Originally posted by pepsi78
Give a source from the dictionary so I can look at.
It does AN=TIME just like I showed you in so many languages.
Turkish, Kurdish, Perisan, Etruscan-Hungarian, in IE it's where the root came from.
Here you go again. It needs to equal 'time' in LATIN for you to win this arguement. That was your original assertion and you should try sticking to
it. Try looking up tempus temporis
and getting back to us. You keep avoiding the real words that Latin speakers used to
Persian had many dialects and variants, ajik. Tajik. Dari. Farsi / Parsi, Cyrillic, Cyrillic. Perso-Arabic and many more. I provided two sources
saying the same thing that perisan AN=TIME.
Who cares about dialects? I gave you the accepted Old Persian word for 'time'.
It may also come from 'hetnos just like say the word "understanding" , in Latin, intellego, a split word inter - "between", and llegō
to-"collect." that is also a greek connection, it's the same for your hetnos, has to do with nus, AN- became annus, not saying it's not a combination
between AN and HETNOS.
Wrong. It is because the Proto Indo European root word hetnos/atnos had a nasal 't' which transitioned to the 'n' sound in annus.
It does not contradict anything, AN refers to going in Latin exactly where the idea started for a Latin year.
If you were correct the name would be HETNNOS and not ANNUS, you should know that mostly anything invented from another langauage to another when a
language is invented will resemble the root, the similarity between the word.
Please see above. You are making a rather ignorant step by using the same alphabet to indicate pronunciation. The Proto Indo Eurpoean root word was
not spelled with Latin letters making your point is irrelevant. The pronunciation was with a nasal 't' as indicated earlier.
No I'm not Persian is very diverse as in dialects and old variants.
Who cares again? The ACCEPTED word in Old Persian is 'uaqt'.
I can sense the passion in you , but classical Latin is just about that, I'm sorry, from all the movies, and all the stories and inflated
things, I know it sounds disappointing.
What is disappointing is how you think you know more then people who actually studied what you are trying to give a dissertation on.
The earliest known form is Archaic Latin, which was spoken from ancient times up to the middle Republican period, and attested in several
inscriptions, as well as some of the earliest extant literary works. source
Try looking up what the 'middle Republic' might be and tell me if it was only 2,000 years ago.
Notable Old Latin fragments with estimated dates include:
The Carmen Saliare (chant put forward in classical times as having been sung by the salian brotherhood formed by Numa Pompilius, approximate date 700
The Praeneste fibula (formerly attributed to the 7th century BC, but now generally believed to be a 19th century forgery)
The Forum inscription (illustration, right c. 550 BC under the monarchy)
The Duenos inscription (c. 500 BC)
The Castor-Pollux dedication (c. 500 BC)
The Garigliano Bowl (c. 500 BC)
The Lapis Satricanus (early 5th century BC)
The preserved fragments of the laws of the Twelve Tables (traditionally, 449 BC, attested much later)
The Tibur pedestal (c. 400 BC)
If you are taking of pre early Latin a non complete language then ok, as I told you they didint even have the word year until later, I showed
you that, but you yet insist.
'A non complete language'? What the hell is that? Just because YOU have no idea what it means does not mean that THEY had no idea what it meant. You
have got to be one of the most arrogant people I have ever come across.
They absolutely had a word for year. It was derived from the Proto Indo European word hetnos/atnos. Read this slowly:
In terms of vocabulary, however, Latin tends to preserve the original forms of many Indo-European roots. Compared to other Indo-European languages
of antiquity, such as Sanskrit and Ancient Greek, the word forms in the Classical era are far more reflective of their etyma. Languages such as
Sanskrit, however, tend to be more conservative with regards to grammar. source
Meaning that today's Latin is around 2000 years old, and that the old Latin that is extinct was a mix of proto IE in development.
Really? Where does it say that? STOP MAKING THINGS UP. There are Old Latin (500-700 BCE) inscriptions with words that can be translated into Classical
Latin (which derived from Archaic Latin). While it was a transitional period they still spoke something closer to Latin then anything else.
Latin comes from IE languages I'm sorry.
And? Almost EVERY European language has Proto Indo European roots. What language did the inhabitants of Rome speak in 400 BCE?
Latin was just one of other Indo European languages spoken in central Italy. Earliest in Latin come from 6th century BC they were written
using the alphabet adapted from the Etruscan alphabet, the same Etruscans I told you about with the examples you dismiss with AN=TIME.
And the same ones in which you also linked to evidence that shows they had a minimal language influence on the early Romans. You keep trying to butter
your bread on both sides.
Also, the Etruscan Lexicon
you linked did not have a definition of 'an-' equalling
'time', you mistakenly assumed that 'time locatives' meant time and did not understand the true meaning of a 'time locative' until it was explained to
By the way, you never did thank me for helping you understand the subtleties of the time locative and its meaning. Also, the Etruscan word for 'year'
is 'avil' before you try to get everyone to believe it is something other than that.
I used a blog to show the Hungarian - Etruscan continuity with words, it was not that important, the first source was, it was a dictionary
called Etruscan -Hungarian dictionary with all the words that survived from Etruscan into Hungarian. It stated that AN=TIME and NOW.
Yet another silly remark, the blog was only to show you what I was talking about since you did not understand, it explained what was
Hungarian-Etruscan continuity at large.
