Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 62 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #384214

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    So what do you guys think of relation between Sumerians and Indo-Europeans?

    Both of groups were humans. Out of it there is nothing. Does ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga sound Indo-European to you?

    #384215

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Both of groups were humans. Out of it there is nothing. Does ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga sound Indo-European to you?

    Of course not, but what is the relationship between the two groups. Which predates which, and did they came in touch.

    #384216

    Anonymous

    Ok i think it is quite possbile that during Sumerians language was still not very differated and maybe much of Eurasian languages are spawn of Sumeria or related people but that is a rather bold hypothesis. Anyway Dalibor you said;

    Quote:
    Both of groups were humans. Out of it there is nothing. Does ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga sound Indo-European to you?

    But i say this; Let's say Serbian or any other Slavic language is only lanugage you ever spoke and heard would this sound familiar?

    In Oche is direk nevve do Loußbärsh do Salvatursbärsh geleeje. Metmaache kann he jede, dä ein vun uns ripoarische Sproche kann, dä Loss am Schrieve hät, un weiß, wie mer för e Nohkixel schrieve deit. ;D

    Let alone this;

    śṛṇu pārtha yathāvṛttam itihāsaṃ purātanam gṛdhrajambuka saṃvādaṃ yo vṛtto vaidiśe purā duḥkhitāḥ ke cid ādāya bālam aprāptayauvanam kulasarvasva bhūtaṃ vai rudantaḥ śokavihvalāḥ. ;D ;D

    #384217

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Ok i think it is quite possbile that during Sumerians language was still not very differated and maybe much of Eurasian languages are spawn of Sumeria or related people but that is a rather bold hypothesis. Anyway Dalibor you said;

    But i say this; Let's say Serbian or any other Slavic language is only lanugage you ever spoke and heard would this sound familiar?

    Well, point is this: Summerian languages is agglutinative language while Indo-European are fusional (inflective). Grammar is completly different :) If you start analising grammatical structure of Ripularian dialects :P and Sanskrt you would see similarites and common origins of them with Slavic languages.
    As far as I know Summerian is considered as isolate language.

    #384218

    Anonymous

    well we cant say one people predate another in existence. they didnt fall from sky… all developed continually, or branched from one another at some point in time and after some period differences were in place, so they considered each other to be different people.
    People usually dont get up on morning 5000 years ago and "hey lets be sumerians".

    Quote:
    śṛṇu pārtha yathāvṛttam itihāsaṃ purātanam gṛdhrajambuka saṃvādaṃ yo vṛtto vaidiśe purā duḥkhitāḥ ke cid ādāya bālam aprāptayauvanam kulasarvasva bhūtaṃ vai rudantaḥ śokavihvalāḥ. ;D ;D

    and should i buy some alcohol too?  ;D

    #384219

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Of course not, but what is the relationship between the two groups. Which predates which, and did they came in touch.

    Well, I think it is impossible to detemine who is older. But there is fact that Hittites used Summerian script. Before Summerian language went extinct in their neigbourghood there was Mitanni kingdom. Aristocracy was Indo-Aryan and used Indo-Aryan language, while common people used Hurrian (mot probably Caucausian). Besides this I dont know for other contacts.

    #384220

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Both of groups were humans. Out of it there is nothing. Does ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga sound Indo-European to you?

    Albanian?

    #384221

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Albanian?

    Mate actualy Sumer is correctly pronunced Šumer (Šuma) so esentialy they were woodland Slav. ;D

    #384222

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    So what do you guys think of relation between Sumerians and Indo-Europeans?

    In my opinion the so called "aryan" tribes settled in northern India, Egypt, Persia and in Mesopotamia. Ofcourse it is undisputed that Indians were an aryan tribe, since sanskrit language is clearly Indo – European, but in my opinion so were Sumerans. Some of the descendant of the Sumer today (Assyrians or Chaldeans) have blue eyes and blond hair (extremely rare of course), this is pretty much evidence that the majority of them were like that some 4000 years ago.
    Today they are no more fairer than the regular gypsy, but alas, thousands of years of mongrelization with semitic people does that to you.

    I bet if linguists analyzed more closely the substrate of ancient Sumerian they would find some Indo-European residue.

    Now, the Sumerian creation myth doesn't really have anything in common with the Indo-European one, but some myths certainly overlap. Take for example Inanna descent into the Underworld, it is similar to the the various European myths where certain fertility gods go underground for a period of time (usually winter time) and as a consequence the land becomes infertile. Is it not the same as Demetra and Persephone?
    I guess the rest of their mythology was under heavy semitic influence.

    I share the belief that all the greatest past civilizations were founded by one "Aryan" tribe, the people who according to some myths originated from Atlantis.

    #384223

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Mate actualy Sumer is correctly pronunced Šumer (Šuma) so esentialy they were woodland Slav. ;D

    Šumer is Akadian name for Sumers. Sumerians called themsleves ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga  [uŋ saŋ giga], literally meaning "the black-headed people"

    #384224

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    "the black-headed people"

    sounds like true "aryans"  ;D

    #384225

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    sounds like true "aryans"  ;D

    You must understand that Sumerian language was dotted with phonological assimilations, in fact it was a feature of their language.

    Both Ngi and Gi are transliterated from cuneiform into latin "Gi"

    Ngi meant black, but Gi meant "civilized"

    So let as assume originally it was sanggi: they paired a velar nasal consonant (ng) with a voiced velar stop (g). If the phonological assimilation part is true, it's possible they changed gi into ngi (pairing two velar nasals, to reach assimilation), shifting the semantics of the expression from "civilized head" into "black head". So it's quite possible they originally called themselves "Civilized-headed people". This is a theory supported by some linguists of Sumerian.

    In addition this title was also taken later by all Babylonians, so I think the"civilized" theory makes sense. But it's all my humble opinion on the matter…

    #384226

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Šumer is Akadian name for Sumers. Sumerians called themsleves ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga  [uŋ saŋ giga], literally meaning "the black-headed people"

    I hope you know i was joking. ;)

    #384227

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    I hope you know i was joking. ;)

    Of course I knew. ;D Anyway, to get back on serious discussion, Sumerians allready assimilated in Akadians by times first Indo-Europeans went in their neigbourghood.

    #384228

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Of course I knew. ;D Anyway, to get back on serious discussion, Sumerians allready assimilated in Akadians by times first Indo-Europeans went in their neigbourghood.

    Were Akadians speaking semitic or isolated language?

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 62 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

7 User(s) Online Join Server
  • Nefario
  • Shnickstara89
  • LCaine
  • ☭Lil Commie☭
  • Petko (the pet store)
  • ▽eurus▽