U R R H , CUM COMMENTIS — excerpts!
(Impressions On Etymological Canvas)
(English Internet Version)
— — — — —
[ Although this is a whole, and quite enormous, book, I have
idea about the ‹cover›. I may say at least that the colour has to be in bluish-greenish or greyish hew, hinting that this is something serious. But there are, usually, no pictures on scientific books. ]
— — —
interesting
all the things
very
— — — — —
INTRODUCTION
|I_IntroChp|
When I was lying one day in my bed reading one of the two or three books that I usually have by side for reading (because the only way to find satisfaction in reading is to change it with
reading, as it is also with the eating, or working, or sleeping with somebody, and so on), and in two or three languages, because with one only language one can't get much satisfaction — and here I don't mean this in the linguistic sense only but as tongue too, for that is what French
or Latin
mean, which are related to the longitude and all the
I_long
things, and which words come from old time, from Sanskrit
(or
), what was, to be frank, not the tongue, neither the language, but, I am sorry (or: am I to be blessed?), the penis or phallus — and then ... I was struck by an enlightenment.
But allow me here, in the beginning, to make some remarks about shortenings of the names of many languages in three letters (or even two) as for example: Fr. = French, Eng. = English, Ger. = German, It. = Italian, Skr. = Sanskrit, which is old or ancient Hindu, Rus. = Russian, Bul. = Bulgarian, etc. (full list is included in the following
); also for the names of the people speaking them with the same letters but ending with "*" (say: Fr* = the French, Rom* = the Romans, etc.); also if preceded with "o." this will mean "old" (say, o. Gr.); and I shall use other common shortenings (like acc. for according, resp. for respectively, etc.), and other
common ones (like w. for word, syl. for syllable, bc. for ... because, etc., so that you better read the
and try to remember something of the said there). You have also to became familiar with the every-level-nesting-brackets, like "3(" and ")3", which will tell you on which level of nesting exactly you are (but for the first level "1(" and ")1" will not be used as unnecessary); this will be very useful sometimes, and the Ger* normally have two to three levels in each sentence (and in some more sophisticated cases up to five or more) though they use only commas for the purpose (what isn't clear enough, in my view).
And now to return to my enlightenment, but allow me first to add a remark about the just mentioned
I_phallus
, which might as well be called so because it is closely related with the ...
fall
ing |I_fall| (bc., and I am sorry to say this, my dear reader, if you happen to be "he", it is fallen in about 99 per cent of the time). So, and as to the enlightenment, this was a peculiar thing for the author because he is not a believer in traditional sense of the word, but it still was possible (for him to be enlightened) — and do you know why? Well, because of the ... date! Because it was 04.04.04 (and I hope you will not ask me whether the date is in European or American standard, or wasn't it, say, in 18th century) and probably the time was 04:04 in the afternoon (but as to the seconds, frankly speaking, I am not sure). But you know that number four is something very hard, square, like a diamond, hence this was the day with three, not just stars (like on a motel), but diamonds, and there is only
such day
, and on such days even unbelievers may be struck by enlightenment, especially if it is one of big importance (as this one was), bc. it went about the name of a God and about all created by Him. And not of
God but of
God, the one & only possible God for all human beings in the Solar system, my Urrh, praised be His name, now and forever. So that: gulp fast the
and let us proceed to the Creation.