No, it stated that the Etruscan word for 'time' was 'xur'. This is so freaking far from 'an' that you really should drop the Etruscan angle. It is
making you look even sillier then someone linking blogs as evidence.
Were talking about the word year, it did not exist until later.
You are forgetting your arguement again. You said that 'an' in Latin equals 'time'. I am not arguing what the word 'year' in Latin may be but if you
must, please reread the first link of this post, it may help you with your reasoning.
The words share the same meaning, anyone can see that.
Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between a noun and an adverb and knows that by definition they can not have the same meaning as they do
two different jobs.
No it should be clear where it comes from as another hint, it's becoming more clear.
Sumerian AN sky god and notice "supreme god of time" is also Anu, Anum, Ano of course without two NN's this shows where these notions of words came
from, I know make something up and say it's not.
Again with the two 'n's? You never bothered to reply when I showed you that there were Proto Indo Eurpoean words with two 'n's. You just ignored it
like everything else that contradicts you.
Stop making things up it meant 10 months, the notion of an year is 12 months, that is what an year means, you may be thinking about what they
thought to be a cycle, the notion of an year came later.
Wow. So, prior to Julius Caesar revising the Roman calendar into a twelve month system they had not concept of a 'year'? No genius, to them it was a
'year'. Just because it is not what YOU know does not mean it did not make sense to them. This is your arrogance at work again.
A year is the period of the Earth moving around the Sun, for an observer on earth, this corresponds to the period it takes the Sun to complete
one course throughout the zodiac along the ecliptic.
Really? A 'year' is a measurement. You are only giving its most modern usage. Why does the Jewish new year constantly fall on a different day? Are
they using a solar or lunar calendar? Did the ancient Romans use a solar or lunar calendar? More arrogance (and ignorance).
The notion of 12 months = an year in Rome came later, and not sadly for you it did not mean an year, year means just that, it never meant
Uh-huh. If you say so. Do you even know how the Romans based their calendar or are you talking out of your anus again?
This of course to the relation of the name AN=SKY, it's also as I stated early in my post it's where the time line came from, from looking at
Well, if an=sky then I guess we no longer have to discuss that it equals time (tempus). Thank you.
I'm not re-wring anything, there is evidence to sustain what I say, you want to twist things and it's not working for you.
Sure you are. Just like how you just tried to rewrite the Roman calendar to fit your continually wrong point.
Debunking your friends Hetnos, since my native tounghe is very close to classical Latin I can tell, but I had to look into this crap to make
Hetnos from the greeks,meaning people, culture.
Previos know also as "Het Anos" From the greek word "AN"OS age, yet proving my point even more, this came later in Latin tho after they made contact
with the Greeks.
Uh, no. Look up Proto Indo European word 'atnos' and get back to us.
(Most of the other intervening posts are absurdly redundant so I chose to address this: (where you once again read something and did not understand
it, what a surprise)
It's where it evolved from, proof:
/anus/ 'old woman' - /a:nus/ 'ring, anus' - /annus/ 'year'
/N/ written g, called agma. Minimal pair: agnus /aNnus/ - annus /annus/
It first explains that the 'g' is pronouced with a 'nasal n'. If you follow to the 'minimal pairs' it shows:
anus/ 'old woman' - /a:nus/ 'ring, anus' - /annus/ 'year'
are pronounced similarly, like these words:
In phonetics, minimal pairs are pairs of words or phrases in a particular language, which differ in only one phoneme and have a distinct meaning. They
are used to demonstrate that two phones constitute two separate phonemes in the language.
English "let" + "lit" proves that phones [ e ] and [ i ] do in fact represent distinct phonemes /e/ and /i/. The phones do not have to be vowels, as
the English minimal pair of "pat" + "bat" shows. In fact, this pair only differs in vocalization of the initial consonant as the configuration of the
mouth is same for [ p ] and [ b ].
Following pairs prove existence of various distinct phonemes in English.
dime + time /d/ and /t/
rot + lot /r/ and /l/
zeal + seal /z/ and /s/
rhyme + time /r/ and /t/
meal + meet /l/ and /t/
feet + seat /f/ and /s/
You did it AGAIN. This was a pronuciation key
, not an etymology list. YOU NEED TO READ THINGS BEFORE YOU POST THEM.
Honestly. I can not continue to double- and triple-check your sources because of your inability to read and comprehend what you locate and use to try
and substantiate your floundering arguement. Participants in this thread should not have to spend valuable time verifying your habitually incorrect
links. You continually ingore points that obviosuly contradict your position-i.e. the Etrsucan word for time is 'xur'-and then post or repost-i.e. the
'time locative' arguement-sources that do not support the position you are trying to make. You are sloppy in your research and supremely arrogant in
your tact considering your lack of knowledge on the subject(s).
You have run around in circles from the outset, 'an' now equals everything BUT 'time' in Latin. While you continue to ignore the real word (tempus)
that Latin speakers used to denote time. I find you to be tedious as you convienently ignore accurate and historical interpretations of Latin (and
other languages) and stick to a failed dogma to religiously persue a constantly disproved stance. It should be fairly obvious to you by now that NO
ONE has agreed with your point of view for the sole, and rather convincing, reason, you have made a terrible arguement supporting your misguided
edit on 31-5-2011 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer