Home
Back
Russian
Turkic and English

Sources
Roots
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Classification of Türkic languages
Language Types
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Arians, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
Türkic borrowings in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Germanic and Uralo-Altaic Lexicon

PROF. DR. Alfred Toth
Hungaro-Raetica II
Mikes International, The Hague, Holland, 2007

Foreword

We all know that German and English are Indo-European languages. At one time, before it was renamed, the Indo-European was even called Indo-Germanic in the European scientific lingo. In Germany, it still remains Indo-Germanic. At the same time even a casual observer slightly familiar with Türkic and German or English runs into words that are phonetically and semantically clearly related, like Earth/Erde Türk. "yer", -er/Herr Türk. "er",  etc.; even the very name Germani has a semantically suitable and positive Türkic equivalent At the same time we hear that while Finno-Ugrian (Uralic) borrowed heavily from the Indo-European (Mallory and Co), and that the reverse is not true, and Indo-European does not have a matching number of Uralic borrowings. The clear similarities seem to be a totally unexplored field, since the scholar A.Toth could only cite two names, and only one of them published, in addition to his own opinion, clearly expressed, and supported, at least in respect to Uralic group, in his cited here work. The absence of substantial research may be the nourishment that feeds both misconceptions and misrepresentations. I would love to cite an authoritive source that examined Grmanic Swadesh List and published results. For raw numbers, and program for Swadesh multilateral comparison go to http://brettkessler.com/McDonald/Indo-Uralic/index.html . The numbers that that program suggests seems to agree with educated guess valuations offered by von den Velden, T.Vennemann, and A.Toth.

Assuming that the above scholars know what they are talking about, and know the implications of their assertions, Germanic languages are substrate languages, with IE lexicon adopted and absorbed by non-IE speakers, with distortions and particularities inherent to their mother-tongue, as was crisply and loudly asserted in the past. The first consequence of this assertion is that the linguistic tree concept does not apply, which wrecks centuries of careful assembly and wide publication of genealogical trees. The second consequence is that Germanic languages need to be re-classified. and the third consequence is that if Germanic languages with their 25% of IE lexicon and non-IE grammar (they are not inflectional) should be classified as non-IE languages, how it impacts languages like Ossetic, with its 20% IE lexicon and non-IE morphology (Ossetic has agglutinative morphology)? 

Hungaro-Raetica II
3. Hungarian substrate words in German and English
citation

5

According to a guess of von den Velden (1912), about 80% of the German vocabulary is non-Germanic, mostly even non-Indo-European. During my work on EDH (Toth 2007), I came to the conclusion, that the Non-IE component in German is about 75% (cf. EDH-4). In a personal communication, Professor Theo Vennemann (University of Munich) wrote me on 09th of July that he believes that the Non-IE component in German is also 75%. But while Vennemann tries to trace back the non-IE component of German basically to Basque and Semitic languages, I try to show the Sumerian and Semitic components (cf. EDH-4, Brunner 1969). I purposely speak here about German and not about "Germanic", and this on two reasons: First, English, the other Germanic language researched here, has a huge amount of borrowings from French while German doesn't, and second, I do not consider in this article other languages than German and English, even such a task would without doubt be illuminating.

I am following here the observation of von den Velden who wrote "dass die germanischen Sprachen vieles aus den uralaltaischen ubernommen haben... . Uberall finden wir dunkle Worte, die ihre Aufklarung meist in den uralaltaischen Sprachen finden, ja ich kann getrost behaupten, dass Wortstamme, die in mehreren uraltaltaischen Sprachen vorkommen, fast mit Sicherheit sich auch in den germanischen Sprachen finden lassen" (that the Germanic languages have taken many words from the Ural-Altaic ones .... Everywhere, we find dark (dubious) words that find their explication in the Ural-Altaic languages. I can even assert safely that word-stems that show up in several Ural-Altaic languages, can be found almost definitely in the Germanic languages, too) (von den Velden 1919/20, p. 791).

Bibliography

Von den Velden, Friedrich, Über Ursprung und Herkunft der indogermanischen Sprachen und anarische Sprachreste in Westeuropa. Bonn 1912

Von den Velden, Friedrich, Der Ursprung der nichtgemein-indogermanischen Bestandteile der germanischen Sprachen. In: Anthropos 14/15, 1919/20, pp. 788-792

Home
Back
Russian
Turkic and English
Sources
Roots
Alphabet
Writing
Language
Religion
Genetics
Geography
Archeology
Coins
Wikipedia
Classification of Türkic languages
Language Types
Lingo-Ethnical Tree
Indo-European, Arians, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Foundation of the Scythian-Iranian theory
Türkic borrowings in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic-Sumerian
Türkic-Etruscan
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
6/30/2007
Рейтинг@Mail.ru