— — — — —
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
|I_PrelimChp|
The commonly used shortenings for languages |I_langs| are, as follows:
Alb. = Albanian;
Am. = American;
Ar. = Arabic;
Arm. = Armenian;
Avs. = Avestan, i.e. old Persian;
Azr. = Azerbaijani;
Blt. = Baltic (Lithuanian, Latvian, etc.);
Bul. = Bulgarian (often cited as "our", bc. the author is from, and lives, there);
Cel. = Celtic (but, acc. to some etymologists, it is one of the Teutonic ones);
Cz. = Czech;
Cyr. = Cyrillic (alphabet);
Dan. = Danish;
Eng. = English (and in very many instances "your" means Eng., what is so bc. the author is not of Eng. origin and the book is in Eng.);
Fr. = French;
Ger. = German;
Gr. = Greek (more often it is old shortened to o.);
Got. = Gothic;
Heb. = Hebrew;
Hin. = Hindu;
Hol. = Holland (or Netherlandic);
Hun. = Hungarian;
Icl. = Icelandic;
It. = Italian;
Lat. = Latin (sometimes it is medieval, shortened to med.);
Norw. = Norwegian;
Per. = Persian;
Pol. = Polish;
Port. = Portuguese;
Rom. = Roman;
Rum. = Rumanian /Romanian;
Rus. = Russian;
Scan. = Scandinavian;
Srb. = Serbian (or sometimes Croatian)
Skr. = Sanskrit (old Hindu);
Sl. = Slavonic (normally old), sometimes pre-Sl. as older (before our alphabet);
Sp. = Spanish;
Sw. = Swedish;
Tar. = Tartaric;
Teu. = Teutonic (very often old);
Tur. = Turkish;
Ukr. = Ukrainian;
as also I/E. = Indo-European or I/G. = Indo-German (depending on the sources); these are common for many European languages roots (or syllables);
It has to be added that if after the letters for the shortened language name stays "*" this means the people (e.g.: Eng* = the English; or Am* = the Americans in USA; also Rom* = the Romans; Skr* = the old Hindus; etc.);
~ ~ ~
There are also other often used shortenings |I_abrevs| like:
bc. for because, c. = common, o. = old, w. = word (ws in pl.), r. (rs) = root (-s), syl. = syllable, let. = letter (lets in pl.), prep. = preposition;
then: assoc. = association, deriv. = derivative (derivs in pl.), dict. = dictionary (dicts in pl.), etym-gy (-sts) = etymology (-sts), resp. etym-cal /-ly, exclam. = exclamation, explan. = explanation, imit. = imitation, lang. = language (langs in pl.);
then: smb. = somebody, smo. = someone, smt. = something, smm. = sometimes, smw. = somewhere, smh. = somehow, and ntg. = nothing;
then also: acc. = according (-ly), beg-ing = beginning, comp. = compare, diff. = different (diff-ce = difference), disc. = discuss (resp. disc-d, -ing, or -on), ment. = mention (resp. -d, -ing), m-ing = meaning (in pl. m-ings), poss. = possibly (-ble), rel. (-s, -d) = relate (relates, related), resp. rel-n = relation, sim. = similar (resp. -ly or -ty), s-ing = sounding, sp-ing = speaking, sup. = suppose (or -d, or -edly for supposedly);
then smt. more: f.ex. (= e.g.) = "for example", t.s. = "the same", b.t.w. = "by the way", m.o.l. = "more or less";
then: "»" means "see ... forward (via the index)", resp. « is "see backward", and in such cases the ment-d w. is usually shortened to its first let. only (this may happen occasionally on other places when t.s. w. is repeated);
and some obvious shortenings, like: 1st = first, 2nd = second, etc., numbers (from two & above) are written with digits, then cent. = century (cents in pl.), mill. = millennium (mills in pl.), then adj. = adjective, char. = character, pl. = plural, fem. = feminine, masc. = masculine, neut. = neuter, btw. = between, resp. = respectively, then & = "and" (a bit stronger than "and", but the distinction is not rigid, it is used mainly for economy), & maybe some others. I use also "–" hyphen (not "-" or "—") as sign for rel-n btw. ws.
~ ~ ~
There are also remarks about the used chars to be made, bc. neither the Lat., nor the Gr. alphabets (especially the latter) are good enough in sense of phonetics (to say ntg. about the Eng. writing) missing many important sounds or making imposs. to guess the reading without looking forward with more than 2 chars (& even then not always, i.e. there are many exceptions). On the other hand I wish not to force the readers to study Cyr. alphabet (which is more suitable, at least bc. it was made later than the Lat. — in 7th century). For such problematic chars |I_chars| (always in Sl. ws, smm. in other langs 2(with diff. alphabets)2, or set in
as sign how to be read — i.e. when a transliteration is given) the following combinations are used:
'zh' for the Sl. sound that may be found in Fr.
or
;
'sh' for the well used in Eng. sound as in sheet (or, if you like it, as in shit); in Ger. it's written as "sch" (also "sp" & "st" in the beg-ing of their ws are read 'shp' & 'sht', resp.); in Tur. it is given as "ş", or in some other langs as "š";
'ch' for ws like choice or cheating, so that here I use the Eng. way of writing (but the Ger* use "tsch" instead; also "ç" in Tur.; in some other langs as "č");
an only 'z' is like in Eng. zero (but in many langs it is usually written as single "s");
and then 'tz' is not like in zero but like in Ger.
or Lat.
