ancient culture

Origin Of The Racist Term “Proto-Indo-European”

"History Is A Lie Agreed Upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Thank you for stopping by Papers In The Attic blog page. If this is your first time here, please feel free to browse though our menu on the right and view some of our previous articles. Stay Blessed!

Over the past few decades it seems that there has been a rising sense of racism in the so-called New Age Movement. I must say that while the “New Age Movement” seems to promote itself as a “bright” alternative to paganism, shamanism, and etc, it is actually the Left-Hand Path that embraces the true origins of certain indigenous rites and the culture that these rites come from. While I am sure that there may be some incidents of racism among Left-Hand Path groups and personas, my personal experience has been that the majority of LHPers are sensible individuals who are open to people of all groups and cultures, and willing embrace occult practices that originate with Third World nations. On the opposite side of the coin, we have the so-called “New Age Movement,” which absorbs some of the magical and occult practices of Third World Nations, but must first water-down these rites by “bleaching” some of the depictions of the gods and goddesses of a said path, while using linguistic sources that were completely fabricated to keep the masses ignorant. Some of this was touched on in a previous article entitled The Arra Sign, which can be accessed at the following link:

https://warlockasylum.wordpress.com/arra-sign/

The reader is also encouraged to view the following link s well:

https://warlockasylum.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/the-identity-of-the-sumerians-as-seen-in-ancient-art/

I was inspired to write this post due to my recent research into the word “Necro,” when I came across the following link:

http://www.myetymology.com/english/necropsy.html

“derived from the Greek word nekros, νεκρς (corpse; dead (literally or figuratively; also as noun)) …derived from the Proto-Indo-European root “nek“

The information cited above seems to imply that the Greek word nekros derives from a Proto-Indo-European term nek. I was curious to find out the meaning of Proto-Indo-Europoean. I knew that the Greek civilization was heavily influenced by both Egypt and Babylon. The following website goes into this in great detail http://www.philipcoppens.com/egyptgreece.html

“Schools still teach that the Western civilisation is a child of Greece. Until a few decades ago, many schools did not mention the cultural achievements of Egypt or Sumer – and many schools in Europe still pay no attention to the Inca’s, Toltecs, etc. But when it comes to the Greek and Egyptian civilisations, it was made painfully clear that the Egyptian civilisation was “primitive” when compared to the cultural and specifically philosophical achievements of the Greeks. ..This situation is now slowly beginning to change, though the chasm between the Greek and Egyptian culture remains. Though geographically both countries are close to each other, and whereas many Greeks would later travel to Egypt, it is assumed that the Egyptians, a civilisation that predates the Greek civilisation by two millennia, never used that time to sail in the opposite direction. Though the ancient Egyptians had seaworthy boats – e.g. the funerary boat in the boatpit on the Gizeh plateau – the status quo is that they never sailed the Mediterranean Seas to Greece.”

While I am well aware that many anthropologists and scholars try to hide the fact that Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by ancient indigenous cultures, but I did not suspect that some among this group would actually create alternative theories to hide this truth. Common sense would dictate that ancient man was well aware of the origins of the languages that they spoke, and how some languages related to others. The history of the Rosetta Stone is one example of this http://www.king-tut.org.uk/ancient-egypt/rosetta-stone.htm Still I wanted to more about the Proto-Indo-European language that some linguists were connecting the origins of some Greek terms. Of course, I decided to look up the term and came up with some information in a Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language which states:

As there is no direct evidence of Proto-Indo-European language, all knowledge of the language is derived by reconstruction from later languages using linguistic techniques such as the comparative method and the method of internal reconstruction. Relationships to other language families, including the Uralic languages, have been proposed though all such suggestions remain controversial….Indo-European studies began with Sir William Jones making and propagating the observation that Sanskrit bore a certain resemblance to classical Greek and Latin. In The Sanscrit Language (1786) he suggested that all three languages had a common root, and that indeed they may all be further related, in turn, to Gothic and the Celtic languages, as well as to Persian..”

So I began to see some deceit amongst certain scholars. Many encyclopedias and scholars are noting that the origins of certain terms in Greek and other European languages are attributed to a language, Proto-Indo-European, that does not even exist! It is a theory that a few people made up, and they use this term to hide the true origin of certain words in the European language family as it would give way to how much influence certain indigenous cultures had on Europe. We can see this as the article continues:

“The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.”

