Phrase Arabe presque identique a son contrepart Français.

[humanbyrace]

Une seule chose, connaissez-vous l'expression faux amis en langue?

Oui comme bad en anglais et bed en persan qui sont des false cognates(= faux amis),malgre le fait que les 2 voulant dire mauvais.
Mais il ne s'agit pas de faux amis(false cognates)mais de racines communes que les linguistes ont reussi a les localiser dans des dizianes de langues distinctes et suivre leur evolution phonetique et semantique.

comme par exemple:
afrasien mut(arabe mawt,berbere met,egyptien mut),indo-europeen mort(persan morde,français mort..)

[humanbyrace]

Vous pouvez lire cette petite explication:

The basic pattern of the expansion of the Homo sapiens sapiens on the Eurasian continent, of “the peopling of Eurasia,” is of the “ripple” type, with the Near East in the center pumping waves after waves of immigrants to the east (East Asia), west (Europe), and somewhat later, namely after the retreat of the last ice-age, north and south (back to North Africa). The model of Eurasia-peopling is, that is to say, “Out of the Near East Again and Again.” The first wave has just been described and the linguistic vestiges of it identified. Around 40,000 years or so BP, a second wave of immigration “radiated” outward from the Near East center (“homeland”) to both East Asia and Europe. It’s quite possible that many of the descendants of the “first wave”, already resident in the larger part of South Asia, were “assimilated” by the second wave, the linguistic field of which covered up large section of South Asia. That is, they adopted the customs and languages of the new-comers, having lost their own linguistic and cultural identities. This is a too-often repeated pattern in the story of humans-coming-to-be-in-where-they-are-today, as we shall see. On the other side, arriving in Europe, the immigrants of the “second wave,” the first Homo sapiens sapiens to there turn up, quickly swept across and populated all over the frozen continent (“lasting 5 to 10,000 years”; p. 66, Cavalli-Sforza et al. The History and Geography of Human Genes). They brought with them the more sophisticated Aurignacian lithic culture, in contrast with the local, Mousterian culture of the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. They brought about, too, the extinction of the latter through their more accelerated population growth. This second wave is today identified as the Dene-(Sino-)Caucasian substratum, at this time constituting a vast dialect field extending over the entire Eurasia from the tip of Spain to probably as far as the coast of Northeast Asia. The time is approximately 30,000 years BP.
The European sub-culture of this vast Dene-Caucasian substratum has today left its traces in our memory as the “Cro-Magnon Man.”1 & 2 But only few vestiges from this “second wave” remain today. In the European west the only (linguistic) remnant today is the Basque (in southern France and northern Spain). To the east, the rest of the Dene-Caucasian substratum still remaining includes the north Caucasian family, Burushaski (of Pakistan), Sino-Tibetan, Yeniseian (Siberia), and Na-Dene of North America. Now if we want to identify the bearers of the language ancestral to today’s Chinese languages at this time, i.e. around 30,000 years BP, we can surmise that they were probably at this time no longer in the Near East but were to be found near the Himalayan region, the actual homeland of the Sino-Tibetan family 20,000 years or so later.
I want to retrack and put emphasis on the fact that the first “Europeans,” the “Cro-Magnon Man,” who pushed the Neanderthals into ever more unfavorable ecological niches and eventually into extinction, were most probably Dene-Caucasians and not the Indo-Europeans that according to all accounts arrived here only more than 20,000 years later. I’ve always been intrigued by the Europeans today who, when visiting museums of natural history, identified the reconstructions (models and images) of the Cro-Magnon Man they saw as their “(direct) ancestor,” and even by the museum curators who wrote the explanations for the pieces exhibited as if this Cro-Magnon Man were truly (directly) ancestral to themselves and the visitors staring wondrously at the reconstructions. (The museum curators, by virtue of their education, of course knew of the later coming of the “Indo-europeéns.”) The source of this illusion is certainly the fact that they all are on the same continent. The Cro-Magnon Man is ancestral to modern Europeans only in the sense that most of the genetic constitution of modern Europeans are inherited from Cro-Magnon Man;2 but certainly not in the linguistic sense. The complication involved in identifying an “ancestor” reflects the complex pattern of the process of people-coming-to-be-where-they-are-today.
We now come to the “third wave,” the third “Out of Near East.” Most of today’s linguistic and ethnic diversity on Eurasia continent in fact had its origin in this third, Nostratic focal expansion. Let me read to you from the excellent statement on this topic, Allan R. Bomhard and John C. Kern’s The Nostratic Macrofamily (Mouton de Gruyter, 1994). First, his concluding statement on the previous, second focal expansion, that of Dene-Caucasian.
“As always in hunter-gatherer societies, mobility was at a premium. Canoes were used for water travel and snow shoes and sleds were developed for overland travel in winter. The conditions were favorable for the rapid spread of tribes and their new linguistic family over immense distances. This expansion, which is called Mesolithic, is indicated archaeologically by microliths found all along Northern Eurasia and Southward through the Caucasus into the Near East, where it later developed smoothly into the Neolithic with its domestication of cereals and of animals suitable for food and fibers.
“The Mesolithic culture is aptly named, for it provided a gradual though rapid transition between the Upper Paleolithic and the agricultural Neolithic. There was, in fact, a steady advance in man’s ability to control and exploit his environment…”
the Mesolithic culture, with its Nostratic language, had its beginning in or near the Fertile Crescent just south of the Caucasus, with a slightly later northern extension into Southern Russia in intimate association with woods and fresh water in lakes and rivers. From these positions, it had ready access to the lower Danube and the Balkans (Indo-European), to the Caucasus (Kartvelian), south of the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt, and the rest of North Africa (Sumerian and Afroasiatic), eastward into Central Siberia (Elamo-Dravidian), and northward and thence eastward along the Circumpolar fringe (Uralic-Yukaghir, Altaic, Chukchi-Kamchatkin, Gilyak, and Eskimo-Aleut [: these together with Indo-European constitute the Eurasiatic subgroup within Nostratic). In the process of its expansion, it undoubtedly effected a linguistic conversion of many tribes of Dene-Caucasian or other origins; this accounts for the fact that non-Nostratic languages in Eurasia in historic times have been found mostly as relics in mountainous regions. Exceptions are Chinese and the now moribund or extinct Ket, which, together with Hattic and Hurrian, probably represent post-Nostratic reemergences of Dene-Caucasian speakers from their relic areas
The above passage emphasizes for us once more the trend of history we have already noticed: focal expansion. The configuration of ethnic/linguistic distribution in Eurasia today is mostly the product of migrations in very recent times, starting at 15,000 years BP. Except for China and Southeast Asia the entire Eurasia from Berling Strait (and beyond: part of Northern Canada also) to the tip of Spain – and including North Africa too – is today covered by languages that are the descendants of the language of (very probably) a single village in the south of Caucasus mountain only 15,000 years ago. Is it surprising to you that the ethnological map we have today of Eurasia really does not reflect anything ancient?