;
then 'å' is used for one often met vowel like in Eng.: bird, burn, alive, etc. (or in Ger. endings -
, like
,
, etc.), what is typical Bul., Eastern, & Ar. sound; also for the sim. Eng. sound as in cut or but; this isn't Rus., but they read each unstressed "o" in a slightly sim. way (say ‹oknò›-window is read 'åknò');
then 'þ' is m.o.l. graphically sim. to what is the Sl. (Cyr.) so called "soft sign", like in Sp.
(= canjon, read 'kanþon'), or (if some of you like to say it) as in Sp.
, but it is widely used in Rus. after every poss. consonant (e.g.: ‹govoritþ›, ‹rechþ›, ‹lozhþ›, etc.);
then for the Rus. 'eri' is used the sign 'û' (like in: ‹tû›, ‹mû›, ‹bûstro›, etc.; in fact, 'eri' is 'erû'); though it sounds not much away from Bul. 'å' it is read as if you want to say 'å' but say 'i', and m.o.l. plays the role of the Lat. "y" (not in Eng. reading), where the latter is called in Ger.
(m-ing literally: a "Gr. 'i'"). There are other vowels in old Sl. & other langs but I shall write the nearest possible sounds for simplicity.
And, of course, when in Sl. or in many other langs is written "u" or "e" or "i" or "a" etc. you have to read this like in Lat. (or, normally, in Ger., Sp., It., etc.), not like in Eng.; also "j" is not your 'dzh' but your "y" (like in yogurt); and "h" is to be pronounced, not used to take breath or just skipped. On the other hand "v" is meant like your "v", i.e. I avoid using of Ger. transliteration with "w", bc. in old Lat. there were only 24 lets (without "j" 2(written as "i" followed by a vowel)2 & "w"; and in It. they do well with only 21 lets, without also: "k", "x" & "y")2 ), but also to make smm. poss. the usage of "w" like it is read in Eng., what turns out have come from olden times. So, as you see, the need for one
alphabet is more then actual (& I make one proposition at the end of the book), but we work with what we have (as it is in all social matters where the bad thing is the man itself 2(& the woman too, for that matter)2 ). It may be added also that for some Gr. ws I need, occasionally, when there are not good Western variants & they must be cited smh. in the index, a suitable Lat. transliteration, in which cases the only new lets are: 'ê' for "η", and 'ø' for "ω", using the accepted "ph" for "φ", "ps" for "ψ", "ks" for "ξ", "th" for "θ", & writing, of course (what usually isn't done), just "h" for "χ", "k" for "κ", "r" for "ρ" (bc. it's always good if a biective 2(i.e., in both directions, or reversible)2 transformation can be applied 2(with the single exception 3(if this must be called e.)3 for "σ" and "ς", which are both given as "σ" and, therefore, replaced with Lat. "s")2 ).
For avoiding of too many punctuation chars I write the ws from the lang. of narration (i.e. Eng.) without any difference (no quotes 2(well, smm. quotes are used when the m-ing of the phrase may be ambiguous)2, no italic), the ws from other langs with Lat. alphabet I give in Italic (though it is used
for emphasizing purposes — so that you have to show a bit of intelligence to distinguish the cases), the Gr. ws are with Gr. characters in the text (but if they are in the index they are transliterated as said above & given in Italic), & the Sl. ws (or of some other langs if they don't use Lat. alphabet & I have used good phonetics 2(i.e. Cyr.)2 for them) are given in small caps (as in the Rus. examples above). Using this phonetic transliteration makes it redundant to give pronunciation for the Sl. ws (with minor exceptions, and stressing is also smm. marked), for the other langs it is left mostly to the reader's intelligence to guess (especially for Ger. or Fr.), but as exceptions for some strangely pronounced ws I give also the pronunciation in single quotes using the above-explained combinations of chars (double quotes are used for exact quotations, or how the ws or chars are really
, not read), and for the Fr. nasal vowels I add a tilde ("~") after them (i.e. 'a~' or 'e~').