The above words were stated by Sir William Jones concerning the Sanscrit language and its structure being more advance than Greek or Latin. However, instead of Jones giving credence to the complex Sanscrit language itself, he then finds a need to say that they come from the same source, but while have no proof of the source is able to label the source of these language as Proto-Indo-European. I am not the only one who was able to see this form of racism in the making. Ellen Preckler and Rik Pinxten made the following observation in a book entitled; Racism in Metropolitan Areas, Volume 3, page 76:

Even the Aryan myth, so rightly discredited as racist by its centrality for Nazi ideology and the Holocaust, did have a complicated earlier history, for it originated, with late-eighteenth century Orientalist scholars like William Jones..”

Bruce Lincoln in the book, Theorizing Myth makes the following observation on page 94:

“First, the hypothesis for which Sir William Jones is most famous had deep antecedents and was always problematic. Most immediately, Jones was influenced by Jacob Bryant’s bibliocentric attempt to trace all world mythology back to Ham and all right religion to Shem….A more critical genealogy of the discourse need not minimize his gifts nor impeach his motives while treating Sir William’s genius, stature, and organizational and promotional talents as crucial factors that helped legitimate an enterprise in which various chauvinism (racists, nationalist, anit-Semitic, colonists, and imperialist) were-and remained-implicit. It is not hard to reemplot the story in the genres of tragedy and horror,…by following the discourse’s nineteenth and twentieth-century peregrinations, when Bryant’s Amonians and Jones’ “Hindu Race” acquired the name “Ayrans.” ….Since the atrocities of the Nazis in the Second World War, the term “Aryan” has virtually disappeared from polite conversation…Scholars who wish to pursue the discourse while marking their distance from its savory aspects now use the term “(Proto-) Indo-Europoean,” also a coinage of the nineenth century.”

From Lincoln’s observations we can see that Proto-Indo-European is a phrase that actually is used to replace Hitler’s understanding of what the term aryan means. Aside from Hitler’s definition of the term Aryan comes from the Sanscrit Arya, which means noble or spiritual. Any association of the term Aryan with an ethnic group or “race” is entirely based on Hitler’s use of the term. It is due to the merging of anthropology and racism that many have lost the link of how ancient societies connected thousands of years ago. Now what became of my research and trying to find the origins of the Greek term nekros? It seems to have come from the Egyptian goddess Nekhbet, upon which we find the following

“In Egyptian mythology, Nekhbet (also spelt Nechbet, and Nekhebit) was an early predynastic local goddess who was the patron of the city of Nekheb, her name meaning of Nekheb. Ultimately, she became the patron of Upper Egypt and one of the two patron deities for all of Ancient Egypt when it was unified…She was seen as a goddess who had chosen to adopt the city, and consequently depicted as the Egyptian white vulture, a creature that the Egyptians thought only existed as females (not knowing that, lacking sexual dimorphism, the males are identical). They were presumed to be reproducing via parthenogenesis…Egypt’s oldest oracle was the shrine of Nekhbet at Nekheb, the original necropolis or city of the dead. It was the companion city to Nekhen, the religious and political capital of Upper Egypt at the end of the Predynastic period (c. 3200–3100 BC) and probably, also during the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BC). The original settlement on the Nekhen site dates from Naqada I or the late Badarian cultures. At its height, from about 3400 BC, Nekhen had at least 5,000 and possibly as many as 10,000 inhabitants…The priestesses of Nekhbet were called muu (mothers) and wore robes of Egyptian vulture feathers.”

Advertisements

16 replies »

  1. I’m not sure I understand where you’re going here.

    First, I’m not sure that I agree that the ancient roots of language are undiscoverable. What linguists have found, for instance, is that certain sounds transform into others on a fairly consistent basis. Some of this is likely to be speculative, but that doesn’t mean there’s no basis for it.

    Second, I’d agree that ethnocentrism, and sometimes outright racism, did form an important part of the scholarship of the day. (I’d say the statement on Sanskrit from Wikipedia might depict the former, more likely than the latter, if using a secondary quote really tells us anything.) Nonetheless, we still use much of what they found, though the attitudes have had to be discarded. Much of the scholarship Gatewalkers still use in their practice is the result of Christian scholars trying to determine whether the Bible was true, for instance.

    Finally, I don’t see how someone who relies so much on the Sumer-Aryan Dictionary by Waddell can really get this upset about potential racism behind Proto-Indo-European. There’s a huge difference between the linguistic “I think Sanskrit and Greek have a common ancestor, rather than one derived from the other” and Waddell’s “white people did everything worthwhile in civilization.”

    Like

  2. I agree with you about your observations concerning Waddell. My intent in this discussion was to give the reader an alternative thought when it comes to the said term. In all honesty Dan, I began researching the term Nekros and one of our new staff members mentioned to me that this term also appears in some African dialects. So I was more looking into that, and came across the Proto-Indo-European language, and while I do understand some of the things that you are talking about and agree on some levels. You are correct that the Gate-Walking Community is limited to Christian scholarship, which has its own agenda. However, I must ask your opinion of this, as to how the language of such a great civilization as Greece is said to come from some theory, and on top of all of this, it’s put out as a fact. I don’t believe that’s honest scholarship, do you?

    Answer: It just seems more honest to me to cite the actual known origin of a word than relate it to theory. Sir William Jones had great admiration for Sanskrit and found it superior to the Greek and Latin language, which becomes a problem when the Western world was erroneously propagating the idea that Greece was the world’s first civilization, not Sumer, not Egypt, but Greece. So now these characters with all sorts of fancy degrees have to find a way to explain how is that so-called “inferior civilizations” possessed a more complex language structure than Greek or Latin? So you make up a language!!! It just seems more honest to me to cite the actual known origin of a word than relate it to theory.

    This may not have been entirely a racist thing, but in some ways, if this information conflicts with the scholars belief system, of which many were Christian, so maybe these scholars were trying to find a way to explain how they can still fit themselves in the Garden of Eden picture, while discovering languages that were more complex, and spoken by indigenous peoples, than the language that the Church attributed to Adam and Eve.

    You’re an intelligent person Dan. I am sure that you’re aware that even the Chinese language has some Sumerian root words in it, but I am not going to then make up a theory that they come from some other previous language and then make up a term for this language and start citing correspondences to this made up language in reference books. But this is pretty much what the origin of the Proto-Indo-European. Coupled by the fact that after Hitler was done with all his propaganda the principles that Hitler associated with the term Aryan needed a replacement term, which became Proto-Indo-European

    As far as Waddell goes, and this may give reason why i do use older references at times, his bigotry, which I have mentioned in any citation of him, actually reveals certain information in some detail that is rarely available through his bigotry.

    Like

  3. It is interesting to note that in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” there is no mention of the Aryan racial theories nor the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
    The cause of Hitler’s virulent Antisemitism is elucidated in my Amazon Kindle eBook “Adolph & i”.
    Yes, I am promoting myself.

    Like

  4. Thanks. BTW: You are probably aware that the early Greeks were not racist like today’s powerful Americans, Europeans, Arabians. The Greeks typically gave credit to Egypt’s Imhotep, etc. The Romans were more racist, but racism really hit hard when Queen Isabella and the Catholic Church, etc used it to convince the avg white European that dark skin was a sign of inferiority, thus giving whites the mindset that the people they were killing in the New World were PAGAN, and inferior unless they converted to the white version of Egyptian and African religion, today called Christianity. The avg white person today is NOT racist, but somewhat deluded to not realize that their parents (Black Africans) are suffering because of the greed of the financially richest whites (and a few blacks that make it into the upper level of economic order). We must come together as humans and get rid of the greedy.

    Like

  5. The Eastern Mediterranean is the cradle of the whole west(Caucasoid countries with Abrahamic culture). Greece did not come out of nowhere, ever had a culture separate and independent of their Eastern Mediterranean brothers and never shared anything with the “Europeans(Germanic, Celts and Proto-Slavs)” who in fact were their slaves.

    Like

  6. “Many encyclopedias and scholars are noting that the origins of certain terms in Greek and other European languages are attributed to a language, Proto-Indo-European, that does not even exist!”

