Sanskrit and Russian cognates compared in respect of Lithuanian, Greek, Latin, Gothic and Old German.

I would like to demonstrate here the remarkable phonetic affinity between Sanskrit and Russian taking two dozen of unquestionable cognate pairs as examples.  It is well known that all Indo-European languages contain a greater or lesser number of common words but only Slavonic and, to a lesser degree, Baltic languages approximate Sanskrit to such an extent that in me instances the difference between certain Slavonic languages could be greater than between some Slavonic languages and Sanskrit.

Take the  word for `spindle’: Sanskrit  vartana, Russian vereteno, Bulgarian. vretе́no, Slovenian vreténo, Czech vřeteno, Polish wrzeciono, Upper Sorbian wrjećeno and Lower Sorbian rjeśeno.  The phonetic shape of cognates in other Indo-European languages differs considerably.

A good example is the word `alive’: Sanskrit jīva, Russian živ, Lithuanian gývas, Greek bíos, Latin vīvus,  Irish biu,   Gothic qius, Old High German quес, and English quick.

Transliteration notes

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  similar to sh; č = ch; ž = like g in garage , the vowel y  is a sort of  ‘hard’  i  sounding somewhat similar to unstressed i   in Eng. it .  the  sign ‘ indicates softness and stands for a very short i . Vowels with  j are iotated so ju would be similar to Eng.  you and Skr. yu  etc.

Skt.	Rus.	Lith.	Greek	Latin	Goth.	OHG/Ger.	Eng
bhrātṛ	brat	brólis	phrátēr	frāter	brōþar	Bruder	brother
bhrū	brov’	bruvis	ophrus			brāwa	brow
vidhava	vdova			vidua	widuwō	Widuwō	widow
vartana	veretenò					Wirtel	spindle
viś	ves’	viešė	oikos	vīcus	weihs		abode, village, home
vātṛ	veter	vėtra					wind
vṛka	volk	vilkas	lýkos	lupus	wulfs	Wulfs	wolf
dvār	dver’	dùrys	thýra	forēs	daúr	turi	door
dvaya	dvoe	dvejì			twaddjē		two of smb.
devṛ	dever’	dieveris	daḗr	lēvir		zeihhur	husband’s brother
dina	den’	dienà		diēs			day
dam, dama	dom	nãmas(?)	dō̂ma	domus			house, home
janī	žena		gynḗ		qino		wife
jīva	živ	gývas	bíos	vīvus	qius	quес	alive
jñāna	znanie	žinios	gnōsis				knowledge
kada	kogda	kada					when
katara	kotoryj	kuris	póteros	uter	ƕаþаr	hwedar	which
kumbha	kub		kýmbos	cupa			pitcher
laghu	ljogok	leñgvas	elaphrós	levis	leihts	lungar	light
roci	luč		leukós	lūх	liuhaþ		light, ray
madhu	mjod	medùs	méthy			metu	honey
mūṣ	myš’		mŷs	mūs		mûs	mouse
mās	mjaso	mėsà			mimz(?)		meat

Note that we compare the attested languages and not hypothetical `reconstructions’ however, according to  Antoine Meillet:

“[..] Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. […] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present.  […] Baltic and Slavic are consequently  the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European.” ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of  Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp. 59-60).

See also my other posts:

https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/russian-sanskrit-verbs-3/

https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/russian-sanskrit-nouns/

https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/sanskrit-russian-lithuanian-and-latin-conjugations-compared/

See all posts