[humanbyrace]

suite

suite.....

Meanwhile, the Circumpolar families were developing in a situation that was geographically and environmentally separate. Here the Mesolithic way of life has been maintained continuously to recent times; any impulses toward agriculture have been late, and except for the Finno-Ugrians, they all have been received from non-Indo-European sources. The linguistic developments have been equally idiosyncratic. In all of these families the SOV word order and associated morphological principles of early Indo-European have been retained except where subjected to alien influences in more recent times, and they have been maintained with special purity in Altaic and Elamo-Dravidian, which may well have been of Siberian origin. In vocabulary, they show little in common with Indo-European or Afroasiatic except at a strictly pre-agricultural level.

An even more interesting connection between PIE and PAA is Bomhard’s 318 "Proto" roots. According to the above revised version of the phonetic constituents, Bomhard found 318 roots of both proto-languages that had almost exact correspondence in both sound and meaning. This is some of the evidence that leads him to conclude that
Indo-European and Afroasiatic bear a stronger affinity, both in their phonological systems and in their vocabularies, than could possibly have been produced by accident–so strong, indeed, that no linguist could examine them without believing them to have sprung from a common source. (1984:2)
The presence of Afroasiatic speakers in North Africa is due to successive waves of expansion from the Near East, each representing a contemporary form of post-Afroasiatic. In the earliest phase, the language may have been close to contemporary Indo-European, having the same SOV syntactic order inherited from Nostratic, and presumably much the same morphology, but already exhibiting the characteristic Afroasiatic feminine in t, which seems to be peculiar to this family. This wave, with its early Nostratic language, must have represented the first flush of Mesolithic influence in Africa, preceding the advent of the agricultural Neolithic in that region. It extended as far as the Ethiopian highlands and the Chad Basin to the Northwest of them, but there bogged down after converting the local African peoples to Nostratic speech as represented by the Cushitic, Omotic, and Chadic speakers of today… It is probable that the Cushitic and Omotic languages still retain traces of early Nostratic morphology…
“Later Southward waves of Afroasiatic speakers occurred at times when the old SOV pattern had changed – or was in process of changing – to the historically observed VSO pattern, accounting for the Berber and Old Egyptian speakers, the Semites of Syria, Palestine, Arabia, and Ethiopia, and eventually the Arabic expansion of the present era. The Semitic expansions seem to have been relatively late since their languages are less diverse than in the other branches. This is in harmony with the suggestion… that the early Indo-Europeans and Semites were neighbors in or near the Caucasus at a fairy late period.
“Thus, the diversity of the Cushitic and Omotic languages is not due to their speakers’ occupying the original homeland of Afroasiatic expansion [the rejected somewhat ‘unconventional’ proposal], but simply to the fact that these languages represent remnants of early Afroasiatic extended to its Southernmost extreme and evolving in relative isolation from currents of change in the major part of the Afroasiatic speaking world. There is a parallel situation in Northeastern Siberia, where such highly differentiated languages as Gilyak and Chukchi have evolved in isolation from their relatives in the rest of Siberia…” (p. 158 - 59).
The evolution of the Afroasiatic family is then similar to that of the Sinic: as the proto-language spread outward from a center, the outwardmost extensions of the language, being the earliest to depart from the ancestral center, was the most conservative and the most preservative of the elements of the ancestral language, while the language-form of the ancestral homeland went through so much radical changes that the descendant, modern-day form in the area of the ancestral homeland looks hardly like anything of the proto-language.

The Afroasiatic family is special here in being the most divergent from the rest of Nostratic and consequently “has some features that seem to be peculiar and ancient. These include the feminine in t, the second-person pronominal affix k, and perhaps the prefix conjugation of the verb. It may be that Afroasiatic represents a transitional form between a local (Caucasic) version of Dene-Caucasian and the rest of Nostratic, properly speaking. In this sense, Afroasiatic could indeed be the ‘oldest’ of the Nostratic families…” (p. 159).4
“…I conclude that the syntactic structure of the simple sentence in the earliest Nostratic, and probably much of the ancestral Dene-Caucasian as well, was undoubtedly SOV” (p. 159).

The Nostratic focal expansion, the third "out of Near East", is thus: beginning at 15,000 BP, a local Dene-Caucasian village south of Caucasus began to expand as the Mesolithic expansion. It split into proto-Afro-Asiatic at the west and the ancestral group of the rest of the Nostratic at the east. (Or the alternative interpretation that the local Dene-Caucasian subgroup split into the proto-Afro-Asiatic on the west and the Nostratic proper on the east.) The proto-Afro-Asiatics have been identified by archaeologists with the Natufians in the territories of Syria and Palestine. “Judging solely from their lexicon, it appears that the Natufians were relatively advanced: they built fortified structures from stone; they cultivated land, raised cattle and hunted with bow and arrow… The Natufians also developed a market system, evident in the existence of words for buy, sell, and price, and they waged war on (kih) and raided (ghwar) their neighbors. Prehistoric poets – or perhaps lawyers – were known for their ability to ‘draw magic signs on sand.’ [Compare these with the emblems the Yang-Shao peoples carved on their potteries.] There were even Natufian haves and have-nots: the rich, who owned w-s-r, or expensive things; those who s-r-kk, or stole; and others made a living by pawning stolen goods…” (Shevoroshkin, ibid., p. 23 – 4.) These proto-Afro-Asiatics, whose linguistic state was still that of general Nostratic (or late Dene-Caucasian subgroup locally), the SOV type, then during their first wave of expansion covered up all of Syriac/ Arabic/ Palestine area and all of North Africa, from the tip of Somalia at the east to the west coast of North Africa. These new colonizers of Africa were of caucasian surface-phenotype; and as their tribes encountered the native Africans, genetic admixtures took place with the natives contributing the major part to the genetic constitution of their common descendants and the new comers the minor part. In linguistic respect however the colonizers had the upperhand, converting native Africans to their Afro-Asiatic speech while the native tongues of North Africa were lost in the process. This is similar to the manner in which the (nuclear) genetic composition of the Ethiopians, for example, was constituted, which constitution however may have been the result of a slow process of admixture since the first wave but not completed until historical times,5 and which consists in a majority of African frequencies plus a minority of Caucasian, reflecting an original mixture of a majority of native Africans with a minority of Caucasians.6 Then a second wave of Afro-Asiatic expansion exploded from the Palestine-Syriac center (the Afro-Asiatic "homeland"), probably for reasons associated with the genesis of agriculture, which would locate this expansion at about 10,000 BP. The new expansion into North Africa again virtually covered up the entire area of the first Afro-Asiatics' north African settlement. By this date, 5000 years after, the Afro-Asiatic dialect in the center ("homeland") had already evolved into the VSO structure recognized today as characteristic of it, seen most conspicuously in the Semitic (e.g. Arabic and Hebrew). Most of the North African speakers of Afro-Asiatic dialects who were descended from the first wave were converted to the speech of the new Afro-Asiatic colonizers, their languages being lost from history. Those Afro-Asiatic dialects from the first wave that survived are located on the periphery: the Cushitic, the Omotic and the Chadic. (See the genealogical tree above left.) The genealogy shows that during the possibly 5,000 years before the second expansion the Afro-Asiatic language field of North Africa had first split into a western dialect, whose modern descendant is the Chadic group, and an eastern dialect, which then split into its western Omotic and eastern Cushitic groups.7 The second wave split into the western Berber groups8 and the eastern Egyptian, which configuration persisted into historic times. Within the central ("homeland") region, there must have been a third, Semitic expansion to cover up a large portion of the Near East and Arabia. The latest Afro-Asiatic expansion, that of the Arabs from the Arabian peninsula ca. 600 A.D., again intruded into North Africa to convert the Egyptian and many of the Berber speakers to the Arabic language. Thus focal expansion occurred repeatedly just within the Afro-Asiatic family itself.

[humanbyrace]

Qu'en dites vous de ce qui est ci dessous

Racines communes pour les noms relatifs au corps humain dans la famille lislakh.
Une liste de 22 organes du corps humain
(??=la similaritee ne parait pas evidente)

1Arabe/2Akkadien/3Latin/4Anglais/5Persan/6Grec
1amaa/2ummatu/3omentum/4intestine/5rude/6entero
1miide,kirsh/2karshu/3stomachus/4stomach/5yemine/6ypomeno
1batn/2patanu/3abdomen/4abdomen/5ishkemb/6ypogastrio
1aayn/2enu/3oculus/4eye/5tsheshm/6mati
1dhiqn/2zuqtu/3mens/4chin/5tshene/6piguni??
1sadr/2pishannu??/3pectus??/4chest/5sine??/6stithos
1saq,ridjl/2sistu??/3cruris/4thigh,leg/5saqeh(emprunt de l'arabe?)/6skelos
1yad/2qatu,2mannu/3manus/4hand/5deste/6kheri
1sinna/2shinnu/3dens/4tooth/5dend??/6donti??
1anf/2appu/3naris(pneo=air en latin??)/4nose/5zanbur/6miti
1odhn/2uznu/3auris(ous=ouie)/4ear/5gush/6afti
1shaar/2shiru,2pertu/3capillus/4hair??/5muh/6trikha
1qalb/2qulu,2libu/3cor/4heart/5del/6kardia,lobos
1halq/2harutu/3guttur??/4throat/5goluw/6larykas
1hank/2akshu/3zygomaticus?/4cheek??/5gune/6magulo
1fuh/2pu/3bucca(opteo=ouvrire en latin)??/4mouth/5dahan/6stoma
1wadjn/2isu/3mala/4jaw??/5gire/6sagoni
1qadam/2shepu/3pes/4foot/5pa/6podi/7fudh en berbere.
1'onq/2tikku/3collum/4neck/5tange/6aykhenas
1qafa,1ra's/2putu,2reshu/3caput/4head/5ser/6kefa
langue=proto semitique lis/proto indoeuropeen ??
os,cote=proto semitique *osm(arabe qos=sternum,adhm=os,akkadien esemtu=os,/proto indoeuropeen *host(latin osteo,français cote)

Racines communes pour les noms des animaux dans la branche lislakh. Les deux langues citees en premier(Arabe&Akkadien)appartiennent a la famille linguistique semitique,les autres(Français,Anglais,Italien,Persan,Grec)appart iennent a la famille linguistique indo-europeene.
Ces deux familles sont regroupes ensemble sous la branche lislakh(lis=langue en proto semitique et lakh=peuple en proto indo-europeen)de la macrofamille nostratique.

Veuillez tenire compte des changements phonetiques comme l'inversion,l'assimilation etc...
et aussi les innovations,emprunts non lislakh... qui expliqueraient le fait que ces racines ne sont pas conservees dans toutes ces langues.