    This seems like something of an unfair characterisation. Proto-Indo-European ‘does not exist’ in the sense that its speakers left no written records (understandable if it originated in a part of the world that did not yet have writing), which means that any reconstruction of it must contain a lot of uncertainty, but the consensus of linguists, as far as I understand, is that we can have a reasonable go at reconstructing a lot of its grammar and vocabulary, even if we have to have a lot of symbols that represent ‘a particular phoneme, though we’re not quite sure which particular phoneme’.

    Human languages never stop mutating, unless they die out, and we know from written examples like Latin and its descendents the sort of ways in which they tend to change over time, so the only way for Sankrit to not be the descendant of *some* more ancient language, would be for it to have somehow been immunised from the natural processes of language change while all the other languages around it went on morphing into new forms. What that more ancient language might have been is therefore a question worth asking, and it is not at all clear how it is racist to think that it may have also been the common ancestor of other languages that seem to share a suspiciously large number of features with Sanskrit, which you seem to imply with your line about how ‘instead of Jones giving credence to the complex Sanscrit language itself, he then finds a need to say that they come from the same source [as Latin and Greek]’.

    If you are claiming that, regardless of the validity of the hypothesis that Sanskrit, Greek and Latin share a common ancestor, it is racist to give that ancestor the name ‘Proto-Indo-European’ … well, I guess you can claim that it ignores Persian, and indeed Tocharian, but it is not a *terrible* short description of the geographical area now occupied by the descendents of the hypothesised reconstructed proto-language, and, again, it is entirely unclear to me how the term is racist. ‘Aryan’, as far as I can tell, was the old name given not to the whole Indo-European family, but to the subfamily comprising the languages of Iran and northern India, which is now usually referred to as Indo-Iranian. Indeed, it’s why Iran is called Iran in the first place. Hitler may have come up with some idiosyncratic uses of the word ‘Aryan’, but I don’t see why that would make it racist to suggest that the language of northern India and Iran share a relatively recent common ancestor, or that they share a more ancient common ancestor with most of the languages of Europe.

    If you haven’t read John McWhorter’s book The Power of Babel, by the way, I recommend it as an interesting layperson’s intro to the ways that languages evolve.

    Like

  7. Dear wintershaker,

    Thanks to your reply on the subject. I must ask you then at what costs does evidence become religion wherein one can claim a theory and then put it out in reference books with no historical evidence? Is this not a useful means in wiping out the history of interactions between nation and accessing the origins of loan words? Think about. Historically speaking, why have these theories surfaced more rapidly since Operation Paperclip?

    We should also remember that such theories concerning the origin of language was criticized by other scientists due to the fact that there is no historical evidence to support Sir William Jones’ theory. Published in the 1800’s, The Aesthetic and Miscellaneous Works of Friedrich Von Schlegel by Friedrich von Schlegel states:

    “Hypothesis concerning the first origin of languages would either have been disregarded altogether, or have assumed an entirely different form, had they been founded on historical investigation, instead of being wrested into forced compliance with arbitrary theories.”

    Have a great day Wintershaker!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. “at what costs does evidence become religion wherein one can claim a theory and then put it out in reference books with no historical evidence?”

    Well, if you are demanding written records from ancient pre-literate peoples, then we can say nothing about the origins of just about any languages, with the exception of the few that we do have written records for going back thousands of years which have since branched off into descendents – like Latin and the modern Romance languages, or ancient Chinese and the modern Sinitic languages.

    We don’t have written records from the speakers of Proto-Indo-European (or Proto-Uralic, or Proto-Sino-Tibetan or anything else) but we do have some written evidence of the way languages interact with each other, what sort of changes are likely to happen when two languages diverge from a common source, what sort of changes are likely when one language picks up a lot of vocabulary or even grammatical structures from another, what sort of things happen when a pidgin comes into existence and evolves into a creole etc … and as far as I understand it, the consensus of modern linguists is that the similarities between Latin, Greek and Sanskrit (and the Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, Persian languages etc) are more likely, based on what we know about how languages evolve and interact, to be the result of descent from a common ancestor than they are to be the result of one of them starting out as completely unrelated and then borrowing a lot of features from some of the others.

