment, cause pain |
to stay awake | bde – bdit | budh – budhyati | बुध् – बुधय्ति | to be awake |
to stick (to), to adhere (to) | lip – lipnet | lip – limpyati | लिप् – लिम्पयति | to be smeared; to be attached to, to stick, to adhere |
to stick, to mould, model | lep – lepit | lip – lepayati | लिप् – लेपयति | the act of smearing, daubing, anointing, plastering |
to sweeten | slad – sladit | svad – svadati | स्वद् – स्वदते | to make sweet or pleasant or agreeable |
to swim, float | plav – plavaet | plu – plavate | प्लु – प्लवते | to float, swim |
to take | bra – beryot | bhṛ – bharati | भृ – भरति | to hold, possess, have, keep |
to think, imagine | mni – mnit | mna – manate | म्ना – मनति | to think, believe, imagine |
to torture | pɨt – pɨtaet | piṭh – peṭhati | पिठ् – पेठति | to inflict or feel pain |
to touch | kas – kasaet | kaṣ – kaṣati | कष् – कषति | to test, try; to rub |
to turn back, to come back | vert – vertaet | vṛt – vartate | वृत् – वर्तते | to turn, turn round |
to twirl, to turn round and round | vert – vertit | vrt – vartayati | वृत् – वर्तयति | to cause to turn or revolve |
to wake up | bud – budit | budh – budhyate | बुध् – बुध्यते | to wake up |
to have sexual intercourse | yeb – yebyot | yabh – yabhati | यभ्- यभति | to have sexual intercourse |
to wish, want | vol – volit | vṛ – vṛṇoti; varayati | वृ – वरति; वरयति | to choose, select, choose for one’s self, choose as; to like, love well |
81 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 19, 2012 at 10:25
derwan
Nicely done. I wonder if someone should do a comparison all modern Slavic languages, Old Church Slavonic, Sanskrit, Old Persian and Avestan language to find out what really Indo-European language was.
November 19, 2012 at 21:52
borissoff
I do not want to appear agnostic, but there is a serious issue with the very notion “Indo-European language”. Unless we take a creationist stand and imagine a “divine” language handed down to our ancestors by “Gods” or their equivalents, the idea of a uniform “proto-language” from which all modern IE languages “sprang” or “developed” is totally untenable. I would like to quote this passage by Pulgram:
“Now when we reconstruct, through the methods of comparative historical linguistics, an array of asterisked Proto-Indo-European forms, the procedure itself implies that the result of our endeavors is a uniform construct. We are, in fact, creating an idiolect-not of a speaker, to be sure, but of the scholar, of the method, as it were. This procedural circumstance spares us a priori all scruples and worries over uniformity. But note that the result emanates from the method, that different procedures would deliver different results [my emphasis]. I am not, of course, attempting to refute the validity of comparative linguistics; it is, as scholars have repeatedly said, our only choice, for any other modus operandi ‘removes the basis for scientific [historical] linguistics’. But it must be conceded that such a reconstruction is something of a fiction, since ‘the terms Proto-, Ur-, Primitive are firmly attached to formulae which are timeless, non-dialectal, and non-phonetic.’ Anything in linguistics that is timeless, nondialectal, and nonphonetic, by definition does not represent a real language. That is to say, the uniformity which reconstructed Proto-Indo-European exhibits is not representative of a reality“. (Pulgram, E. “Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction”. Language, Linguistic Society of America, 1959, 35, pp. 421-426).
So the “Indo-European” or “proto-Indo-European” are nothing but rather abstract formulae which are subject to change if we change the parameters or axioms used in the deduction method. Languages have always existed as aggregations of dialects and idiolects and the linguistic situation 10 thousand years ago was as complex as it is today. The same refers to the hypothetical “Proto-Slavonic” which, in my view (I am not the only one who thinks so), is also a fiction. Modern Slavonic languages do not derive from a single “proto-language” but continue ancient dialects which at different times converged or diverged, mixing with surrounding languages. As to their dating Oleg Trubačev wrote:
“Presently, there is an objective tendency to push back the dating of the history of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of pra-Slavonic or pra-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.” (Трубачев, О. Н., Этногенез и культура древнейших славян: Лингвистические исследования (Москва: Наука, 2003, p.25).
Sanskrit evidence is very important for Slavonic studies. Unlike hypothetical reconstructions, Vedic Sanskrit is a real language going back to at least 4000 years ago. Comparing modern Slavonic languages with it we can see their remarkable internal archaicity. Compare Rus./Ukr./Bulg./Serb./Sloven./ Czech/Polish рivо/piwo and Vedic pīva ‘water, drink’ which has on top of it pena/pina/рiаnа (Skr. phena ‘foam’) and which our grand-fathers used to drink (Skr. piyate) out of kubok/kubek (Skr. kumbha ‘jar, pitcher’). These and hundreds of other words sound as modern and mutually comprehensible today as they were 4-5 thousand years ago.
November 20, 2012 at 12:58
derwan
When I was very young, fascinated by the history of religion and mythology IE. Mythology as human knowledge about the world around us. Knowledge (Pol.wiedza Skr.veda) handed down from generation to generation by means of language. Who were our ancestors, and why we should remember them? Since they began to ask questions and seek answers. To see (Rus.видеть Skr.veda) what is after the horizon . This curiosity about the world and entrepreneurship is the basis of our civilization. Who today is a descendant of these people is very interesting. Genetic is respond to that question, genetics today makes the revolution in many fields of science about the history of the man and his achievements. Coming to the point, should not we check many theories about IE languages. And actually start from the beginning, since comparative linguistic studies and physical anthropology lead to such false conclusions about the origin of nations. Nations and ethnic groups of their language as a vector of culture and civilization, because the vector has changed. The same applies to the Slavic mythology and comes to my mind one of the many examples of misinterpretation and so the widespread belief that a supernatural being that is the Rusalka was borrowed from Greek or Latin. Why is borrowed? If we know that the Slavs are the descendants of the Scythians – Aryans. And if Slavs are the trunk, the Greeks and Romans is their branch, no doubt!
November 20, 2012 at 18:16
borissoff
Your inquisitive attitude is definitely laudable, however, your comment is a bit too general. I do not feel to be qualified to discuss genetics but I agree that the mainstream “Indo-European” theory needs revision. Now to your question about rusalka. Etymologising names of deities is one of the most unrewarding occupations. We should distinguish between a name (which is often an epithet subject to local tradition, fashion etc.) and the essence of the deity. The particular name “rusalka” may well be a relatively recent adaptation of the Greek ῥουσάλια (Lat. rosalia] Med., Mod., and Dem. religious festival in honour of the dead at the Pentecost) but the idea of a female deity intricately connected with the spring fertility festival is very ancient and goes to the palaeolithic Mother Goddess. You may call this concept “rusalka”, “vodjanica”, “wila”, “kupalka”, “rožanica” etc. this does not really matter because each of these names is superficial and transitory. Even if the particular name “rusalka” is fashioned after the Latin “Rosalia” (which is still a theory, see e.g. this note in Wenzel, M. “The Dioscuri in the Balkans”, Slavic Review, Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, 1967, 26, 363-381
), this does not really prove anything. I am currently working on an article and this is one of the paragraphs (this is still a rough draft!):
“The concept of “the Indo-European archaism of Slavonic Language and culture (индо-европейский архаизм славянского языка и культуры)” (2003, 182) and its inherent poly-dialectal nature should equally apply to the mythology and the pre-Christian religion of the Slavs. Trubačev spoke against simplistic attempts to ‘reconstruct’ the I.E. religion as a retrospective projection of the elaborated pantheons of classical Greece, Rome and ancient Indo-Iran. Such an approach would be particularly unfruitful for establishing the I.E. identity of Slavonic heathen deities attested only at the latest period on the verge of adopting Christianity and shortly afterwards. On many occasions it is impossible to clearly link them to the prominent figures of classical pantheons.Trubačev believed that the reason for this was not the scarcity of written sources or some particular ‘forgetfulness’ of Slavs but the difference in the cultural stage. According to him, it would be “[m]ore natural and logical to presuppose with pra-Slavs in these cases a reflection of a more archaic stage (гораздо естественней предположить у праславян в этих случаях отражение архаической стадии” (2003, 196) and that it would be “more realistic to consider that with Slavs there continued and not yet reached its completion the sublimation of the lower level anthropomorphic animistic beliefs and denominations (наиболее реалистично считать, что у славян продолжалась, причем так и не завершилась сублимация более низовых антропоморфных анимистических представлений и их обозначений).”(2003, 196). Consequently, in Trubačev’s view, the recorded attempts to unify and standardise numerous disordered archaic local cults of the Earth and the Sky were relatively recent developments aimed at creating a counter-balance to Christianity. Importantly, he particularly stressed that characteristic for Slavs was not the worshipping of a set of formal anthropomorphic deities but, primarily, “seasonal rituals similar to that related to the name of a straw doll at seeing-off of spring (сезонные обряды вроде того, который обозначается названием соломенной куклы проводах весны)” (2003, 196). Thus, if one has to draw parallels between Slavonic and Greek cults, the comparison should be done with the most archaic layer such as the Minoan religion which similarly “lacked genuinely aesthetic representations of its divinities” (Persson, 1942, 8) and was also centred on seasonal fertility rituals.