1Arabe/2Akkadien/3Français/4Anglais/5Italien/6Persan/7Grec

1ghurab/2qaribu/3corbeau/4crow/5corvo/6kolagh??/7kuruna??
1baqara/2baqaritu/3vache/4buck?/5vacca/6gaw?/7agelada?
1thawr/2shawru/3taureau/4bull/5toro/6gawner/7tavros
1thu'ban/2sheleppu/3serpent/4serpent/5serpente/6mor/7erpeto
1hanash/2nishku/3serpent/4snake/5serpente/6mor/7erpeto
1djamus/2gamushu/3muffle?/4cow?/5mocca/6gawmesh?/7agelada
1aasfur/2issuru/3oiseau/4sparrow/5passero/6parande/7spurgiti
1waz/2uzu/3oie/4goose/5oca/6kaz/7china
1arnab/2arnwu/3lapin/4rabbit/5coniglio/6kharkush/7kuneli
1djady/2gadu/3chevre/4goat/5capro/6boz/7gidha
1qit/2khatulu/3chat/4cat/5gato/6gorbe/7gatos
1hisan/2akkanu/3cheval/4horse??/5cavallo/6asp??/7ekhos ???
1'idjl/2buru/3veau/4calf/5vitello/6gosfend/7agelada

[Sioux foughali]

toutefois, moi qui suis pas scientifique pour 2 sous ... je crois à des voyages de mots et de racines de mots et j'en ai la preuve IMPARABLE



exemple .
avoir honte en anglais c'est I'm Ashamed et en dialectal algerien ..je dis hacham

autre exemple du latin au germanique . .escape anglais ..escapar echapper mais Rome est allé loin


La TERRE ....Erde en allemand Ard en arabe et arameen . .Erez en Hebreu


pas mal quand même ?

[humanbyrace]

Ce qui est quote est tire de ce papier ci dessous,ce qui est ecrit en couleur je l'ai ajoute.
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(367)T...0Nostratic.pdf


(La branche nord afrasienne comprend le berbere,l'egyptien et le semitique)
Cette constatation parrait assez logique vu que la branche afrasienne vieille de 10.000 ans est la plus ancienne branche nostratique,alors que la branche altaique(turc,mongol,tunguz)est vieille de 3000 ans et la branche indo-europeene(français,hindi,armenien,grec,bengali...) est elle vieille de 6000 ans.

cad la branche afrasienne est celle qui a le mieux conservee les caracteristiques nostratiques originelles.

Voila le chapitre traitant la morphologie du proto nostratique(lire pages 9-10 du papier)et pour une personne familiere avec les langues afrasiennes la similarite saute aux yeux:

Morphology
Illic-Svityc never published his views on Nostratic morphology during his lifetime.
However, his notes were gathered together and published by Vladimir Dybo in 2004 in the
proceedings of the Pécs Centennial Conference, edited by Irén Hegedus and Paul Sidwell.
According to Illic-Svityc, Proto-Nostratic was an inflected language, apparently of the accusative
type. It had both nouns and adjectives. Nominal declension was only available in the singular.
Adjectives were declined only if they were substantivized and used independently. Illic-Svityc
reconstructs the nominal paradigm as follows:
1.
Nominative-accusative: *-Ø (zero); used for subject and unmarked object;
2.
Marked object: *-mÃ; used if the object had to be topicalized in the sentence if the possibility
existed for an ambiguous interpretation of the phrase and if a definite object was indicated;
3.
Genitive (connective): *-n; possessive, etc.;
4.
Instrumental: *-tÃ;
5.
Local cases: lative *-"a; ablative *-da; and essive (locative) *-n.
Plurality was primarily indicated by a special marker: *-t. Illic-Svityc also reconstructs
an oblique plural marker *-j, though he notes that this is less certain.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following types of personal pronouns:
1.
Independent pronouns — specifically for indicating the pronominal subject;
2.
Forms of the subject standing by a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun;
3.
Forms of the direct object of a verb, primarily in a position preceding a noun after the form
of the subject;
4.
Possessive forms next to nouns, primarily in a position after a noun.
Only the first and second person singular and plural pronouns were represented in these four
types.
Illic-Svityc reconstructs the following stems for these types:
1.
Independent pronouns; these stems could be extended by a facultative emphatic element
*-na:
1st person singular: *Ãke-na;
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na;
1st person plural: *naHe-na;
2nd person plural: ?

2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: *a-;
2nd singular: *ta-;
1st plural: *na-;
2nd plural: ?
3. Forms of the direct object:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *k-;
1st plural: ?
2nd plural: ?
4. Possessive forms:
1st singular: *mi-;
2nd singular: *si-;
1st plural: *mÃn;
2nd plural: *sÃn.
Illic-Svityc also posits the following demonstrative stems (fulfilling the function of 3rd
person pronouns): *ta-, *šä-, *mu-; the following interrogative stems: *"o ‘who?’, *mi ‘what?’;
and the following interrogative-relative stems: *ja, *na (?).
Illic-Svityc’s views on verb morphology were not as well developed. He reconstructs an
imperative as well as the following two opposing verb categories: (1) The first designated the
action itself (transferred to the object in the case of transitive verbs). This was used with the
subject pronoun and (in the case of transitive verbs) with the object pronoun. Here, the nominal
direct object was the marked form, and the verb stem coincided with the infinitive. (2) The other
verb form was a derived noun ending in *-a. It indicated the state of the subject. If the verb
were transitive, it contained only the prefix of the subject, and, in this case, the object noun could
not be marked and thus always appeared in the subjective-objective case. Finally, Illic-Svityc
suggests that there existed a temporal (or aspectual) distinction between these two basic verb
categories, which was probably realized with the help of deictic particles of pronominal origin.
Dolgopolsky’s views on Proto-Nostratic morphology differ from those of Illic-Svityc.
According to Dolgopolsky, Proto-Nostratic was a highly analytic language. Dolgopolsky notes
that Illic-Svityc, although recognizing the analytical status of many grammatical elements in
Proto-Nostratic, still believed that some of them were agglutinated suffixes, specifically, the
marker of oblique cases *-n (= Dolgopolsky’s *nu ‘of, from’), the formative of marked
accusative *-m[Ã] (= Dolgopolsky’s *mA), the plural marker *-NA (= Dolgopolsky’s *n¯
[ä], used
to mark collectivity and plurality), and several others. Dolgopolsky points out that Illic-Svityc’s
position is unacceptable inasmuch as the Proto-Nostratic formants in question still preserve the
following traces of their former analytic status: (1) mobility within a sentence (a feature of
separate words rather than suffixes); (2) the fact that several particles are still analytic in some of
10


the Nostratic descendant languages; and (3) the fact that Proto-Nostratic etyma with grammatical
and derivational function are sometimes identical with “autosemantic words”.
Though Bomhard mostly agrees with Dolgopolsky that Proto-Nostratic was originally an
analytic language, he maintains that, in its latest stage of development, several of the particles
were beginning to develop into bound relational markers.
Bomhard devotes two chapters in his book to Proto-Nostratic morphology. In the first
chapter (Chapter 16), he presents the evidence, while, in the following chapter (Chapter 17), he
attempts a systematic reconstruction of Proto-Nostratic morphology.