    If you think that the consensus is mistaken – if you think for example that Sanskrit did in fact start out as a completely unrelated language to Latin or Greek but then took on a lot of vocab from one of them before the time of its earliest written records, then fine, but you will need to say what your evidence is. If you are hypothesising a Proto-Sanskrit from before it borrowed features from Latin and Greek, then your hypothesised proto-language is no more historically evidenced than Proto-Indo-European. You are the one who is claiming that the hypothesis that Sanskrit, Latin and Greek share a common ancestor is a racist hypothesis (or that the name ‘Proto-Indo-European’ is a racist name to give to that common ancestor, it is unclear from your article which of those claims you are making), but you have not shown why either of those would be instances of racism.

    Your quote from the 1800s is from a guy who I understand was one of the early proponents of a common origin of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek, albeit one who believed that the speakers of that proto-language began in India and spread west from there (as opposed to the current view, which I understand to be something like ‘we don’t have enough evidence to say with any confidence, but we tentatively think it might have been the steppelands of southern Russia and Ukraine’) – I don’t the context of the quote, so maybe you can say exactly which claims he is accusing of having been wrested into forced compliance with arbitrary theories.

    And I don’t know much about Operation Paperclip, a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry suggests that it had nothing to do with comparative linguistics, so you may need to clarify what the connection is that you’re trying to make.

    Like

  9. I see what’s going on here and respect you comments. much of our discussion is a matter of miscommunication. There are a lot of theories that exist in the world, however, it doesn’t qualify them to be taught as fact when these subjects need more evidence before quoting it as a source in reference book, which is literally rewriting history. If you only knew what it takes for something to be put in a reference book, then you would understand what I am saying.

    Operation Paperclip was when Nazi scientists were recruited by the US Government near the close of WWII. Shortly after this we find their ideas taking root in mainstream America. The Proto-Indo-European language was one of their ideas. History plays a big part in how certain things are established, the beliefs of society, and how certain things enter reference books have a lot to do with what is going on with human society at the time. Proponents of PIE know this and try to keep the conversation in ignorance of historical events that was going on around the time of Sir William Jones hypothesis. Actually other scholars had noted similarities between European and Indian languages, such as Van Boxhorn. Jones clearly disregarded any search into the origins of Sanskrit and moved immediately into an idea of a mother of Sanskrit instead of investigating its origins. We have to remember that discovering PIE would once again work politically to lessen the world view of a newly-conquered British India, which Sir Jones served. If this language could be proven it would lessen the destruction that the British brought to India and the caste system that was created. But of course members of PIE see no need to examine any of these fact0rs.

    Thank you Wintershaker

    Like

  10. I went on Quora and asked why the theory existed when the evidence was non existent and the notion that Sanskrit and Greek were similar was essentially a lie according to their own list of similar words, which will include so many languages it distracts people from the important comparison of Greek and Sanskrit. But if you concentrate on the 2 languages that the theory rests on they have a few, literally a few words that could be loan words or coincidence.

    I suggested this and in response was actually told to look at other languages, but I said I wasn’t going to look at the other languages because the foundation of the hypothesis that “PIE” even existed is the alleged similarities which could easily be explained by mutual interactions and loan words. They don’t educate linguists about history so I easily cited Plutarch mention of the Hellenization of the Praesii tribe by Alexander the Great and how Plutarch was aware that they still practiced the customs Alexander taught.

    I had to because according to the PIE theory and this linguist there was “No interaction beyond Alexander’s failed invasion” of India, an erroneous notion I refuted with evidence from the respected Plutarch and from the Heresiologist Hippolytus, 1st and 2nd century or so, respectively, that left no room for doubt that there was enough interaction for Plutarch to know of the Praesii and their continued practices of “Hellenism” taught by Alexander himself and Hippolytus had plenty of knowledge about the Brahman and other religions of India.

    Refuted, he then claimed that this was too late to effect PIE at which point I had to remind him that there is no evidence the existence of this fabrication and that only by assuming the hypothesis wasn’t a hypothesis would that argument even be plausible, plus it does not rule out the possibility that the words similarities (if they existed in the first place beyond said handful) occurred AD or BC if it had to come to that. Unfortunately for people who waste money on this bogus profession this language simply never existed and the hypothesis is unnecessary for many reasons, the most important being that there is hardly any resemblance between Sanskrit and Greek and the few words like Mater, Pater, aren’t enough to justify wholesale fabrication of a language because “It’s the best way to explain the similarities” as there are more plausible and less laughable ways to potentially explain the not so extraordinary phenomenon of loan words, and that history proves that there was sufficient interaction for this to occur and way more than enough time.