November 22, 2012 at 15:45
derwan
Yes, Indeed. Trubačev opinions quoted here are valid and no way polemics with them. But I would like to point out that He created his works Trubačev in the second half of the 20th century. Almost to this days, we did not know who really were Slavs and with which archaeological culture they were connected, all was only in the sphere of ideas often very divergent. Today we can derive from the written sources have not yet under consideration freely. If we can link the ancient peoples known from sources with the Slavs, it’s questions arise. Scythian peoples known to us from many sources, which today can be linked to the Slavs, formed advanced material and spiritual culture, they society seems to be on a higher level of civilization. The material culture of the Slavs of 7-11 century seems to be very poor, which is certainly reflected in the spiritual culture and social organization. The reasons for this can be traced of appearance the Huns and their domination. Wars, the movement of peoples have a negative impact on the structure of proto-Slavic societies. Ruling elites, warriors elites and intellectual elites were decimated. Lack of priests, rulers and warriors made the mythology was simply, which does not mean that it has always been. This argument is now authorized. I think evidence of this are in linguistics studies.
Of course, everything I write here is very simplified, I hope that I managed to pass the idea.
November 22, 2012 at 21:13
borissoff
I am not ready to get engaged in the discussion on such a vast topic. My approach is mainly linguistic. I agree with you that linguistic evidence, correctly and objectively interpreted, may provide many clues about the origin of Slavonic peoples. I shall prepare a separate post about “iranisms” in Slavonic. Perhaps it would be of interest to you.
August 13, 2013 at 04:01
Prateek Sharma
The estimated age of Vedic Sanskrit is disputed. How can you estimate the age of an entity that survived only through verbal passing from one generation to the other. Tilak’s materpeice The Arctic Home in the Vedas is a good read on this subject.
‘Durga Shaptsati’ tells us that Medha Rishi’s Ashram (Hermitage) is situated at the bank of Ocean. However there is no sight of Ocean within a thousand Km of Medha Rishi’s Ashram in present day Madhubani. It is instead situated on the footsteps of Himalyas.
What are these facts pointing to? There are evidence of several geographical anomalies in ancient Indian Text. Strange course of Yamuna River, Existence of Jangal Pradesh. Mention of a river named ‘Neil’ in the Texts (Neil Saraswati tantra).
August 13, 2013 at 06:42
borissoff
Dear Prateek, the adequate dating of the Vedic language may indeed be the key to the Indo-European languages puzzle. Give me a few days and I shall prepare a more detailed answer.
August 17, 2013 at 18:40
borissoff
Dear Prateek,
Firstly, I would like to note that we must not mix language as the means of creating linguistic forms (e.g. the Vedas) and the ideology (culture, religion etc.) as the content of these forms. Therefore, the Vedic language (a direct continuation of certain IE dialects) and the Vedic world-view and religion expressed in the Vedas are two separate things. Dating the Vedic language and generally dating the IE languages is a fundamental problem. As you rightly wrote ‘[h]ow can you estimate the age of an entity that survived only through verbal passing from one generation to the other.’ The conventional dating of the Vedas, assigning them to the period between 1700 – 1000 B.C., is based on the theory of the ‘Aryan invasion’ that presumably happened around 2000 B.C. when the ‘Aryan nomadic cattle-growers’ are believed to have invaded the Indian subcontinent from the Central Asian steppes destroying the Sindhu-Saraswati civilization and imposing their language and culture on the indigenous peoples. The invasion theory is also the backbone of the traditional comparative and historical linguistics so the dating of the presumed ‘Proto- Indo-European’ directly affects all of the subsequent dating and also the time line of the mythical ‘Aryan Invasion’ and the date of the creation of the Vedas. Indeed, archaeological evidence confirms the South-Eastward migration from the area north of the Black Sea towards the Central Asia and Iran about 4-3000 B.C. (Kuz’mina, 2007) but it is not wholly supported by genetic studies as Bennedose correctly noted in his post of March 17, 2013 at 13:26 in this thread.
As you know, in India the ‘Invasion theory’ is also criticised by many historians and archaeologists. The crucial question here seems to be the Sindhu-Saraswati culture and whether it was ‘Aryan’. While some historians like R.S. Sharma advocate a foreign origin theory placing the Ṛgveda in the period between 1500-500 B.C. (Sharma, 1999, 85) there is an increasing number of scholars like B.B. Lal, S.P. Gupta, Bhagwan Singh who identify the Harappan civilization of Sindhu-Saraswati with the early Vedic culture. The Indian archaeologist Shikaripur Ranganatha Rao, who identified the remains of an underwater city off the Western coast of India as the legendary city of Dvāraka of the Mahābhārata times (Rao, 1999), believes that the language of the Indus people was Sanskrit. Dr. Rao also atempted to decipher the Harappan signs reading them in Sanskrit (Rao, 1992). The ‘invasionists’ are on the defence now and, as it was noted by M.K. Dhavalikar, “are now gradually being tempered into being immigrationists” (Dhavalikar, 2007, 12). If it is proven that the Vedic Aryans were indigenous to India or resettled there in the prehistoric times, the date of the Vedas would be placed into a much earlier period than 2000 B.C. However, again there is the confusion between ‘language’ and ‘culture’. Could it be that Harappa was `Vedic’ by language but not `Aryan’? The Latin language continued to remain Latin after the adoption of Christianity. Yes, it had acquired some new words, the content of the texts had been changed but it had remained, essentially, the same language. Similarly, we may rightfully imagine an ancient ‘Old Indian (I.E.)’ language in which the Vedas were later composed. The change of ideology in Rome from Paganism to Christianity does not mean a ‘Christian invasion’ so the adoption of the ‘Aryan’ ideology should not necessary mean an in-mass invasion of some mythical “Aryans”. The Vedas mention the seven ṛṣi who were the seers of the Vedic hymns.
Of course, I read Tilak’s The Arctic home in the Vedas His dating of the Vedic period was: 1. Pre-Orion Period (6000-4000 B.C.) that he defined as Aditi. 2. The Orion Period (4000-2500 B.C.) in which the major Vedas were completed. 3. The Kṛttikā Period (2500-1400 B.C.) in which most of the Brāhnaṇas were composed. 4. Pre-Buddhist Period (1400-500 B.C.) which was the time of the Sūtra literature. Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak was an expert in the Vedas and his reasoning is very hard to overturn. I have not come across any serious and detailed criticism of his theory. It is usually just dismissed out of hand. I do not feel qualified to comment here. I, personally, do not venture into proposing any dating of the Vedas and Vedic language (this is why I put it in my post as “going back to at least 4000 years ago.”). I can say that I am certainly not an ‘invasionist’ but rather an ‘immigrationist’, using Dhavalikar’s terminology. I believe that the picture is more complex and it could involve multiple migrations starting from the pre-historic times, thousands of years of linguistic and cultural contacts, spread of new ways of life and religions etc. This is why the theory of several waves of ancient migrations proposed by Anatole A. Klyosov & Igor L. Rozhanskii appears interesting to me. If we accept this scheme then the ancient IE language (Proto-Vedic) could have been brought to the Nort-West of India with the first wave of R1a peoples and the second, more recent wave of ‘aryans’ could have been predominantly a movement of ideology rather than of peoples.
References
Kuz’mina, E. E. and Mallory, J. (Ed.) The origin of the Indo-Iranians, (Leiden, The Netherlands & Boston: Brill, 2007).
D.K. Dhavalikar, The Aryans. Myth and Archeology (Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2007).
R. Rao, Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilisation (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, 1992).
R. Rao, The Lost City of Dvaraka (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi, 1999).
S. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans in India (New Dehli – Manohar, 1999).
November 22, 2012 at 15:49
Janos Csemege
Great job. you may be interested read this […]
November 22, 2012 at 21:01
borissoff
Dear Janos, thank you for your comment and the links! I am sorry, but I had to cut your message short because it is off-topic. I try to limit this blog to discussing etymology and historical linguistics. Thank you for your understanding.
November 30, 2012 at 21:55
Maggie G
Sanskrit, as defined by Pāṇini, had evolved out of the earlier “Vedic” form […]
Mainstream historical linguists hold that Proto-Slavic in turn developed from the Proto-Balto-Slavic language, also a common ancestor of Baltic languages. […] The language of the Lithuanians is strikingly similar to Sanskrit. […] Lithuanian being the European language grammatically closest to Sanskrit. […]
Why all this important with connection with Russian? Kiyevan Rus is couple steps from Lithuania. This is couple steps from Scandinavia and Germans. Not 8000 kilometers to Dwarka, Gujarat […]
November 30, 2012 at 22:34
borissoff
Dear Maggie, sorry, I had to edit your message. Most of it was off-topic so I took the liberty of distilling only what appeared relevant to this post. You seem to uphold the widespread “myth” about the “exceptional affinity of Lithuanian and Sanskrit”. The origin of this myth lies in the 19th century Lithuanian romantic nationalism or “the cult of antiquity“. I do not have time to discuss it here in detail but I plan a special post on this soon. All I can say is that the presumed similarity between Lithuanian and Sanskrit is greatly exaggerated. Believe me, I studied Lithuanian and know it well enough to compare with Sanskrit. Also I do not support the “Proto-Balto-Slavonic”. It is one more myth.
January 12, 2013 at 16:49
Vera
Добрый вечер! Мой вопрос об этимологии названия Сочи. На основе грамматики XIX века реку Сочи еще в XIX веке часто называли Соча (женского рода)
В долине реки Сочи климат влажных субтропиков, скалы «плачут» водопадами, влага сочится сквозь горные породы, изливаясь по каплям со скал, образуя горные ручьи и притоки, устремляющиеся вперёд и впадающие в большую реку Сочи.
http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche
Сью – cyu – сочиться, изливаться по каплям, падать, струиться из….
Сьют (сьюч) – cyut – сочиться, течь, устремляться вперёд, падать водопадом с высоты.
Возможно ли, рассматривать слово «Сьюч», как первое и древнейшее наименованием реки Сочи?
January 12, 2013 at 19:09
borissoff
Я уже писал, что этимологизация собственных имён – весьма неблагодарное занятие. Во-первых, мы должны сделать допущение, что это слово происходит из определённого языка. Это уже само по себе весьма спорно. Совсем необязательно, что “Сочи” происходит из одного из ИЕ диалектов. Первое, что мне приходит в голову – грузинское название пихты, которая в изобилии произрастает в этом регионе: სოჭი сочи. Вполне понятно, что для русского человека слово “Сочи” сразу же ассоциируется со словом “сочиться”, но это то, что называется ” народная этимология”. Слово сок – сочить(ся) действительно имеет прямую связь с санскритом. Вот (незаконченная) статья из моего словаря:
1654 сок sok ||sic, sik सिच् सिक
sok juice, sap|| to scatter in small drops, sprinkle, besprinkle or moisten with
||UA сiк (Gen. со́ку); BY сок, BG сок, SRB со̑к; SLO sọ̑k; PL sok, U.LS sоk; L.LS sok; LT sakaĩ; LV svek̨i|| EICH 3
Теперь про вашу смелую гипотезу. Должен вас огорчить, но принять её не могу по той причине, что в латинской транслитерации деванагари буква с читается как /ч/ и, соответственно, च्यु cyu читается как ч’ю. Этот корень родственен скр. са ча “двигаться тута-сюда” и, возможно, также русскому чал в слове причалить, но к Сочи он отношения точно не имеет.
January 13, 2013 at 10:16
Vera
Остаётся только позавидовать смелости гепотизы, авторы которой утверждают, что название горной реки Сочи происходит от грузинского слова «ель». Кстати, река Соча есть не только на Кавказе, но и в Словении (99 км.) и Италии, жаль, что там нет грузинов. Возможно, название Соча существовало на Кавказе и в бронзовом веке, а объяснение названию нашли порывшись в современных словарях горцев, как это случилось и с названием Майкоп, которое гораздо древнее города.
Скажите, слово «cyut» читается «ч’ют», «ч’ютати»? …как «чуть-чуть»?
8 cyut – cyotati – to cause to stream forth , to flow , trickle , ooze, to fall down.
Благодарю Вас.
January 13, 2013 at 11:08
borissoff
Я не утверждаю, что это так, но как гипотеза — вполне имеет право быть. Наличие названия в Словении это интересный факт, но, сам по себе, он ничего не доказывает. В ‘сатемных’ ИЕ языках начальное so/sa– очень распространено. По моей терминологии это ‘семема’ (морфема, которая имеет семантическое значение). Её общее значение — ‘вместе, с’ В славянских языках (как и в санскрите) это очень распространенный предлог и приставка. Практически все слова с начальным sa– в санскрите имеют значение ‘имеющий что-то, состоящий из’: सच saca ‘attached to > worshipping, a worshipper’, सचा sacā ‘together, together with > near, at hand, along’ и т.д.. Совпадение названия словенской реки может быть и случайным.
Глагол cyut (cyotati) ‘to flow, trickle, ooze’ читается как ч’ют – ч’ётати (значок ‘ обозначает, что /ч/ не смягчается перед йотированным гласным). Никакого отношения к сок/сочить и Сочи он, на мой взгляд, не имеет.
January 13, 2013 at 14:57
Vera
Если учесть, что в 3500—2000 до н. э.на обширных территориях от Словении до Балкан, на землях всего Причерноморья, Приазовья, включая и Кавказское побережье, жили праславянские племена, то совпадения в названиях рек Соча в Словении и на Кавказе, не будут казаться случайными. Существовавшие в эпоху раннего бронзового века племена Кеми-обинской археологической культуры в Причерноморье и Майкопской археологической культуры на Кавказе, имеют не только антропологическое сходство, но и схожие обряды курганных захоронений. Похожи и их золотые, и серебряные украшения (звериный стиль) и типы ведения хозяйства.
Исток реки Соча в Словении находится на вершине горы Триглав, и так же, как и на Кавказе, cyut (cyotati) – течёт, сочится, сквозь скалы, впадая в полноводное русло. […]
January 14, 2013 at 10:52
borissoff
Я не могу комментировать это утверждение, но в любом случае, на этих территориях жили и предки многочисленных других народов. Лингво-этническая карта 5 тыс. лет назад была такой же сложной, как она есть сейчас. Я не историк и пока готов диcкутировать только в области этимологии и лингвистики. Я уверен, что cyut (cyotati) никоим образом не имеет отношения к этимологии Сочи. Однако, рекомендую перечитать Трубачева: Этногенез и культура древнейших славян: Лингвистические исследования. Москва: Наука, 2003. У него есть некоторые предположения о просхождении этнонима Хорват, которые вам могут быть интересны с точки зрения вашей теории о возможной связи словенской реки Соча с названием реки на побережье Черного моря.
January 15, 2013 at 12:33
Vera
Благодарю Вас!
October 28, 2015 at 17:18
borissoff
Возвращаясь к нашей дискуссии, вам может быть интересно моё выступление на торжественном заседании, посвящённом 85-летию со дня рождения академика РАН О.Н. Трубачёва, состоявшееся 25 октября в Международном фонде славянской письменности и культуры.
February 1, 2013 at 16:43
Ramachandra Vinayak Sakhadeo
My mother tongue is Marathi. I was struck right in my childhood while reading a travelogue of a Marathi magician who had been to the then Soviet Russia, when he described how the word Sakhar in Russian means exactly that in Marathi. In Marathi Sakhar means Sugar !! While Sanskrit Sharkara is close enough, Hindi Shakkar is very close. Alas, Hindi is a very recent language ! Although Marathi dates back to 12th Century C.E. My best wishes to you for the great Dnyan Tapasya that you have undertaken. Long live Indo-Russian friendship.!
February 1, 2013 at 17:35
borissoff
Thank you!
ॐ सह नाववतु | सह नौभुनक्तु |
सहवीर्यं करवावहै |
तेजस्वि नावधीतमस्तु | मा विद्विषावहै |
ॐ शांतिः शांतिः शांतिः || ||
February 2, 2013 at 17:17
Ramachandra Vinayak Sakhadeo
Thanks for the prompt reply !
February 20, 2013 at 08:04
borissoff
Dear Ramachandra, thank you for directing many Indian readers to my site! Perhaps you may be interested to read my new post “Weer Rajendra Rishi on the affinity of Russian and Sanskrit”.
March 6, 2013 at 14:54
bennedose
Thank you for this wonderful list of verbs.
March 6, 2013 at 15:12
borissoff
Thank you for visiting my site!
March 7, 2013 at 02:18
Carl
Russia and other Slavic speaking nations all have languages similar to Sanskrit. Genetically, all have R1a1a1 (M17) which originated in India 12,000 years ago and all have R1a1a7 (M458) which originated in Poland 6,000 years ago, but never came to India so Indians don’t have that. M17 moved out, evolved and got a mutation M458. That stayed in Europe.
Go figure.
March 7, 2013 at 06:52
borissoff
Thank you for your comment. I shall give you a more detailed reply in a few days.
March 15, 2013 at 18:17
borissoff
Sorry for the delay. Genetics is a highly specialised area of study. My approach is purely linguistic. As a linguist I can clearly see the fundamental affinity lying at the base of all Indo-European languages. I can also clearly see the undeniable remarkable affinity between Slavonic and ancient Indo-Iranian languages. This affinity is confirmed by the genetic closeness. Even the early and rather rough studies demonstrated this. Look at this genetic map (Kivisild, T. ‘The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations’ The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003, Volume 72, Issue 2, 313-332) showing the average genetic distances of various Eurasian populations. Is not it amazing that the average genetic distance between a Punjabi and an Eastern-European is twice as close as between Punjabi and Gujarati! There was a period when I tried to resolve this riddle reading lots of articles on genetic research but I soon found that they were as controversial as linguistic studies. The crucial question is with the dating of mutations. There are also many other issues: founder effect, multiple bottlenecks etc. I do not feel qualified to argue with what you wrote but there is an interesting theory uniting both the AIT and the OIT proposed by Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii in their article “Haplogroup R1a as the Proto Indo-Europeans and the Legendary Aryans as Witnessed by the DNA of Their Current Descendants” .. This is the abstract:
This article aims at reconstructing history of R1a1 ancient migrations between 20,000 and 3500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred sixty (4460) haplotypes of haplogroup R1a1 were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1a1 populations and timespans to their common ancestors in the regions from South Siberia and northern/northwestern China in the east to the Hindustan and further west across Iranian Plateau, Anatolia, Asia Minor and to the Balkans in Europe, including on this way Central Asia, South India, Nepal, Oman, the Middle East, Comoros Islands, Egypt, etc. This study provides a support to the theory that haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia, apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions, around 20,000 ybp. Not later than 12,000 ybp bearers of R1a1 already were in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10,000 and 9000 ybp, and around 9000 – 8000 ybp they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Europe east to the British Isles. On this migration way or before it bearers of R1a1 (or the parent, upstream haplogroups) have developed Proto Indo-European language, and carried it along during their journey to Europe. The earliest signs of the language on passing of bearers of R1a1 through Anatolia were picked by the linguists, and dated by 9400 – 9600 – 10,100 ybp, which fairly coincides with the data of DNA genealogy, described in this work. At the same time as bearers of the brother haplogroup R1b1a2 began to populate Europe after 4800 ybp, haplogroup R1a1 moved to the Russian Plain around 4800 – 4600 ybp. From there R1a1 migrated (or moved as military expeditions) to the south (Anatolia, Mitanni and the Arabian Peninsula), east (South Ural and then North India), and south-east (the Iranian Plateau) as the historic legendary Aryans. Haplotypes of their direct descendants are strikingly similar up to 67 markers with contemporary ethnic Russians of haplogroup R1a1. Dates of those Aryan movements from the Russian Plain in said directions are also strikingly similar, between 4200 and 3600 ybp.