~ ~ ~
The etym-cal sources that I have used are in 3 (+ Bul.) major langs, namely:
a) Rus. — Rus. Etym-cal Dict. by Max Vasmer, 1964 - 1973 in Rus. (there exist also German version bc. he is a Teuton, judging by the name); I have looked also in Bul. Etym-cal Dict., but for our Sl. ws (which are about 90 %) it contains just translation from Max Vasmer; still, I have looked in some other books or papers in Bul. or Rus., but not much & not in scientific journals;
b) Eng. — The Oxford Dict. Of Eng. Etym-gy, edited. by C. T. Onioins, Oxford Univ. Press 1966; also Britannica World Language; also the big Oxford English Dict. (which exists in compact edition, too), & occasionally other sources in Eng.;
c) Ger. — Der Grosse Duden, mainly b.7, Etymologie, Bibliograf. Inst. Mannheim /Wien /Zürich 1963 (hence, some knowledge of Rus. or Ger. or Bul. is preferable for you but it is not strictly required);
there are also other sources occasionally used, say: Fr. etym. dict., some books with interesting ancient &/or Eastern ws, smt. heard from smb., etc.;
as also some really big o. Gr. (smm. new Gr.). & Lat. (or Gr.–Eng.) dicts (which are, m.o.l., explanatory, supplying additional information); & an occasional look in some other langs.
All the work done here is composed in an unique multilingual dictionary named EXPLAIN (written in Bul.), with about 11,500 key ws, where the point is not to do
etym-cal research what is, in a way, easier, bc. they go only back on the etym-cal tree (what is done by many specialists & I have used their works many times), but to seek for rel-ns btw. the branches or leaves of the tree, which may give us ideas about the hidden m-ing(s) of the rs (mainly syls) & revealing in this way the thoughts & views of different nations — hence, if a rel-n from, say, current Eng. to current Ger. is given, I usually don't mean it literally, but am avoiding citing of too many o. Teu. ws (as not commonly known; or, after all, cite some of them).
There might be critics for having not been given much Fr. ws, what, in fact, is true, but there are 2 reasons for this: one is that I don't speak that lang. (what is excusable enough), & the other is that Fr. is a very
Lat. & shouldn't be taken very seriously (f.ex., they use 3 diff. kinds of stresses above the letters where
of them is a real stress), and, therefore, it is better to cite the original Lat. &/or Gr. ws (what I usually do). So that, as far as the narration goes in Eng, the Fr. presence here is enough, bc. what is Teu. is explained good, and what isn't is given in Gr. & Lat. (plus other Rom. langs smm.); to add that, if one asks this question: what is more in the Eng. lang., Fr.-Lat. or Ger.-Teu. influence, I would join the official view of the etym-ists & say that this is the Teu. part (about 2/3 of the ws, & mostly the ws from our natural environment 2(like: eat, sleep, go, bread, meat 3(not exactly but flesh)3, fish, stone, water, etc., etc.)2, where the social or moral ws are Lat. & come through the Fr* 2(like: honest, gentle, just, beautiful, bourgeois, vivid, cause, connect, attend, etc., etc.)2 ) — at least bc. the grammar is (m.o.l.) like the Ger. In this way the Sl. part of the book is a plus for Eng. sp-ing (or understanding) readers; as much as the Eng. &/or Ger. part is an extra for Sl. readers (& as far as my Eng., frankly sp-ing, isn't very rich the book can easily be read by persons for whom Eng. is foreign lang.); or sim-ly for Ger. readers. And, after all, I have never even dreamed to think that I may give
the related ws (& in all poss. langs), hence what is given is just for illustrative purposes and the reader must find at least as many as the cited ws, even not knowing more than one foreign lang. (as I have, occasionally, found & succeeded to explain many Sp. ws, not knowing the lang.).
