History Nerd Thread - Proto-Indo-European Language and Culture

Can we get a "there's no such thing as language" or "the great language conspiracy" so this doesn't get moved to the Pub?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

With all the subtle linguistic nuances entailed, it most definitely belongs on this forum. I look forward to reading and possibly contributing but time is limited today as I have to prepare lunch for a small party of people coming for a few hours this afternoon. Catch you later.

 

I believe the Nazis were pretty obsessed with Indo-European origins of German nationalism/language/peoples hence the "Aryan race" / Swastika stuff. Now that we are on the topic of Nazis, can't possibly be moved.

 

And I can post how the Hebrew word for Noah's ark - teivah - also means word or container in Hebrew.

 

Yeah, this stuff is always interesting. Like how the closest linguistic relative to Hungarian is Finnish, or how Romanian is a Latin language.

 

Our word testimony is derived from the ancient practice of the witness, or one making an oath, to place his hand "under the thigh", a euphemistic way of saying the one making the oath placed his hand on the testicles of the recipient of the oath as recorded in Genesis 24 when Abraham charged his servant to find a suitable wife for his son Isaac. The servant made the sacred oath to find Isaac an acceptable woman among Abraham's relatives to be Isaac's wife.

Genesis 24:1 - 9 - Now Abraham was old, well advanced in age; and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. 2 So Abraham said to the oldest servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, “Please, put your hand under my thigh, 3 and I will make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; 4 but you shall go to my country and to my family, and take a wife for my son Isaac.”

5 And the servant said to him, “Perhaps the woman will not be willing to follow me to this land. Must I take your son back to the land from which you came?”

6 But Abraham said to him, “Beware that you do not take my son back there. 7 The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house and from the land of my family, and who spoke to me and swore to me, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land,’ He will send His angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. 8 And if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be released from this oath; only do not take my son back there.” 9 So the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and swore to him concerning this matter.
_________________

Dr Taylor Marshall, a Catholic scholar wrote of the practice:
Testimony and Testicles - The Oath of Abraham's Servant - Taylor Marshall.
In Genesis 24:2-9, we read of how Abraham instructed his chief servant to “place his hand under his thigh” and swear an oath. This oath was an important one because it indicated that Abraham’s covenantal son (Isaac) should marry a monotheist and not one of the idolatrous Canaanite women. This oath “under the thigh” secured the monotheistic tradition of the Abraham’s descendants.

The placing of one’s hand under the “thigh” is a euphemistic way to refer to swearing upon the testicles of the master. The testicles are the sign of Abraham’s descendants (they literally contained the “seed” that God had promised to bless in Genesis 15, 17, 22).

By placing his hand there, the servant of Abraham made a solemn oath concerning the blessed progeny of Abraham. This association between testicles and testimony is not particularly Semitic or Jewish. Although the etymology is contested by some (e.g famed etymologist Carl Darling Buck), the word Latin word testes is identical to the same word for “witnesses”. It may be that testis derives from tri-literal roots ter (“three”) and stas (“stand”) referring to the ancient custom that a testimony comes three witnesses who stand in court (Hat tip to Michael Bolin, Ph.D. Cand. for this insight).

This etymological connection between testicles and witnesses is also found in Greek, French, and obviously English. The Abrahamic Covenant in general is sealed upon the genitals of Abraham and his descendants. It’s not a “yucky” practice but a powerful sign of the powers of generation in the bringing about of redemption in God’s economy. Circumcision is a sign that points to the promised Seed of Redemption, originating in the promise of Genesis 3:15. Circumcision is no longer necessary, because Christ has been born. Christ was the last to receive true circumcision because the sign was completed and fulfilled in Him. Thus, Christians receive baptism alone when they enter into the New Covenant of Christ. Saint Paul explains that the benefit of circumcision is received by the Christian through baptism (cf. Col 2:10-11).

 

“Testify” Comes From the Latin Word for Testicle

"In ancient Rome, two men taking an oath of allegiance held each other's testicles, and men held their own testicles as a sign of truthfulness while bearing witness in a public forum. The Romans found a word to describe this practice but didn't invent the practice itself. Other primates had already been doing this for millions of years. Two male baboons who cooperate with each other by forming aggressive alliances against other baboons frequently fondle each other's genitalia. This behavior has nothing to do with sex but it's a social ritual that 'primatologists call a "greeting.'

"The behavior of ancient Romans and male baboons can be explained by the Handicap Principle, an evolutionary theory according to which the most effective way to obtain reliable information about a partner's commitment in a relationship — whether a political alliance, a romantic relationship, or a business partnership — is to impose a cost on the partner and assess the partner's willingness to pay it.

"'To better understand the testicle ritual and its explanation, it's important to remember that cooperative relationships between unrelated individuals are intrinsically unstable: One business partner may cooperate one moment and cheat in another, and one romantic partner may promise eternal commitment one day and end the relationship the next. Economists call this 'the commitment problem.'"

"In nature, the equivalent of money is fitness: the ability to survive and reproduce. Therefore, the best way for an animal to address the commitment problem in a cooperative relationship is to assess the extent to which a partner is willing to risk his or her survival or future reproduction to maintain that relationship. In other words, testing the strength of the bond involves behaving in ways that are costly, risky, or otherwise detrimental to the partner."

 

testis | Etymology of testis by etymonline

Entries linking to testis
testament (n.)

late 13c., in law, "last will, expressing the final disposition of one's property," from Latin testamentum "a last will, publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from testis "witness," generally accepted to be from PIE *tri-st-i- "third person standing by," from root *tris- "three" (see three) on the notion of "third person, disinterested witness."

Use of testament in reference to the two divisions of the Bible (early 14c.) is from Late Latin vetus testamentum and novum testamentum, loan-translations of Greek palaia diathēkē and kainē diathēkē. But here Late Latin testamentum is a confusion of the two meanings of Greek diathēkē, which meant both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament." Testament had been used in the sense of "covenant between God and mankind" in English from early 14c. (as in the account of the Last Supper; see testimony), but the word subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last will."

 

Haven't watched your videos yet but love learning about languages and history. I just asked chatgpt the following: "Can you create a timeline or timeline of how modern English emerged over the years from its linguistic ancestors? The question might be difficult since I appreciate that English borrows words from other languages, but I imagine that is not exclusive to English. I am more looking for the direct ancestors of modern English as well as how and why it is what it is today."

I got a long response, but here's the summary of its answer:

Realistic Cutoff Point
You’d likely need to stop no earlier than the 1600s (Early Modern English) to have a meaningful conversation. If you traveled to Chaucer’s time (1300s), you might recognize scattered words but would struggle to form sentences or follow a conversation. Anything earlier would be like trying to talk to a speaker of a completely different language.

 

Cool. Link that if you can find it easily.

 

Beowulf is in Old English, you definitely couldnt read it without translation

 

Ha, yeah, I borrowed notes from a friend named Cliff even for Canterbury Tales. Chat did bring up Beowulf as well, and here's part of what it said:

Old English (~450–1150 CE)

• Accuracy: Low to Moderate
• What You’d Hear: Old English is almost a different language, with guttural sounds and Germanic roots. Words like Hwæt! and Gār-Dena would sound more like early Scandinavian or German.
  • Example (from Beowulf):
    “Hwæt! Wē Gār-Dena in geārdagum...”
    • Pronounced as: "ʍæt! weː ɡɑːr-deːnɑ in jeːɑr-dɑɡum..."