This theory of the two waves of ancient migrations, in my opinion, does explain a lot of linguistic facts. However, I would not like to start here a discussion in the area where I am not qualified. In this blog I try to stick to linguistics and philology.
March 16, 2013 at 09:26
borissoff
To add to my reply I would like to bring to your attention the most recent work of Igor L. Rozhanskii, Anatole A. Klyosov “Haplogroup R1a, Its Subclades and Branches in Europe During the Last 9,000 Years“. I am not qualified to judge this paper but it confirms my feeling that at the current stage the results of genetic research should be taken cautiously. The crucial question is, as I said earlier, the rate of mutation. For example, the difference in the mutation rate between Rozhanskii & Klyosov and the rate supported by Underhill is 250-300%! Naturally, the conclusions would be similarly very different.
March 16, 2013 at 14:29
bennedose
Dear Mr Borisoff. I think the following paper wil be of interest to you if you have not already read it.
INDO-ARYAN AND SLAVIC AFFINITIES, Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda
Click to access skulj_indo.pdf
March 16, 2013 at 16:55
borissoff
Thank you! Of course, I know this article. I generally agree with it in the part of comparison of Sanskrit and Slavonic. The examples they give are pretty obvious. I found particularly interesting the comparison of Slovenian and Sanskrit names. For me it is the most interesting part of the paper. I have doubts about the validity of the numerical comparison of the percentage of common words and the method used. Unfortunately, the article a written in a ‘pamphlet’ style, the authors tried to embrace everything from language to history and genetics in a small volume so the paper is too sketchy. The final part relating to genetics is definitely outdated. This article can hardly be rated as an academic paper but it is useful as an introduction into the interesting issue of Slavonic-Indo-Aryan affinity for non-specialists.
March 17, 2013 at 03:25
bennedose
Indeed yes. The genetics part is outdated. But the reference to the absence of shared word for metal fits in very well with newer genetic studies which suggest genetic links between India and Slavic language speaking nations between 12,000 and 6,000 years ago. The Y haplotype gene marker M548 originated about 6,000 years ago in Poland and did not drift back to India.
My theory is that some form of Indo European was being spoken in a wide area from India to eastern Europe and Russia in the last 10,000 years. It is possible that Afghanistan (Bactria/Marghiana) and western India could have served as one of the refugia for humans in Europe before the end of the last ice age 12,000 to 10,000 years ago, and there was repopulation north-east Europe from here. The R1a link definitely connects these areas.
In my view spread of language with Horse and Wheel after 2500 BC as suggested by David Anthony is wrong on a very long series of counts.
March 17, 2013 at 11:01
borissoff
As I said, I do not feel qualified to discuss genetics although I try to follow this important area of research. I have been studying Slavonic-Indo-Aryan affinity for many years and I have, perhaps, the biggest ever data-base numbering some 2000 word pairs. The first part of my research was inductive (collection of data) but I now move to the analysis stage. You see, simply declaring that “some form of Indo-European was being spoken in a wide area from India to eastern Europe and Russia in the last 10,000 years” is good enough as a working hypothesis but proving it at a proper academic level is a mammoth task.
When I look at my data I can clearly see on one had the undeniable systemic and fundamental affinity but on the other hand — the tremendous difference. Clearly such a deep division could not have formed recently. The numerous near-exact cognates relate to the most basic stratum of the language: verbs of action and movement, pronouns, numerals, kinship terms but there is a complete disparity at the ‘cultural’ stratum. You quite rightly mentioned the words for ‘iron’ but there is a general absence of common words for tools, implements, agricultural terms, names of plants and animals, religious terms. It would not be serious to discuss it in a blog format but I have a series of articles on this in my plan.
One more important, in my opinion, observation. We must not mix language as the means of creating linguistic forms and the ideology (culture, religion etc.) as the content of these forms. Therefore, the Vedic language (a direct continuation of certain I.E. dialects) and the Vedic world-view and religion expressed in the Vedas are two separate things. Most of the researches do not make this distinction so, in their view, if they do not find evidence e.g. of the horse cult in Harappa this should automatically exclude the Hindus-Valley civilisation from the I.E. language realm. Latin language continued to remain Latin after the adoption of Christianity. Yes, it had acquired some new words, the content of the texts had been changed but it has remained, essentially, the same language. Similarly, we may rightfully imagine an ancient ‘Old Indian (I.E.).’ language in which the Vedas were later composed. The change of ideology in Rome from paganism to Christianity does not mean a ‘Christian invasion’ and the adoption of the ‘Aryan’ ideology should not necessary mean an in-mass invasion of some mythical “Aryans” speeding on chariots and crashing everything they meet with “battle axes” as it was vividly imagined in the inflamed brains of the 19th century romanticists.The picture is much more complex. It may involve multiple migrations starting from the pre-historic times, thousands of years of linguistic and cultural contacts, spread of new ways of life and religions etc. This is why the theory of several waves of ancient migrations proposed by Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii appears interesting. If we accept this scheme then the ancient I.E. language could have been brought to the Nort-West of India with the first wave of R1a peoples and the second, more recent wave of “aryans” could have been predominantly a movement of ideology rather than of peoples. It is a general remark, of course, but it may give you a direction of thinking.
March 17, 2013 at 13:26
bennedose
The problem with several waves of migrations from anywhere is faced with what is currently and insoluble hurdle in the linguistics sense as I see it. Fundamentally ALL genetic studies of Indians shows that migrations if any occurred 8000 or more years ago – most genetics papers tend to say “No migrations (other than very recent historic period documented ones) have occurred since the last glacial maximum” The Last glacial maximum is dated as having ended about 12,000 years to 10,000 years ago.
Any linguistic theory that cannot postulate the existence of Indo European migrants that far back in time is either wrong, or will have to follow David Anthony’s shaky theory where he says that the elite somehow migrated and died out but left culture using a form of “franchising” that allowed locals to use the language.
However the virtual absence of any significant substrate in Sanskrit is highly suspicious. If Anthony’s theory is right there should be some substrate. Witzel is wrong in his Austro-Asiatic “Proto-Munda” theory because once again genetics goes totally against it. It can be rejected outright in my view. In any case a 4% substrate in Sanskrit should be looked at in the context of what I believe is a 25% to 40% non IE substrates in Greek and German. But I am unsure of the later statistic. In the case of Sanskrit, a 4% non IE words is called “substrate” and not “adstrate” and “proves” earlier language. There seems to be deathly silence when it comes to languages like Greek with a non IE huge substrate percentage. Clearly some linguistic theories need a relook
Finally there is no significant difference in Indian genetics suggestive of “Aryans” having migrated, except for a possible admixture of ancestral populations more than 6000 years ago. And the mix is a thorough mix with upper caste nrth Indian Brahmins sharing the same gene mix as lowest caste Dravidian language tribals. Theories based on linguistics alone can only go so far. In fact genetic evidence suggests an outward movement from Northwest India/Pakistan/Afghanistan and that actually fits in well with Zoroastrian history.
March 17, 2013 at 16:55
borissoff
Bennedose-ji, I am not going to argue with you for the simple reason: I DO NOT KNOW. I, personally, do not have any problem with the Out-of-India theory but it has to be proven. You rely heavily on genetics studies but they are controversial. I came across so many contradicting views that I have finally given it up. If you do “cherry-picking” you can always find some sort of proof to support one or another view in genetics research. And these articles are so terribly scientific looking! So I stick to my research and occasionally check for the news at the genetics front. As I said, the crucial issue with genetics is the calibration of the “clock”. Even a small difference would produce significant deviations in the span of thousands of years. It is easy to toss arguments back and forth in a social blog but putting it all in a form of an academic paper with proper argumentation which can convince specialists is a completely different thing! If you want me to judge your theory professionally, write an article with argumentation, references etc.. If you have any questions about language and linguistics I would gladly help.
March 18, 2013 at 03:36
bennedose
Well thanks for your response and no I am not going to assault you with arguments any more. The only point I want to make (with no reference to you personally at all) is that the community of linguists in general has been guilty of the very same cherry picking and selective use of facts, and in fact misrepresentation of facts to arrive at conclusions that are taken as “given” today. I foresee that some of these concluions will be proven wrong.
This is not an “Out of India” argument. There is no proof that language came out of India. There some proof that some genes came out of India a very long time ago. And there is no proof of genes coming into India in the same timeline as is stated for the spread of IE languages. That is all. Unfortunately the very same community of archaeologists and linguists who enthusiastically embraced genetics when the findings looked convenient are now not touching it at all. I suspect I know why. Unfortunately even today social media are being used to spread convenient but half baked linguistic theories. Wiki has an entry of mummies of “blond” people who had the “IndoEuropean” R1a gene as the migrated.
Thank you for responding.
March 18, 2013 at 12:16
borissoff
I agree with you that life does not stand still. There has been a break-through in genetics and even if the results are often inconclusive and contradictory, they do call for a thorough overhaul of the dominating I.E. paradigm. This is not an easy process and it takes a lot of effort and time to change the ideas and stereotypes, many of which have already “fossilised”. If you think you have something to contribute to this process, please formulate it and put into an academic format. I cannot help you with genetics as this is not my area but I could advise you on linguistics issues if you have any concrete questions.