The religious themes have been consulted in different books about the Greek religion, the Christian religion, the Koran, the Buddhism & Zen-Buddhism, but not studied in any details, bc. I think the important things are
the details & small diff-ces, but the common ideas (and mark that exactly this is the reason why all religions insist on details & differences, not on really important common ideas & moral — bc. they want more to differ from the others than to be of better use for the people). Some mathematical things are included, not only bc. of their importance, but also bc. the author has mathematical education & likes to explain such points. Some common sense reasoning or moral is also present bc., although these have to be obvious things, they are often avoided or even distorted (be it so bc. of the interests of the ruling classes, or of the business circles, or bc. of the natural wish of the people to live in a 2(presumably happy)2 delusion, or bc. of smt. else), so that they deserve to be commented here (as it is stated in the title of the book), but more tedious fragments are enclosed in square brackets (& marked with "comments" or "suggestions" in the index 2(but only there)2 ) to allow the reader to skip them over if he or she wishes so.
Being indispensable in such a book there is at the end a common index in Lat. alphabet with about 8,470 key ws (2,850 Eng. 2(i.e., well accepted in Eng., not that they originate there)2 & 5,620 non-Eng.) where all langs are mixed. This mixing may not seem very proper (especially having in mind that the Eng. ws are 1/3rd of the whole), but, I sup., in this way it's easier to look in the index (I mean that the index is only one), and you may easily distinguish btw. the langs, bc. of the mentioned diff-ces in the way of writing of the ws. The indexed ws are made bold in the text to inform you about the indexing; besides the ment-d "comments" & "suggestions" index entries there are also: "phrases", "sentences", "verses" (which, however, are not marked in the text being recognizable places), & poss. some more; and there's a small place provided for making of your own index (if you want this in order to find fast by 2nd reading the places which have seemed to be of some interest for you by the 1st reading).
And my Urrh (Whose name you may read in Eng. version, to rime with "stir", i.e. 'År', or in Ger., Lat., Sl., etc. version 2('Ur', to rime with, say,
)2 ) was really my enlightenment (together with the date — I am not lying to you, no, not me), and it is strange that nobody has come to this idea before. So,
reading now.
~ ~ ~
Yeah, but now follow some remarks about the peculiarities for the Internet |I_IntNet| version, exactly this one, bc. there is a diff-ce btw. reading a book, with pages, (hidden) indexes, special chars from other alphabets, etc., and reading smt. on an Internet site where you have no pages, and can move when searching smt. (usually with "Ctr./F" — what in some aspects is even better), but you have to have ways for writing the (beg-ing of the) needed word. The latter means that here must be invented some ways for simulating of an index, and in it only the basic Lat. chars can be used, even not Cyr., so that all special chars in this pseudo-index (but only there, not in the very w. in the text, hence we are not diminishing now the lets) must be changed; and there are also diff-ces in the ways of the diff. langs (how to make the distinction); and maybe other things. So that let us say how it is made, what in some cases (though not much) denies what was said above
The index here is simulated preceding the w. with "I_" (e.g. I_word, as you have seen it already several times), and the indexed w. (though not the very index) is to be seen also by the bold chars. The Eng. lets, as also the foreign with Lat. alphabet are left as said, but the Cyr. alphabet is to be distinguished by the underlying (what maybe isn't a very good decision but it is the only one left (bc. the all caps are for headings and there are not small caps here or embossed etc. chars). [The situation on this site is even worse, and underlining does not work, for unknown reasons; no matter that it can be entered, in rather sophisticated way, later on it is simply removed (!), so that I was forced to use ‹ $ › brackets, as you should have seen and wondered what this means and why I have written something else.] As a rule, in the normal case (when there are no special chars), the indexed w. is part of the text (say, "we are speaking about this I_word, which ..."), bc there is no nead to repeat entire ws, but when there are some diff-ces in the index and the written word then the index is put in, or just finished with "|" (e.g., "the Gr.
