Page 1 of 1


Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:24 am
by Orakulli
Yes, of course it is because every body may speculate in t his topic, included the linguists, who in fact are idiotcracies of this eventually level of the knowledge .
So, my first claim has always been that the language has nothing to do with la storia, e di meno con the Roman Empire. I have emphasized that because it is the major mistake you make when you argument about language. I do not know whether all people involved in this kind of discussions mess them involuntarily, or intentionally, or because of the total ignorance in this subject, but they do not give arguments, and they do not deal with the facts of linguistic evidence. The mostly speak in general, in a way that came mostly from prejudices, and hangs up of the risen opinions from every human garbage that have dominated most of the historical time.
But, the lingustic has a lot of issues.
I telling you one of them:
The issue del ochio.
Oko is also the Bulgarian word for ochio, also in Czech, Polish, etc. Has Latin borrowed that word? The linguists tell us that it came from Proto-Slavic *oko, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃ekʷ-.
Oko and Ochio are not related? They have the same meaning, almost the same pronunciation and oko has nothing to do with h₃ekʷ. It is so obvious. Is it an idiocy? Yes, it is. That is the level of the Indo-European linguistic. How can be understod the Etruscan language, for example?

by Atmir Ilias on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 2:51pm