September 25, 2013 at 20:45
Pavel Tikunov
Hello. Nice work. Just a little comment about “to catch lov – lovit labh – labhate लभ् – लभते to take, seize, catch”. There is a rather familiar Russian verb lapat’= I recon you could say it means the same, but fits even closer to S. There is a well-known game, Lapta, which is a very old version of a ball and stick/baseball game, essentially catchers.
September 25, 2013 at 21:54
borissoff
You are right. This has been already noted by Gilferding and I included it into my dictionary but with a low rating of 3 (hypothesis). This is the draft of the entry:
926 лапа lāpa labh लभ्
lapa paw to take, seize, catch
See лапать lapat’ GILF, 258 3
Lapta could well relate here as well.
However, Vasmer treats this root differently:
WORD: лов
GENERAL: род. п. -а, укр. ло́ви мн. “охота”, ст.- слав. ловъ ἄγρα, θήρα (Супр.), болг. лов “охота, добыча”, сербохорв. ло̑в, род. п. ло̏ва, словен. lòv, род. п. lóva, чеш. lov. Отсюда лови́ть, ловлю́, укр. лови́ти, др.-русск., ст.-слав. ловити, болг. ло́вя, сербохорв. ло̀вити, ло̀ви̑м, словен. lovíti, чеш. loviti, польск. ɫowić, в.-луж. ɫojić, н.-луж. ɫoiś.
ORIGIN: Родственно лит. lãvyti, lãvyju “упражнять, развивать”, pralãvinti “учить”, lavùs “ловкий, проворный” (см. ло́вкий), далее греч. атт. λεία ж. “добыча” (*λᾱιᾱ, дор. λᾱία — то же, ἀπολαύω “наслаждаюсь”, ληίς “добыча”, ληΐζομαι “уношу в качестве добычи”, гот., др.-исл. laun “награда”, д.-в.-н. lôn, др.-инд. lṓtam, lṓtram ср. р. “добыча”, лат. lucrum “выигрыш”. ирл. fо-lаd “богатство” (*vo-lauto-), lúag “похвала”; см. Бернекер 1, 735 и сл.; Траутман, ВSW 153; Уленбек, Aind. Wb. 265; Стокс 237; Торп. 371. Далее см. ло́вля, обла́ва.
PAGES: 2,508
and
WORD: лапта́
GENERAL: I., лопта́ “лопата; перо весла; палка с лопатообразным, широким концом, которым бьют по мячу, а также название этой игры”; диал. хлопта́, хлапта́, олонецк. (Кулик.), под влиянием хло́пать, сербохорв. ло̏пта, словен. lо̑рtа, чеш., слвц. lорtа — то же.
ORIGIN: Связано с лопа́та, восходит к праслав. *lоръtа; см. Брандт, РФВ 22, 250; Бернекер 1, 733. Ср. лит. lãраs “лист” (Буга, РФВ 66, 243). Венг. labda, lарtа “мяч” заимств. из слав., а не наоборот, вопреки Мi. ЕW 174; см. Соболевский, Лекции 81; Бернекер, там же. Ошибочно возводить к нем. Latte “планка, рейка” или ит. latta “удар” (Карлович 353), так как при этом остается неясным -п-.
PAGES: 2,460
November 19, 2013 at 19:38
dwc
Borissof, Nice compilation.
I have noticed even some pronouns/demonstratives look similar.
этот ~ etat in sanskrit. I don’t know much about Russian. Do you have any other list for pronouns
November 19, 2013 at 21:33
borissoff
Thank you! Yes, I do. I am a bit busy now but I shall prepare something for you in a few days.
November 20, 2013 at 17:19
borissoff
As you rightly noted, there are many pronouns and indeclinable words that are similar. Apart from the pair tot – etot (this – that) Skr. tad – etad there are: kotoryj `which’ Skt. katara, inoj `another one, different’ Skt. anya. Also samyj `same’ Skt. sama. Compare also Rus. tot samyj and Skt. tatsama both meaning `the same’. Of the indeclinable words there is a striking pair kogda – togda (usually pronounced in speech like kada – tada) `when – then’ vs. Skt. kadā – tadā. There are dozens of other near exact cognates in pronouns and indeclinable words. They will all be listed in my dictionary which I am compiling.
November 20, 2013 at 19:29
dwc
Thanks for your reply, Borissoff. I will be in the queue for your dictionary. When can we expect it to be published
November 21, 2013 at 08:38
borissoff
It takes time. Do you need it for your research or is it just a general interest? Check the list of cognates in Dr. Rishi’s book https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_2qHCJSqWB7VTktZjU3RzFSQ2s/edit?usp=sharing
November 21, 2013 at 19:32
dwc
Thanks for sharing the book again. No, I am not a researcher. I have just started ‘learning’ russian. So, it helps my memory by associating the existing knowledge to what’s there in Russian.
December 2, 2013 at 20:18
V. Bonn
Bonn
I have been told that the old name of Russia was Rishiya, and was so because in the Vedic times, many rishis (yogis, sages, meditators, brahmins etc.) went to the cold regions of the Himalayas and beyond. These rishis were quite spiritually elevated, and wanted the solitude afforded them by the northern regions. And that descendents of the Vedic culture that established itself in these regions still carry some of the cultural qualities, language, etc. Are you familiar with this line of thinking? If so, kindly enlighten me. Your website is very impressive, and you seem to really know your linguistics!
December 2, 2013 at 20:26
borissoff
I am a bit busy now. Give me a few days and I shall try to give you a detailed answer.
December 4, 2013 at 23:27
borissoff
As I mentioned in my other comments, etymologising proper names is the most unrewarding occupation. The origin of the ethnonym Rus’ is to this day a area of a fierce battle comparable by its scale to the notorious “Aryan invasion” controversy in India. Without going into the details, I can say that I agree with Mikhail Tikhomirov ((31 May 1893 — 2 September 1965) was a leading Soviet specialist in medieval paleography of Ruthenia. He was in charge of the Archaeographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR to which he was elected a corresponding member in 1946 and full member in 1953) who wrote: “The name “Rus’” is an ancient name of the Kiyevan Land – the county of the Polyane, known already in the first half of the 9th century [801 to 900].
Another prominent Soviet Linguist Oleg Trubachev (22 October 1930, Stalingrad – 9 March 2002, Moscow) was a Russian doctor in philology. He was an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences and served as the editor-in-chief of Etimologiya yearbook. His works are on the etymology of Slavic languages and on East Slavic onomastics) sought the origin of the name on the North-Western cost of the Black Sea where he located an ethons continuing the common ancestors of Indo-Aryans who remained there after their migration towards India although his theory has not been unanimously supported.
From the purely linguistic point of view, the words rus and ruskij sound identically to rus and rusyj `blonde, light-haired’ which may be connected with Skt. ruśat `shining, bright, white’. Both the Rus. and Skt words come from the same common root: Rus. luč (reads “looch”) and Skt. ruc (reads “rooch) which is also cognate with Lat. lux. However, many scholars think that the association between the ethnonym “Rus’” and the light colour is what is called “peoples etymology”. Still this explanation should not discarded out of hand.
Tichomirov was inclined to connect the name Rus’ with the name of the river Rusa mentioned in the ancient Arabian Ḥudūd al-ʿĀlam (The Limits of The World) and associated by some with the River Dnieper.
If so, it the river name could well be links to Skt. root ṛṣ – ṛṣati `to go move’ (also arṣati `to flow, flow quickly, glide, move with a quick motion) which is a suitable name for a river. The syllabic ṛ would be expected to correspond to Old. Rus. rŭ- (modern Rus. -oro-). Incidentally, the Vedic ṛṣi `authors or rather seers of the Vedic hymns i.e. according to orthodox Hindu ideas they are the inspired personages to whom these hymns were revealed’ also relate to the same root ṛṣ. The primordial meaning may be understood from other cognates: ārṣa `relating or belonging to or derived from ṛṣis; the holy text, the Vedas’ and arṣaṇa `flowing, movable’. Deified Speech (vaca, vac) was also compared to flowing river in the Vedas. Interestingly, there is Rus. dialectal arshan `a spring with clear water’ and also Turkic words like Kazakh arshan ‘a hot spring with healing water’.
So, as you can see, the whole matter gets rather complicated. In my opinion, it would be far-fetched to derive the name of Vedic Rishis directly from from Rus’ even though, eventually, these names may share a common root. Finally, I would like to repeat the wise words by Whitney (1885): “Etymology is from beginning to end a matter of balancing probabilities; and thick set with uncertainties and chances of error”.
December 28, 2013 at 16:47
Anastasia
Здравствуйте!
Спасибо за замечательную статью. Этимология вызывает мой горячий интерес с детства, а с тех пор, как хинди стал мне родным не только на эмоциональном уровне, а вполне знакомым – то есть я его достаточно хорошо понимаю и продолжаю изучать, перестаю удивляться количеству “совпадений”. Поделюсь своим открытием. Никак не могла найти внятное происхождение слова ДОБРО. А оно, согласитесь, сродни ключу славянского мировосприятия. однако жизнь преподнесла мне сюрприз. Когда я в очередной раз была в Индии. Случайно узнала, как звучит “спасибо” на конкани (язык Гоа и местности рядом). А именно: Део боро кору . КорУ, соответственно, далаю, а вот ДЭО БОРО! Део – от дэв – БОЖЕСТВО, ГОСПОДЬ, (дивья – божественный, чудесный, у нас – диво, дивный, дэви – богиня (девственница) у нас – дева, девять (божественное число), БОРО – благо. ТО ЕСТЬ ДЕО БОРО – ГОСПОДЬ и БЛАГО. Опускаем одну буковку Е – получается ДэОБоРО!! Господь Благ!