Voila maintenant un exemple semitique du passage en rouge.
proto nostratique/semitique(akkadian)/proto indo-europeen
1.
Independent pronouns;
1st person singular: proto nostratique *Ãke-na/proto semite an-aku (arabe a-na,akkadien an-aku) proto indo-europeen egho/mi (grec egho,germanique ik,persan man,français je....)
2nd person singular: *sÃ-na/an-ta (arabe an-ta,akkadien a-ta) proto indo-europeen se/te (grec es,persan to,français tu...)
1st person plural: *naHe-na/na-hnu (arabe na-hnu,akkadien ni-nu) proto indo-europeen wi/ni(français nous...)
2nd person plural: ?


2. Forms of the subject of verbs:
1st singular: proto nostratique *a-/proto semite a- (arabe a-lbis,akkadien a-lbush) proto indo-europeenweso =je (me) vetis
2nd singular: " " "*ta-/" " " ta-(arabe ta-lbis,akkadien ta-lbush) " " " ie weses =tu (te) vetis
1st plural: " " "*na-/" " " na- (arabe na-lbis,akkadien na-lbush) " " " ie weson =nous (nous) vetons
2nd plural: ?

*=voire dans la page 3 de ce papier
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(202)T...0nostratic.pdf
,la racine lislakh du nombre 2.6 ou on decouvre que la racine indo-europeene pour vetement,se vetire est "wes" qui correspond a l'afrasien "wbs" qui elle aussi veut dire se vetire
egyptien:"hbs"
semitique:"lbsh"(arabe lbs,akkadien lbsh)
berbere:"lsh"

[humanbyrace]

suite

J'ai ajoute en bleu des exemples depuis les langues semites et en mauve des exemples depuis les langues indo-europeenes

Bomhard reconstructs the following relational markers, dual and plural markers, and
derivational suffixes for Proto-Nostratic:
Relational markers:
Direct object: *-ma français "me"
Direct object: *-na arabe "ni"
Possessive: *-nu ‘belonging to’
Possessive: *-lV ‘belonging to’ arabe "li","lak","lah"..
Dative: *-na ‘to, for’
Directive: *-kºa ‘direction to or towards, motion to or towards’
Directive(-locative): *-ri ‘direction to or towards, motion to or towards (?)’
Locative: *-ni ‘the place in, on, or at which something exists or occurs’ arabe "ayna","'inda",akkadien "in","ina"
Locative, instrumental-comitative: *-ma ‘in, from, with’ arabe "ma'a"
Locative: *-bi ‘in addition to, together with’ arabe "bi" persan "ba"
Locative: *-i ‘near to, near by’ (?)
Comitative-locative: *-da ‘together with’
Oblique: *-tºa


languages to guarantee their common origin:
Participle: *-na arabe "an"(djaryan=en courant) français "ant"(en courant)
Participle: *-tºa
Gerundive-participle: *-la arabe "li"(liyadjri=qu'il court)

Bomhard also reconstructs the following negative/prohibitive particles and indeclinables
for Proto-Nostratic:
Negative particles: *na, *ni, *nu français "non","ne"
Prohibitive particle: *ma(#) arabe "ma"
Negative particle: *#al-(~ *#.l-) arabe "la"
Negative particle: *li (~ *le) (?) arabe "lam","lan"
Negative particle: *#e
Post-positional intensifying and conjoining particle: *k¦ºa-(~ *k¦º‹-) arabe "kay" français "que"
Particle: *k¦ºay-‘when, as, though, also’ arabe "ka" persan "kiy"
Particle: *har¨-‘or; with, and; then, therefore’
Particle: *#in-(~ *#en-), *(-)ni ‘in, into, towards, besides, moreover’ arabe "'ind"
Sentence particle: *wa (~ *w.) ‘and, also, but; like, as’ arabe "wa"
Coordinating conjunction: *#aw-, *#wa-(~ *#w.-) ‘or’ arabe "aw" français "ou"

Comme vous voyez a premiere vu on peut citer 15 exemples en bleu(arabe=semitique)et 7 en mauve(français&persan=indo-europeen)
Peut etre on peut penser que les elements nostratiques ont ete mieux conserve dans la branche afrasienne vieille de 10-12mille ans ans que dans celle indo-europeene vieille de 6-8mille ans.
Les conclusions des linguistes nostraticistes(les americains Bomhard,Kerms&Hodge et le Russe Dolgopolsky)vont aussi dans ce meme sens.

[Ninfa]

J'abandonne, on aura notre nobel algérien en linguistique !!!!

[humanbyrace]

Vous pouvez consulter ces sujets:
http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/bou...e-lislakh.html

http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/bou...e-lislakh.html

http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/bou...stratique.html

http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/bou...stratique.html

Exemple:

La grammaire lislakh a l'interieur de la famille nostratique.
1/Les declinaisons:
arabe/akkadien/grec
declinaison nominative:thawron/shawrom/tawros(= taureau-comme sujet)
declinaison accusative:thawran/shawram/tawra(=taureau-comme objet)
declinaison genetive:thawrin/shawrim/tawru(=taureau comme complement genitif)

2/la particule grammaticale exprimant le futur:
arabe sa
grec tha

3/la particule grammaticale de dualite:
arabe thawrayn(2 taureaux)
akkadien shawran(2 taureaux)
grec tawrin(2 taureaux)

4/la declinaison du cas oblique
arabe: sa ohibbu an aktuba(sans le "an" elle serait "aktubu")
grec: tha agapo tin grafi(sans le "tin" elle serait "grafo")
Français: j'aimerais ecrire

Aussi j'ai trouve ceci au net sur la similarite entre l'Akkadien et les langues baltiques(qui sont considerees par les linguistes comme la branche indo-europeene la plus conservative du proto-indoeuropeen[plus meme que le Grec])
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi94.htm
Akkadien/Letton/Anglais/Français
sha/sha/his/son
shi/shi/her/sa
shuu/shuo/theirs/leurs



Une autre remarque hors-sujet
triplet de sit "thulla" en Arabe a comparer avec l'indo-europeen "dre/thre" avec le changement phonetique classique l<=>R.

Quand a pourquoi ça devient "thalath" pour designer "trois" eh bien c'est du au fait que c'est le pluriel
comme par exemple : quffa(couffin)<=>qifaf(couffins)
de meme logique "thay"(deux)devient "ithnayn" car a l'etat dual,et ce meme "thay" est ausi tres similaire de son contrepart indoeuropeen,exemple: grec dhio,anglais two,français deux...

c'est plus au moins le cas pour les chiffres 1,5,6,7,8 seul le 4 et le 9 manquent d'explication convaincante par les linguistes mais ces deux chiffres ont la particularite d'etre une et deux mains moins un doigt respectivement.
et tisaa(9) peut etre explique par tis(10 en indoeuropeen)+a(suffixe nostratique signifiant moins ou absence).
Le 4 est tres differencie a l'interieur meme de l'indoeuropeen* et cette differentiation est due peut etre a des innovations(4 saisons..???)ou un tabou.
L'etymologie de 4 peut etre ausi afrasienne rammenee au cercle(ayant 4 sections)[qotr=diametre]

*grec tessera,français quatre,anglais four,armenien tshors,sanskrit tshatvarah

La conjugaison lislakh a l'interieur de la famille nostratique. La famille nostratique peut etre divisee en 3 branches:
1/La branche nostratique occidentale characterisee par une morphologie inflective(afrasian et indoeuropeen)dite aussi branche lislakh(du proto afrasian lis et proto indoeuropeen lakh signifiant langue)

2/La branche nostratique orientale characterisee par une morphologie agglutinative(Dravidien,Uralique,Turcique)

3/la branche Kartvelinne(Georgien)classe a part etant une forme intermediaire entre la famille Dene-Caucasien et celle nostratique et qui a une morphologie ergative(comparable a celle du Basque)

Pour decouvrire la conjugaison de la branche lislakh,le meilleur serait de choisir deux langues qui se sont extirpees tres tot de leur famille linguistique(et donc auraient la conjugaison la plus proche de la conjugaison nostratique originale)

1/Le Grec ancien: etant la plus ancienne branche de la famille indo-europeene et qui a conserve l'ordre nostratique de la phrase sujet puis objet puis verbe

2/L'Akkadien: etant la plus ancienne(avec l'eblaite)langue semitique attestee et la 2 eme dans l'histoire apres la langue Sumerienne.
L'Akkadien aussi a conserve l'ordre nostratique de la phras sujet puis objet puis verbe

Grec ancien/Akakdian
1ere personne singulier terminaisons : -a/a-
2eme personne singulier terminaisons: -the/ta-
3eme personne singulierterminaisons : -e/i-

example:
Grec ancien/Akkadien
oid-a/a-prus(je sais)
ois-tha/ta-prus(tu sais)
oid-e/i-prus(il sait)

on peut aussi continuer avec deux autres langues,en l'occurence l'Arabe et le Français.

nous sachons/nahnu naarifu
ils savent/hom yaarifun

La conjugaison avec la 2eme personne de pluriel est assez differente,mais elle est par contre similaire entre semitique,grec et latin
italien/arabe
voi conoscete/antom taarifun(vous savez)
grec moderne/arabe
grafete/taktubun[ne connaissant pas le verbe "savoir" en Grec moderne](vous ecrivez)

[humanbyrace]

Conjonctions nostratiques: exemples de la branche lislakh.
1/Jusqu'a
a/Anglais:to,till
The man has gone from the field to/till the sea.
b/Persan:ta
Mard az paykar ta derya jat.
c/Arabe:hatta
Al mar' dja' min al haql hatta al bahr.
d/Grec:stin
O anthropos apo to agri stin thalassa pige.
L'homme est alle du champs jusqu'a la mer.


2/En
a/Anglais:in,on
The boy is in the market.
b/Akkadien:ina
???
c/Arabe:iinda
Al walad iinda al matdjar.
L'enfant dans le supermarche.


3/Mais
a/Français:mais
Mais il fait froid.
b/Italien:ma
Ma fa freddo.
c/Arabe:amma
Amma al taqs baridon.


4/Est ce que
a/Persan:aya
Aya shishe ra kasti ?
b/Arabe:a
A kasarta al ka'sa* ?
As tu casse le verre ?
*=Ka's arabe viendrait peut etre de la meme racine que le semitique shash(verre),exemple:arameen ashisha,Akkadien shashu(ça rapelle l'arabe shasha=ecran en vitre)


5/ô
a/Arabe:ya
Ya qatil al ruh.
b/Persan:ey
Ey ruh koshtid.(etrangement la terminaison du persan pour la deuxieme personne au singulier "id" est tres similaire a celle du berbere "ed/id" aussi)
ô tueur d'ame.


6/Avec,par
a/Arabe:bi
Qod al aarrada* bi bot'.
b/Persan:ba
Charkh* ra ba kand suvari bekon.
Français
Guide(~anglais to goad)la carosse lentement.
*=Meme racine que latin raeda,sanskrit ratha=roue


7/Comme
a/Français:comme
Vigne* comme du sucre.
b/Italien:come
Vigno* come il zucchero.
c/Akkadien:kima
????
d/Arabe:kama
Wayn* kama al sukkar.
*=Wayn en Arabe signifie le raisin pour le vin et c'est une racine lislakh commune entre les langues semites et indoeuropeenes(voire ci dessous)

http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/200...yn_wine_1.html
Hittite: wiyana (wine)/langue indoeuropeene
Luwian: winiyadt- (wine)/langue indoeuropeene
Lycian: oino (wine)/langue indoeuropeene
Greek: οινος / ϝοίνος (wine) se lit oinos/langue indoeuropeene
Ugaritic: yn (wine)/langue semite
Aphek 13th century BCE West Semitic vernacular: yenu (wine)/langue semite
Hebrew: יין / ין (wine)/langue semite
Ashkelon late 7th century vernacular: yn (wine)/langue semite
South-Arabian: wyn (vine)/langue semite
Ethiopic: wain (wine, vine)/langue semite
Amharic: wain (vine, grape)/langue semite
Latin vinum, (wine, vine)/langue indoeuropeene
Many such lists also include an Arabic example, وين/langue semite

8/Et
a/Arabe:we
Al baqara we al djamus*.
b/Français:et
La vache et ?(peut etre que le Français a perdu cette racine nostratique???)
c/Italien:e
La vacca e la mucca*.
d/Anglais
The buck(glissement semantique)and the cow*.
*="Djamus" et "cow"derivent de la meme racine avec le persan "gav" et le kurde "gaw" entre autres,puisque dans d'autres langues semites "djamus" est "gawesh/gawmes...",exemple:assyrien gawmush


9/Qui/que
a/Arabe:kay
Kay yafurra aabra murudj al farfir*.
b/Français:qui/que
Qu'il s'en fuit par les champs de pourpier*.
c/Itaien:che(mais se lit que)
????
*=Kurde perpine,persan perpehen,assyrien parponin

etc...
Vous pouvez trouver des dizaines d'autres exemples et cette fois dans plusieurs langues semites et ind-europeenes dans le document ci dessous:
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(88)prepositions.pdf





Adverbe nostratique:exemple de la branche lislakh.

1/Adverbe-suffixe:
plusieurs langues indo-euopeenes et semites ont la construction adverbiale avec le suffixe -N.(cad voyelle+lettre N)
Exemple:
a/Le Persan: pour construire l'adverbe en Persan il faut ajouter le suffixe "ane" a la fin du mot ou verbe,ainsi birader=frere,biraderane=fraternellementبرادرانه
rand=courire,randane=en courantرندانه
b/L'Arabe:de meme que le Persan avec "an" a la place de "ane",ainsi
akh=frere,akhawiyan=fraternellementأخويا
djary=courire,djaryan=en courantجريا
c/Le Français:de meme avec "ent/ant" a la place de "ane" persan



2/Adverbe-prefixe:
meme raisonnement mais cette fois avec B-.(cad lettre B+voyelle)
a/Le Persan:une autre methode pour construire l'adverbe en Persan est d'ajouter "ba" au debut du mot,ainsi
quvvat=force,baquvvat=par force باقوت
b/L'Arabe:de meme mais avec "bi" a la place de "ba",ainsi
quwwa=force,biquwwe=par force بقوة
c/L'Anglais:de meme mais avec "by"
by force=par force

[humanbyrace]

Carte de la distribution de la macrofamille(que les anthropologues la datent vers la fin mesolithique-debut neolithique)nostratique composee des 6 familles linguistes afarasienne,altaique,uralique,dravidienne,indo-europeene,kartvelienne
Cette famille serait repandue grace a la migration d'agriculteurs du moyen orient emmenant avec eux l'agriculture vers l'europe et l'afrique et assimilant les populations locales parlant des langues tres anciennes(et du coup tres distinctes les unes des autres) du groupe dene-caucasien(dont seul subsiste la langue Basque en Europe)aux nouvelles langues nostratiques.
C'est pour ceci que la racine nostratique "agr" voulant dire"champs" est commune a tous les 6 familles nostratiques(sanskrit ajra,grec agro,arabe haql etc...)

Voila le homeland suppose du proto nostratique


Et les migrations humaines comme prouvees par les tests genetiques.
1/le fleche en haut montre la migration du haplotype J2 associe avec les proto indo-europeens et celle en bas le haplotype J1 associe avec les proto afrasiens

2/homeland des proto-indoeuropeens en anatolie

3/distribution du haplotype J2 correspondant aux migrations indo-europeenes(avec un pic en inde et un autre au balkan et un centre au moyen orient)

[humanbyrace]

Voila par contre la carte de distribution des langues dene-cauacasiens datant du paleoltique et en consequence nettement plus diversifies et distincts que les langues nostratiques.

[humanbyrace]

Ci dessous la celebre "gençliğe hitabe" de mustafa kemal,comme on peut remarquer elle est aussi tres similaire a un texte en arabe;mais ceci est du a des emprunts et non une relation genetique recente.

En effet,la morphologie,la grammaire,l'ordre des mots,les conjonctions,le lexique basique et la conjugaison des langues altaiques(aquel apparitent le turc avec le mongol et le tunguz)sont completement differentes des langues lislkah.

Pour commencer ce sont des langues agglutinatives et non inflectives comme les langues afro-asiatiques et indo-europeenes.
Seul le fait que les langues Turciques ont un superstrat iranique laisse subsister quelques similarites insignifiantes.
Et les Turcs ne sont venus au moyen orient en masse qu'a partire du 11-12 eme siecle et donc on ne peut penser que les langues afrasiatiques originaires du croissant fertile puissent avoir une relation genetique avec les langues altaiques originaires de la mongolie.
Comme on peut voir dans cette carte historique de l'ancien monde aux environ de 400 avant christ ou les Turcs ne s'etaient pas encore differentie du socle turco-mongol


puis cette carte 1000 ans plus tard(vers 400 de notre ere)avec l'apparition des proto turcs en mongolie


puis enfin cette carte de 900 de notre ere ou les Turcs etaient arrives en asie centrale au nord de l'iran avant d'entrer en iran et en anatolie 1-2 siecles plus tard.



cad,il est question d'emprunts et non d'affinite philo-genetique;a la difference des langues proto afrasiennes et proto indo-europeens qui ont des homelands voisins et partagent la meme morphologie inflective,ordre de la phrase etc...