    Unfortunately for anyone who can’t grasp this, they are the reason why they get away with teaching it. Because people are stupid enough to believe… anything.

    Like that at one point in time from Britain to India people spoke the same language, the root of all “Indo-European” languages. Unfortunately there is no such thing as “Indo-European” anything, unless you are half European and half Indian or something, otherwise the name itself is suggestive of the ridiculous of the hypothesis, Europe and India are two different worlds far apart in language and culture, now and then, and the fact that this fabricated language has no evidence should be considered by “educated” people who, according to statistics tend to be atheists or agnostic (lack of evidence?) but have no problem with believing in fairy tales, as long as it is in a University and not about who or what created everything created, which they usually believe is no thing, no thing is responsible for the “Big Bang” and people used to speak PIE.

    Do they not realize that Sanskrit and Greek aren’t similar or that samples are actually pretty untrustworthy since most Greek literature, non Christian, is retranslated into Greek after a tour of 3 or 4 languages at a time? If

    Like

  11. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Indo-European-hypothesis-believed-and-taught-when-the-evidence-is-quite-pathetic-and-the-rather-few-similarities-between-it-and-Greek-Sanskrit-are-better-explained-by-interaction-and-borrowing-of-the/answer/Simon-Bargioria

    This is it. If you think that there was an Indo-European language I would love you to look at the pathetic answers given by “academics” that could not overcome my refutation and simply quit. See for yourself. You may not be able to see all my private comments but I answered the question myself, twice under my name and twice anonymously. Check it out.

    Like

  12. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Indo-European-hypothesis-believed-and-taught-when-the-evidence-is-quite-pathetic-and-the-rather-few-similarities-between-it-and-Greek-Sanskrit-are-better-explained-by-interaction-and-borrowing-of-the

    A more direct link, the other one you have to click on the question to see other people’s answers. Nobody was able to justify the existence of the hypothesis once I mentioned the historical citations and called them out on the total lack of real similarities between the two languages, which they could not even deny.

    Most people seem to not be aware of this fact. That the foundation of the hypothesis is a pretty blatant lie. I can’t call it exaggeration because it is a few words, hardly what was claimed. And the pathetic attempt to bring chronological arguments to support an unproven hypothesis and to rule out evidence against it was also said I predicted that actually happened, though I predicted it. It was sad, I felt like I was intellectually bullying this guy with his certificates of achievement, his Degrees, apparently he had never considered anything I had said and seemed from his answer confident that it would go unchallenged, probably because that is what everyone does.

    Do your own research. Someone mildly criticized the above author for saying that that PIE does not exist, more or less, that sounds like someone who can’t believe that Academia would fabricate a language for racist reasons, but that is exactly what they did with Jones hypothesis, they didn’t reconstruct anything, they created the evidence for their hypothesis and call it “reconstruction.” But why the “re” if it is a non existent language, it is not like you can find a “lost language” that didn’t leave any evidence it existed by speculation regarding etymology and a lot of deception, that’s just lying.

    Like

  13. I also posted a specific question about the etymology of the prefix “sept” which is claimed to be Indo-European but, since it means it 7 like the Semitic “sbt” that is used for the 7th day of the week in Arabic, Hebrew, in various forms and comes from the word for 7 which is Saba it Arabic. P changing to a B is common through languages and the Septuagint LXX is the Greek Bible supposedly written by 70 Rabbis in 70 copies so it is not like a Semitic source for Sept is out of the question. It seems presumptuous to claim an “Indo-European” source but likely that a Semitic language is the source, maybe the Aramaic of the “Phoenicians” who taught them how to use letters. Probably even.

    Nobody could answer the question accept one honest person who said “I don’t know, you could be right” what I respect, but I don’t even remember the other answers.

    Like

  14. Thanks for the info! Very informative to say the least. Usually a “theory” is used as a prefix until historical data surfaces. For example, the “Theory pf Evolution. However in this case, PIE is already being put in reference books and used as a source of origin without any evidence at all. That’s not science! That’s religious brainwashing. It just goes to show how such theories are easily accepted and followed with no scientific proof by the most educated people who fail to question science.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.