С уважением,
Анастасия Спешилова,
Санкт-Петербург
December 28, 2013 at 19:34
borissoff
Уважаемая Анастасия! Действительно, Хинди и Конкани относятся к т.н. Индо-Европейским языкам Индо-Арийской группы и, таким образом, к ведическому Санскриту. Значительная часть их лексического фонда имеет аналогии с Санскритом и через него с другим Индо-Европейским языкам, в частности, со славянскими. Однако, эти слова претерпели значительные фонетические изменения, поэтому правильно было бы возводить их к русскому через санскрит. Должен вас разочаровать, но принять вашу гипотезу я никак не могу. Дело в том, что Конкани boro `good’ (An English-Konkani Dictionary: And A Konakani-English Dictionary by Angelus Francis Xavier Maffei, p.86) очевидно происходит от санскр. bhadra `prosperity, happiness, health, welfare, good fortune’. Потеря срединных согласных типична для пракритов, а измерение а > o также характерно для современных индийских и.а. языков (влияние дравидской фонетики). В пользу этого говорит и то, что bhadra обычно использовался именно с глаголом kṛ `do, make, perform, accomplish’ для всевозможных пожеланий. На санскрите “Део боро кору” звучало бы deva [Зват. м. ед `Боже’] bhadram [Винит. м. ед. `благо, счастье’] kṛhi [2 л. ед. повелит. `сделай, сотвори’]. Или же devaḥ bhadram kartu `(да) сотворит бог благо!’. Как видите, никак не созвучно слову добро.
December 28, 2013 at 21:18
Anastasia
Уважаемый Константин!
Спасибо за такой научный ответ. Я согласна и на вижу противоречий. Конечно, я не продвигаю теорию происхождения русского от конкани, конкани просто стал подсказкой. Поскольку никакой научной базы у меня нет, то мне сложно сказать, есть ли другие пути. Но возможно ли, что ДОБРО появилось именно таким образом, тем более, что в списке транслитерации есть примеры, когда “л” меняется на “р”. То есть, то, что на хинди ( не знаю, как на санскрите) звучит как bhala – благо, стало boro.
Еще мысль возникла: может, вторая часть это “бери, обретай”?
И есть ли еще варианты появления этого слова?
С уважением, Анастасия
December 28, 2013 at 23:01
borissoff
Насколько я знаю, bhala происходит от санскритского bhalla `auspicious, favourable’ и вполне вероятно, что boro также от него происходит, с учётом, как вы правильно заметили, вполне регулярного перехода r > l. Интересно, что bhalla помечено в словаре как точный синоним bhadra. Спасибо, что обратили на него моё внимание. Однако, даже при этом я не вижу реальной базы проводить параллель с добро. Пока я не смог найти в санскрите ничего, что можно было бы противопоставить официальной этимологии Фасмера:
“добрый – добр, добра, добро, укр. добрий, др.-русск., ст.-слав. добръ , (Клоц., Супр.), болг. добър, сербохорв. добар, ж. добра, словен. dobr, чеш., слвц. dobry, польск. dobry, в.-луж., н.-луж. dobry. Родственно лат. faber “ремесленник, художник”, арм. darbin “кузнец” (из *dhabhro-); см. Мейе, MSL 8, 165; 13, 215; BSL 27, 31; Хюбшман 438; Бернекер 1, 204; Траутман, BSW 43; далее, к доба, доблесть. Наряду с *dhabh- существует *dhab- в д.-в.-н. tapfar, нов.-в.-н. tapfer “храбрый, сильный, крепкий, плотный”, др.-исл. dapr “косный, унылый”; см. дебелый; иначе см. Педерсен, IF 5, 56; против см. Вальде – Гофм. 1, 436 и сл.; Бецценбергер, GGA, 1898, стр. 554.”
December 29, 2013 at 10:55
Anastasia
Да, все-таки очень интересно!
А если все-таки обратиться к санскриту.
Насколько я права в мнении, что основополагающие понятия в своем большинстве выражаются самыми древними словами и остаются малоизмененными очень долго?
Например, Свет, жизнь, огонь и тп. Сложно поверить, что слово Добро, которое Есть Жизнь, и являлось ПОНЯТИЕМ – то есть было записано в азбуке – было бы иноземным, а не исконным – то есть наиболее близким к корню.
…И уж faber – ну совсем не получается. В русском все ф заменялись на хвб да и нет никакого высокого смысла и понятия, которое мы вкладываем в ДОБРО. Ведь все подобные слова имели очень высокие значения. БЛАГО ДАРЮ, СПАСИ БОг, ПРОЩАЙте и тп.
Соответственно, корни ДОБРА должны нести исключительно высокое понятие. Если встречаются замены в -на о, то дев могло стать део, а потом ДО, а бро – может, это от оБРащаться? Или оБРетать? или соБирать? То есть некое Божественное Обретение?
Спасибо за терпение! (tarapna? 🙂
December 29, 2013 at 14:00
borissoff
Современная этимология, при всех её недостатках, претендует на звание “наука” и должна опираться не на субъективные предположения типа “основополагающие понятия в своем большинстве выражаются самыми древними словами”, а на конкретные факты. История каждого слова уникальна и есть определённые принципы сравнительно-исторического анализа. Можно выдвигать сколько угодно остроумных предположений, но без убедительной доказательной базы они в лучшем случае будут примерами т.н. “народной этимологии”. Я только могу повторить, что мне не удалось пока найти никаких параллелей для слова добро в санскрите. Согласен, официальная этимология этого слова и у меня вызывает много вопросов. При этом совсем не предполагается, что слово это не исконно-славянское. Оно может происходить из некого древнего корня, который в разных языках принял своеобразную форму и значение. Слово добро очевидно связано с древними словами doba `польза, преимущество’ (ср. сдобный) и doblь `сильный’. Вот как добрый комментируется в Этимологическом словаре славянских языков (Трубачев) вып.5 стр 46: Как видите, конкани boro действительно может быть связано с санскр. bhadra и с добро если принять гипотезу Махека
December 29, 2013 at 15:57
Anastasia
Спасибо, уважаемый Константин! С наступающим Вас! И новых открытий!!!
July 17, 2014 at 20:04
SDJ
Good but still not in center. what you need to use is most of serbian+ some small percent macedonian/russian/slovenian and some minor stuff from other languages. Sanskrit is absolutly slavic language, and there is a way on which that can be read totally modern. everything. Its all because scripts /and spoken language where not so in good synchro. Still I asure you (i work on it for a years, that Hindu valley lnguage (harapa, mohenjo daro etc as sanskrit are same language absolutely of same origin as Slavic languages).
July 17, 2014 at 21:13
borissoff
Thank you for your comment! I do agree with you that in doing the comparison all Slavonic languages should be involved. This is a mammoth task though and this is something I would like to add in the future. At this stage in my dictionary I limit to listing cognates from other Sl. languages. This is how an entry dever’ деверь looks like ( It is still a raw draft!):
dever’ деверь____________devṛ देवृ
husband’s brother____________husband’s brother
Ukr. díver дíвер; Blr. dzе́ver дзе́вер; Bulg. dе́ver де́вер; Srb. djȅvе̑r дjе̏ве̑р; Cz. deveř; OPl. dziewierz
Gk. daḗr δᾱήρ `husband’s brother, brother-in-law’; Lat. lēvir, OHG zeihhur, Arm. taigr; Lith. dievers; Latv. diẽverìs `id.’. The near exact phonetic affinity between Skt. and Sl. should be noted. GILF 116; VAS 1.491; ČERN 1.235–236; ESSJa 5.19; DERK 105. Rating: 6
As you can see, Slavonic languages are quite close. I have not noticed any closer connection between Serbian and Sanskrit. Also I cannot agree with the assertion “Sanskrit is absolutely slavic language”. It is simply not true. There is indeed a remarkable systemic affinity in phonetics, basic vocabulary and grammatical typology. This affinity is sometimes stunning, however, there is also a huge difference. The problem is not that “scripts /and spoken language where not so in good synchro” although this is partly true so in my dictionary I use along with transliteration of Cyrillic also a specially adopted system of phonetic transcription. The time gap separating the two languages is too great and this is especially seen if you compare the grammar. Yes, the declensions are there but the endings differ a lot, there is a big disparity in the verbal structure etc. My feeling is that you are not quite familiar with Sanskrit otherwise you would see the difference.
I cannot comment on the language of the Hindu Valley civilisation. We know so little about it that any theory is bound to be speculative.
July 21, 2014 at 01:48
bennedose
Linguists tell us that languages change over time. That means that if a parent language gives rise to two daughter languages, those languages will drift apart over time.
If there really was a hypothetical “PIE” it is easy to postulate that Sanskrit, Greek and Latin are all “descendants” of PIE that have undergone the process of word change over time.
But if you look at the remarkable similarities between a very old language (Sanskrit) and Slavonic, it appears that they are sister languages from some common root. It appears that Sanskrit and the so called “Balto-Slavic” langauges are closer to each other than Greek and Latin.
However if you look at modern “language family trees” invented by linguists, the Balto Slavic languages are a totally different branch off PIE and Sanskrit is placed on a separate branch as “Indo-Iranian”. This classification appears fake and contrived to me. It appears to have been created to explain a particular pre-conceived history of languages.