EY TÜRK GENÇLİĞİ!

Birinci vazifen, Türk istiklâlini, Türk Cumhuriyetini, ilelebet, muhafaza ve müdafaa etmektir.

Mevcudiyetinin ve istikbalinin yegâne temeli budur. Bu temel, senin, en kıymetli hazinendir. İstikbalde dahi, seni bu hazineden mahrum etmek isteyecek, dahilî ve haricî bedhahların olacaktır. Bir gün, İstiklâl ve Cumhuriyeti müdafaa mecburiyetine düşersen, vazifeye atılmak için, içinde bulunacağın vaziyetin imkân ve şerâitini düşünmeyeceksin! Bu imkân ve şerâit, çok nâmüsait bir mahiyette tezahür edebilir. İstiklâl ve Cumhuriyetine kastedecek düşmanlar, bütün dünyada emsali görülmemiş bir galibiyetin mümessili olabilirler. Cebren ve hile ile aziz vatanın, bütün kaleleri zaptedilmiş, bütün tersanelerine girilmiş, bütün orduları dağıtılmış ve memleketin her köşesi bilfiil işgal edilmiş olabilir. Bütün bu şerâitten daha elîm ve daha vahim olmak üzere, memleketin dahilinde, iktidara sahip olanlar gaflet ve dalâlet ve hattâ hıyanet içinde bulunabilirler. Hattâ bu iktidar sahipleri şahsî menfaatlerini, müstevlilerin siyasi emelleriyle tevhit edebilirler. Millet, fakr ü zaruret içinde harap ve bîtap düşmüş olabilir.

Ey Türk istikbalinin evlâdı! İşte, bu ahval ve şerâit içinde dahi, vazifen; Türk İstiklâl ve Cumhuriyetini kurtarmaktır!

Muhtaç olduğun kudret, damarlarındaki asil kanda mevcuttur !

Dans ce texte il ya:
19 mots turcs(GENÇLİĞİ,etmektir,olacaktır,düşersen,atılmak , içinde,bulunacağın,düşünmeyeceksin,görülmemiş,giri lmiş,dağıtılmış,bütün,bulunabilirler,
bu,üzere,ile,senin,gün,daha)
15 mots iraniques[12 persans et 3 soghdes=kan,bir,kurtarmaktır](EY,Birinci,yegâne,dahi,isteyecek,bedhahların,düşm anlar,her,köşesi,bîtap,kan,için,ki,na) 2 mots mongols(damarlarındaki,orduları)
1 mot Grec(temeli)
Et le reste (a peu pres 60 mots)des mots Arabes.
Mais biensur ça ne veut pas dire que la langue Turque a une affinitee rapprochee avec la langue Arabe car il s'agit d'EMPRUNTS.
Et voila la traduction litterale de la premiere phrase.
EY TÜRK GENÇLİĞİ!
"Birinci vazifen, Türk istiklâlini, Türk Cumhuriyetini, ilelebet, muhafaza ve müdafaa etmektir.
Mevcudiyetinin ve istikbalinin yegâne temeli budur. Bu temel, senin, en kıymetli hazinendir. İstikbalde dahi, seni bu hazineden mahrum etmek isteyecek, dahilî ve haricî bedhahların olacaktır. "

"O turc jeunesse-de premier mission-de-toi turc independance-de-accusative,turc republique-de-accusative jusqu'a l'infini proteger et defendre faire-il.
existence-de-toi-genitive et future-de-toi-genitive primordial base-sa ce-il-est.
cette base ton le plus valeureux tresor-de-toi-il-est.
futur-dans aussi,te ce tresor-de prive faire voudrait,interieur et exterieur mauvais-creatures-ils-de toi serait"
(le tiret - sert a separer les suffixes agglutinants du meme mot)


Voila un autre exemple entre arabe et italien cette fois
Italien:
Se l'astro e la luna sono con noi come di (nel) sabato non moriremo in[Arabic "ayn"=where]guerra ma damme la spada e il martello.
E prego dio che[se prononce key]non siete malati et che gli sei animali non siano anche malati:1vacca,1gato,1corvo,1passero(english sparrow),1capro(english goat),1toro e resistono il tempo caldo et freddo


Arabe:
Idhe al thuraya we al 9amar kanu ma3ana kama bil sabt lan namuta fil(ayna) ghara amma addili al sayf wa al mitraqa.
We ardju al wa7id kay anakom lastom mardha we anna al dawab al sit lasna mardha aydhan:1baqara,1qit,1ghurab,13asfur,1djady,1thawr we ya7tamilu al taqs al qaidh we al barid.



Et comme vous le constatez il ya une similaritee dans la grammaire,les conjonctions,la morphologie,l'ordre des mots,la derivation,l'inflection,la conjugaison et la morphologie.



J'espere que j'ai pu expliquer ce point de la difference entre l'affinite philo-genitique avec similarites morphologiques et lexicales(des proto racines attestes dans des dizianes de langues afrasiens et indo-europeens si differentes et distants que le bengali,berbere,lithuanien,kurde,norvegien,arabe,e thiopien,akkadien...) et les simples emprunts et "faux amis"(false friends,false cognates)sans affinite philo-genetique et similarite morphologiques et lexicales entre les proto racines.

[humanbyrace]

Voila un papier qui aborde la question lislakh
http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/KSU_AFCs/mzke...doeuropean.pdf

Je vais essayer dans la soiree de reperer tous les mots existants dans ces deux phrases et voire quels en sont des racines communes,des emprunts,des faux amis et des simples coincidences dans les bases de donnee ci dessous:

1/le dictionnaire des racines afro-asiatiques
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...afaset&first=1
2/le dictionnaire des racines indo-europeens
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...yMaster-X.html
3/le dictionnaire des racines nostratiques
http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstrea...9/00ND_ALL.pdf

[lilha]

sa va :22: , tu te sent pas trop seul