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/
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 15, 2015 at 22:19
Stepas
You can fill and correct from Lithuanian. “viešė” (Old Lith.), “dieveris”, “laukas”, “katras” (instead of “kuris”), “žmona”, “du/dvi”
August 24, 2015 at 06:03
borissoff
Thank you!
August 24, 2015 at 06:45
borissoff
I have added “viešė” (Old Lith.), “dieveris”, “laukas” (with a note due to a considerable semantic disparity), “katras” (instead of “kuris”) and “dvejì” which is closer semantically to `two of smb./smth’. As for “žmona” it is not generally recognised as a cognate of “žena” :
Vasmer dictionary “ORIGIN: Родственно др.-прусск. genno зв. п. “женщина!”, др.-инд. jániṣ “жена, женщина”, gnā “богиня”, авест. gǝnā-, ɣǝnā, ɣnā “женщина, жена”, ǰaini — то же, арм. kin, гот. qinô “жена, супруга”, qēns — то же, греч. γυνή, беот. βανά “жена”, ирл. ben, тохар. А śän, В śana “женщина””
September 9, 2016 at 10:23
Antanasnoribūtiore
“As for “žmona” it is not generally recognised as a cognate of “žena”
Is it really not? I always thought it was…
http://www.info2.uqam.ca/~makarenkov_v/BL/WIFE-4.html
September 9, 2016 at 12:36
borissoff
Dear Antanas, you are quite right. It is not mentioned in Vasmer’s dictionary as such:
“WORD: жена́
GENERAL: жени́ться, укр. жона́, жíнка, блр. жана́, ст.-слав. жена, γυνή, болг. жена́, сербохорв. жѐна, словен. žéna, чеш., слвц. žena “женщина, жена”, польск. żona, в.-луж., н.-луж. žona.
ORIGIN: Родственно др.-прусск. genno зв. п. “женщина!”, др.-инд. jániṣ “жена, женщина”, gnā “богиня”, авест. gǝnā-, ɣǝnā, ɣnā “женщина, жена”, ǰaini — то же, арм. kin, гот. qinô “жена, супруга”, qēns — то же, греч. γυνή, беот. βανά “жена”, ирл. ben, тохар. А śän, В śana “женщина”; см. Уленбек, Aind. Wb. 13, 99; Траутман, BSW 84; Apr. Sprd. 337; Педерсен, Kelt. Gr. 1, 47; Файст 388; Торп 60; Лиден, Tochar. Stud. 30.
TRUBACHEV: [См. еще Трубачев, Терм. родства, стр. 105. — Т.]
PAGES: 2,46″ It only refers to O.Prussian genno! vocative “woman!”
however I took into consideration the opinion of Trubacёv:
Prie sl. ženā́ prisišlieja lie. žmonà. Šis žodis, atrodo, nėra lietuvių kalbos savarankiškas darinys. Nurodomas jo garsinis ryšys su žmónės [108], sg. nom. žmuõ, acc. žmū́ni, pr. smunents ‘žmogus’. Tačiau žmona savo reikšme skiriasi nuo kitų šios šaknies formų. Ide. *gʷ̄ visos formos įvairiose kalbose turi ne tik reikšmę ‘žmona’, bet ir ‘moteris’ ir antroji pasitaiko nė kiek ne rečiau. Plg. abi reikšmes sl. žena, kurių sugretinimas leidžia manyti, kad senesnė yra ‘moteris’, vėliau išstumta kitos reikšmės. Nieko panašaus negalima pasakyti apie lie. žmonà, kurio reikšmės istoriją sunku atsekti lietuvių kalbos ribose. Nėra indoeuropiečių kalbose kiek senesnių pavyzdžių, kuriuose būtų semantinis ryšys tarp terminų „žmogus“ ir „žmona“, „moteris“. Tai reiškia, kad lie. žmonà < žmon- ‘žmogus’ būtų vienintelis toks reiškinys. Atrodo, kad lie. žmonà atsirado veikiant sl. žena ‘moteris, žmona’ ir po jos sekusios kontaminacijos su šaknies žmon- vietinėmis lietuviškomis formomis. Vien tik vietinių darinių kontaminacija yra mažai tikėtina, nes lietuviškas atitikmuo slaviškajam žena – *gena (plg. pr. genna, genno) su privalomu veliariniu g netiktų tokiai kontaminacijai. Iš kitos pusės plg. skolintą lietuvių veiksmažodį žẽnytis < sl. ženiti sę [109].
Šaltinis: Трубачев 1959b, 108–109
You can find the Russian excerpt here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4NWt-VR39pGaXdWRlZoS2JHcTg/view?usp=sharing