It is far more likely that the so called “Balto-Slavic” languages and “Indo-Iranian” languages came off the same branch. Also significant is that Russian and Slavonic are so similar to Sanskrit (a very old language) that this defies the commonly cited theory of inevitable language change. Clearly Russian, Slavonic and Lithuanian have not changed that much.
It should not be difficult to conjure up a hypothesis to show that the common root of Indo-Iranian and Balto Slavic was the original PIE of which Latin and Greek are offshoots. But linguists will protest and squirm at such heresies.
July 21, 2014 at 05:22
borissoff
Bennedose Ji, you have raised a number of most fundamental questions. It is not easy to answer them in a blog. I’ll try to express my view on this in the next few days.
August 12, 2014 at 21:03
borissoff
Sorry for the delay in answering to your comment! As I said, the questions you asked are fundamental and it is not possible to answer them in detail in a blog format. Very briefly I can comment as follows:
Bennedose: “Linguists tell us that languages change over time. That means that if a parent language gives rise to two daughter languages, those languages will drift apart over time”.
This is a complicated question. There is no denial that a language changes over time but one should distinguish the two types of language change. One is the change due to the cultural-linguistic renovation. This type of change is mainly about adding new words and meanings but it does not touch the basic structure of the language. The second type involves more radical structural changes in grammar, phonetics etc. The causes of the change are likewise different. In the first case it is the normal social-cultural development while the second one is mainly due to language contact (borrowing, mixing, pidginisation, creolisation, substrate, superstrate etc.).
In simple terms the different can be explained like this. Suppose one takes native speakers of a language and puts them on three uninhabited islands where they stay completely isolated. They will only be subject to the cultural-linguistic renovation change. However, even after a thousand years they will remain, essentially, the same languages. Yes, many words and expressions will start to sound odd, some idiomatic expressions will not be understandable but their basic structure and typology will remain. Now, let us imagine the same situation but with the addition that the islands were inhabited by speakers of completely different languages. This opens up a lot of possibilities. For example, the newcomers may eradicate the original population on one island and continue with the type 1 change. Suppose on the second island the two populations interbreed closely developing bilingualism. The resulting language could be a mix of the two languages. Suppose on the third island the newcomers dominate the much larger original population and their language becomes a matter of high prestige. The locals would try to speak it but it will not be perfect and, after the newcomers finally dissolve in their mass, this may become a new language only remotely resembling the original language of the newcomers. I have given only a few scenarios but there may be millions of different situations and outcomes.
Bennedose: “If there really was a hypothetical “PIE” it is easy to postulate that Sanskrit, Greek and Latin are all “descendants” of PIE that have undergone the process of word change over time.”
I have already written in other comments:
“Unless we take a creationist stand and imagine a “divine” language handed down to our ancestors by “Gods” or their equivalents, the idea of a uniform “proto-language” from which all modern IE languages “sprang” or “developed” is totally untenable. I would like to quote this passage by Pulgram:
Now when we reconstruct, through the methods of comparative historical linguistics, an array of asterisked Proto-Indo-European forms, the procedure itself implies that the result of our endeavors is a uniform construct. We are, in fact, creating an idiolect-not of a speaker, to be sure, but of the scholar, of the method, as it were. This procedural circumstance spares us a priori all scruples and worries over uniformity. But note that the result emanates from the method, that different procedures would deliver different results [my emphasis]. I am not, of course, attempting to refute the validity of comparative linguistics; it is, as scholars have repeatedly said, our only choice, for any other modus operandi ‘removes the basis for scientific [historical] linguistics’. But it must be conceded that such a reconstruction is something of a fiction, since ‘the terms Proto-, Ur-, Primitive are firmly attached to formulae which are timeless, non-dialectal, and non-phonetic.’ Anything in linguistics that is timeless, nondialectal, and nonphonetic, by definition does not represent a real language. That is to say, the uniformity which reconstructed Proto-Indo-European exhibits is not representative of a reality. (Pulgram, E. “Proto-Indo-European Reality and Reconstruction”. Language, Linguistic Society of America, 1959, 35, pp. 421-426).
So the “Indo-European” or “proto-Indo-European” are nothing but rather abstract formulae which are subject to change if we change the parameters or axioms used in the deduction method. Languages have always existed as aggregations of dialects and idiolects and the linguistic situation 10 thousand years ago was as complex as it is today.”
Bennedose: “But if you look at the remarkable similarities between a very old language (Sanskrit) and Slavonic, it appears that they are sister languages from some common root. It appears that Sanskrit and the so called “Balto-Slavic” langauges are closer to each other than Greek and Latin…”
It would take a lot of time to give a detailed criticism of the “language tree” theory. I would recommend you this interesting article: “Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification” by Alex François. This is a quote from the concluding part:
Contrary to widespread belief, there is no reason to think that language diversification typically follows a tree-like pattern, consisting of a nested series of neat splits with loss of contact. Except for the odd case of language isolation or swift migration and dispersal, the normal situation is for language change to involve multiple events of diffusion across mutually intelligible idiolects in a network, typically distributed into conflicting iso-glosses. Insofar as these events of language-internal diffusion are later reflected in descendant languages family they define – a “ linkage ” – is one in which genealogical relations cannot be represented by a tree, but only by a diagram in which subgroups intersect.
In more simple terms, if one has to attempt to imagine a language tree it should not look like an English oak-tree but more as a banyan-tree
Also, although the “language tree” model is very widespread, there have been alternative theories like the “wave model” where languages are grouped differently based on their characteristic features (isoglosses). This is the initial model
according to Johannes Schmidt, (Verwantschaftverhltnisse Die Sprachen der indogermanischen , Weimar, Bhlau, 1872. Paragraph 2.1)
A more refined and updated model was offered by Renfrew:
(Renfrew, C. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (New edition) Cambridge University Press, 1990 p. 105).
As you can see, these schemes show a completely different and, as I believe, a truer representation of the actual kinship. Indeed, Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Iranian appear to form the central core and this explains the remarkable affinity. Ironically, Germanic which was directly linked to Sanskrit in the inflamed minds of the 19th century romantic nationalists, is only related to it through the neighboring Slavonic and Baltic. Now look at this map
from Kivisild, T. (‘The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations’ The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003, Volume 72, Issue 2, 313-332) which was done analysing a set of 21 genes (not just haplogroups). Now compare it with the Renfrew’s diagram!
August 13, 2014 at 02:17
bennedose
Thank you for taking the trouble to answer my queries. You have provided me a lot of food for thought.
September 9, 2014 at 06:53
Anastasia
Здравствуйте, уважаемый Константин!
Вы любезно ответили мне на вопрос об этимологии слова “добро”, а вот еще вопрос: слово приятный. Нет слова “ятный”? А корень “ять” есть? При – это приставка? Мне это очень интересно, так как в том же хинди есть слово “прия”, priya lagta hai – нравиться, быть приятным, по сердцу, любимым. И вот, если есть корень “ять” (объять, приять, изъять и т.п.), то, получается, что priya – однокоренное слово??
September 9, 2014 at 07:02
borissoff
Анастасия! Вы в правильном направлении мыслите. Дайте мне немного времени и я изложу своё видение этого вопроса.
September 22, 2014 at 19:48
borissoff
Анастасия! Прошу прошения за задержку. Считается, что приятный — это отглагольное производное от “”прия́ть, прия́ю “относиться благожелательно”, стар., укр. прия́ти, прия́ю, блр. прыя́ць, […] цслав. прияти, прѣıѫ, сербохорв. прѝjати “преуспевать, удаваться”, словен. príjati, príjam, чеш. přáti, příti, рřеji “быть расположенным”, слвц. рriаt᾽ “благоприятствовать”, польск. (s)przyjać, в.-луж. рřеć, рřаć, н.-луж. рśаś “благоприятствовать, желать” (Фасмер 3,369-370).
Соответственно, считается, что корень и есть прия-. При этом такая форма корня действительно несколько необычна. Я довольно осторожно обращаю на это внимание в моём словаре (значки ## технологические и кодируют в базе данных курсив):
Ukr. #prijati прия́ти#; Blr. #pryjac прыя́ць#; OCS #prijati прияти#; Srb. #prìjati прѝjати#; Sln. #príjati#; Cz. #přáti#; Slk. #рriаt’#; Pl. #(s)przyjać#, USrb. #рřеć, рřаć#; LSrb. #рśаś# Av. #frāy-# `gratify, satisfy’, Gk. #prâos# πρᾶος `mild, soft, gentle’, Goth. #frijon# v. `love’, OEng. #freogan# `love, favour’; Latv. #prieks# `joy, pleasure’. Sl. #*prijaiti# appears to be a nominal verb formed from the root #*pri# plus a nominal suffix #*ja# cp. Skt. #priya# प्रिय `beloved, dear to, liked, favourite’.
Это было написано довольно давно и я теперь собираюсь переделать этот комментарий именно в том ключе, как вы написали, рассматривая этот корень как сложный (приставка при + ять/яить). Действительно, в старом языке был глагол ять: “-ять*, *-ьму: взять, возьму́ (см.), снять, заня́ть, займу́, наня́ть, обня́ть, отня́ть, подня́ть, поня́ть, внять, изъя́ть, приня́ть, снять и т. д., ст.-слав. възѩти, възьмѫ. Дальнейшие родственные формы см. на взять, е́млю (выше). Ср. лит. im̃ti, imù, ėmiaũ “брать”, лат. еmō, ēmī, ēmptu-еrе “брать”” (Фасмер 4.569-570). При этом важно, что и сам этот глагол и его возможное производное *при-ять вполне укладывается в семантический круг “приятный” = `то, что мы принимаем, приближаем, берем’. Как гипотеза – вполне достойно. Осталось только это убедительно доказать 🙂 Также интересно, что в санскрите есть, на мой взгляд, и походящий глагол yu – yauti, который я соотношу со старорусским ять и значение его как нельзя более подходящее: `draw towards one’s self, take hold or gain possession of, hold fast; procure’.
September 22, 2014 at 20:06
borissoff
However, the complication here is that Sanskrit does not have a prefix/preposition pri. Instead it has pari so the expected form world be *pariyauti. Also there is an independent verb prī – prīyate `to please, gladden, delight, gratify, cheer, comfort, soothe, propitiat’ где -ya- просто инфикс. Есть и формы без ya: prīṇāti. Так что не всё так просто. Прошу прощения, не заметил, как на английский перешёл 🙂
September 23, 2014 at 04:03
Anastasia
Уважаемый Константин, спасибо большое! Как всегда, очень подробно и интересно!
Вот с вышеизложенным появился вопрос: откуда в русском приставка “при”? Может, она родственна словам priya, pritam?
Не уловила про prīṇāti – что это означает?
October 5, 2014 at 09:46
borissoff
Я имел ввиду интересную семантическую схожесть глаголов приять и принять, а также тот факт, что Скр. prī спрягается по четвёртому классу (суфф. –ya) и форма 3л. ед. ч. наст. вр. обычно prīyate , но также зафиксирована и паллельная, хотя и слабо документированная форма девятого класса (суфф. n): prīṇā́ti именно с ударением на долгое а, что хорошо согласуется с рус. принять. Такая двойственность как в русском, так и в санскрите довольно любопытна.
December 2, 2014 at 06:45
rajrajeshwar
agni words in snakrits in russin also calling aaguni enlish word fire.bag
-snakrits katomka
December 2, 2014 at 06:49
rajrajeshwar
sloka in snkrits russin. sloka means like word line
December 2, 2014 at 08:21
borissoff
You are right about agni. I listed it in another post: Russian- Sanskrit Nouns :
ogon’, ogn’ ` fire’ — agni अग्नि `fire, sacrificial fire’
As for śloka श्लोक `a stanza, (esp.) a partic. kind of common epic metre (also called anu-ṣṭubh)’ which, as I understand, you attempt to compare to Slavonic slog `poetic style’, these words are not related despite the apparent remarkable affinity. While śloka is probably derived from the root śru श्रु `to hear’ (despite the fanciful and romantic explanation of this word by ancient Indian grammarians as coming from śoka शोक, “sorrow” and the first śloka श्लोक having been composed by Vālmīki वाल्मीकि who grieved at seeing a bird killed). Contrarily, the meaning of Slavonic slog is quite transparent: it may be separated into the elements s- `with, together’ (identical to Skt. sa स `an inseparable prefix expressing “junction”, “conjunction”, “possession” and saha सह `together with, along with’) and the root log `to place or to put smth.’ which is, most probably, related to Skt. lag लग् `to adhere, stick, cling or attach one’s self to’. The Russ. slog may thus be interpreted as `placed together = composed’.
December 2, 2014 at 10:33
borissoff
Sorry, I have not quite understood what you meant by “bag
-snakrits katomka”. Indeed, there is Rus. kotoma `a sort of bag carried on the back’ and its diminutive kotomka. The popular theory is that it derives from the verb katat‘ `to roll’. Is so , this word could be related to the obscure Skt. root *kaṭ कट् which is poorly attested and only mentioned in Dhātupāṭha with the meaning `to go’ but its derivative kaṭaka कटक `circle, wheel’ is quite well attested and is identical to Rus. katok `roller’. I do not know of any Skt. “katomka”. Please clarify.
September 1, 2015 at 06:58
kuldeep
unbelievable sir. I was searching about Russian and Sanskrit relationship and find ur blog. now satisfied with this. one thing that most of Russian alphabet pronounce as Hindi alphabets . India Russia friendship in language also.
January 23, 2016 at 18:44
ViP
Being native Lithuanian I can confirm that we could add one more column of Lithuanian words alongside having exactly the same meaning as Russian and Sanskrit words has in your example. There was no such nation as Balts until 19th century when some “romantic” German linguists has invented such pseudo-nation name.
January 24, 2016 at 08:36
borissoff
Thank you for your comment! First of all, there is nothing wrong with the linguistic term “Baltic” because it is not a “nation” or “pseudo-nation” name but simply a generalised name of one of the Indo-European language sub-branches (“language” and “nation” are not the same! I would advise you to read the chapter from Language Policy Challenges in Multi-Ethnic Malaysia by Saran Kaur Gill) and usually grouped with Slavonic into a “Balto-Slavonic” branch within a larger “satem” group including the Indo-Aryan and Iranian:
“Baltic (Lithuanian, Lettish and the extinct Old Prussian) and Slavonic (Old Church Slavonic or Old Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, etc.). These two groups are very closely related to each crther, though not as closely as Indo-Aryan and Iranian. There are some ancient divergencies between them which make it impossible to reconstruct a primitive Balto-Slavonic language, intermediate between Indo-European and the existing languages in the same way as Indo-Iranian can be reconstructed. Nevertheless in view of their many close resemblances it is convenient to group them together under a common name, Balto-Slavonic. The earliest recorded Slavonic is the Old Bulgarian of the ninth century; Lithuanian is known only from the sixteenth century.” (Burrow, T. The Sanskrit Language. Faber & Faber, 1955, p. 7).
It is quite natural, that being closely related in the past, Russian and Lithuanian show many parallel similarities with Sanskrit:
“The satəm-languages, apart from Indo-Iranian are only known from times much more recent than most of the centum-languages. Further there is the possibility that some ancient members of this group, notably in the Balkan and Danubian regions, have disappeared without record. It is therefore not possible to form a precise idea of the position of Indo-Iranian within the satəm group as a whole at an early period. The only thing that emerges clearly is that there did at one time exist a special relationship between early Indo-Iranian and those dialects of Indo-European which developed eventually into the Baltic and Slavonic languages. (Burrow idem p. 18).
However, there are also many cases when certain Sanskrit words may have a cognate in Slavonic but not in Baltic and vice versa. You may get a better understanding of this reading the introductory part of Burrow’s book. Unfortunately, nobody has yet done a thorough and systematic revision of all Lithuanian – Sanskrit cognates and compared it with a list of, for example, Russian-Sanskrit cognates which I am trying to build. You may be the first to do this 🙂
October 9, 2018 at 06:25
Sandeep Kaul
I accidentally came across two words which are common to both Sanskrit and Russian. Agni in Sanskrit which means fire has a similar sounding word in Russian. Today I heard a new word, ‘Mushak’ in Russian for a mouse, which is also used in Sanskrit.
October 9, 2018 at 10:27
borissoff
Dear Sandeep, indeed both the Vedic agni अग्नि ‘fire, sacrificial fire’ and mūṣ मूष् ‘rat, mouse’ (a later attested Sankrit diminutive mūṣika, mūṣaka मुष्क, मूषिक) are cognate with Russian ogon’ огонь ‘fire’ and myš мышь, myška мышка ‘small mouse’.
These are draft entries for them from my dictionary:
огонь
m. огонь *ognь agni m. अग्नि fire fire, sacrificial fire (RV)
OCS ognь 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 v. `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: 5.
мышь
f. мышь *myšь mūṣ m. मूष् mouse rat, mouse (RV)
OCS mъšь мъшь; Bulg. miš миш; Srb. mȉš ми̏ш; Sln. mìš; Cz. mуš; Slk. mуš; Pl. mysz, USrb. mуš; LSrb. mуš.
Gk. mŷs μῦς, Lat. mūs, Alb. mi; OHG mûs; Arm. mukn `mouse’. According to MW (827), it derives from the root muṣ मुष् v. `steal, rob, plunder, carry off; break, destroy’ and thus appears an epithet: `one who steals, carries off and destroys’. This is dismissed in ESSJa (21.66) in support of the hypothesis that this word derives from a hypothetical *mūs meaning `grey’ explaining Skt. muṣ मुष् v.`steal, rob, etc.’ as a verbal noun deriving from `the grey one > mouse’ (see also a comment by Trubačev in VAS (3.28)). The s > ṣ is explainable by the RUKI law, however, appearance of k in Arm. mukn is interesting as a case of a possible s > k (s >h > kh > k ?) transition. The lack of this word in the Baltic languages is noteworthy.
GILF 123; VAS 3.27-28; ESSJa 21.64–67; DERK 337. Rating: 5.
October 16, 2018 at 12:31
आशीष कुमार
I am stunned to know your knowledge of comparative linguistics. From where I can find your dictionary( you discussed that you were compiling). I think learning Russian language should be easy with comparative method.
September 28, 2019 at 16:31
Konrad
I love the connection of рivо/pīva with рiаnа/phena on top which our grand-fathers used to piyat out of a kubok. There must have been persistent trade contact along a corridor from Ukraine to India for a long time. Maybe merchants would stop along the way as guests to ghásati/zagasit’ their hunger with the food of their host.
The perdit and yebat connection is far more
May 18, 2021 at 11:13
guddu
if english would have properly translated
sanskrit words most of the sanskrit word and russian word would we wriiten in same way
example russia in sanskrit shold be pronoinced as hriussia
rig veda= hrig vedaah
just for fun try if you are indian
open english to russian translator
and type any indian word or name and hear its pronounciation in russian you will be amazed that every word has proper pronunciation as it should be in sanskrit
try krishna raam or any other name you will be amazed
first time i tried i understood that russian is very very silmilar to samskrit