μορφη
|I_morphe^| means ...", or "the
taxiderm
ist |I_taxidermy|, who fills ...") Then there are added some useful indexes like I_langs, I_abrevs, I_chars etc. (e.g. I_Contents leads you to the Contents), and others, and they (as also the others, like I_phrases etc.), are always visible, so they mess with the text, but you have to swallow this inconvenience. On the other hand making diff-ce btw. « and » here proves to be of a better usage (and the ws in such cases are written without "I_").
Now about the special (really, and important, not to be confused with others) chars. (bc. there must be no chicks above or below the chars when you are forced to write them in the small search window 2(and also there must be used an unique way of writing the lets, in both directions, bijective, as it is said)2 ). So this is treated in the following way: "ş" is normally given as "sh" where its pronunciation is beyond doubt (mainly in Tur.), or smm. is left merely as "s" (say, in Pol., as also when it was written as "š"), sim-ly "ç" is given as "ch", or left smm as simple "c" (say, in Fr., as also when it was as "ċ" or "č"); then the normally accepted on the West "ä", "ö", & "ü" are given with an "e" following the let. (i.e. "ae", "oe", & "ue"; this may not always be bijective transformation but it is a broadly used way), also the Ger "ß" is written as "ss"; then the Cyr. "å" (like in "bird") & "û" ('eru^'), are followed with "^" (what doesn't look very nice, but there must be unique char. and the only one left is the dollar sign 2(even "#" is used for masking of some "bad" ws)2 ), and the soft sign "þ" is given even crazier, with only the "$" sign; then sim. approach is used for the 2 Gr. chars, 'ê' for "η", written in the index as "e^", and 'ø' for "ω", written as "o^"; and any other marks above or below the char. are ignored, even the Rus. "ë" ('jo') is given as plain Lat. char.
Ah, and one advice. Bc. to read this enormous book on an Internet site is simply imposs., so
this! What you may try & do is to read by half to one (so called) chapter of the book, say, once in a
; or then search for smt. (but even to search you have to have some experience in reading of the book, so that you try to read at least a pair of chapters 1st). Then keep the beg-ing "I_" always in the search window bc otherwise for Eng. ws you will stop not where you want. OK, but having got a bit used to the book, I hope, you will find it very useful.
— — — — —
THE CREATION
IN THE BEGINNING |I_BEGINCHP|
{
Well, I sup. you will allow me to intervene even in the beg-ing of the beg-ing, bc. this simply
be true, but such is the tradition, so let us not break it. Still, there can't be a beg-ing or an end in some cyclical process (the well-known "egg & hen" problem) and the choice of one point to start from is a matter of taste. Take f.ex. the year, which for us begins with the winter, but in southern hemisphere with the summer, & in old times (acc. to the known zodiacal calendar) it had begun with the spring, what is more natural (hence, the egg-hen problem begins with the egg, or, as the Rom* have said: |
phrases|
). So that it is suitable to say at this point smt. about the names of the months, which are called so
bc. of some saints (the saints, if at all present, have come later, after the core idea has been introduced; to add that all the zodiacal constellations were
later on — bc. they have ntg. in common with their pictures) but bc. of some hidden ideas, and in this situation we must begin here with the beg-ing, which is
I_March
, bc. ... well, bc. this is the beg-ing of the
(in Eng. there isn't even any diff-ce in these 2 ws but in Ger. it exists and the month is
|I_Maerz| where the march is
).
And if we count in this way then
I_April
is smt.
(after 2(the winter)2 in Fr., or, better, before 2(the summer)2 in Lat., bc.
|I_phrases| is before 2(the experiment, or the time — »
–
)2 ), then comes May which is a very good month (& very interesting, but there is much to be said about it so that I will abstain for the time being from more details), then come 2 ... jubilee months 2(»
)2 —
I_June
&
I_July
(for which we say just smt. like "yeah"), then follows the
I_August
which is
+
(m-ing: what a
,
2(»
)2, or
-pleasure), & then comes exactly the 7th month which is called therefore
! Then there are
,
&
(the last being, clearly, the 10th month, though now for us, it is the 12th). But there is smt. more, namely this "br-", which signifies the cold & begins to be added to the names from September to December plus
I_February
(this being 'fjuu' 2(of the wind)2 + 'br-'), with exception of the
I_January
, which in Eng. is easy to be explained as: '
-yeah + new + year! If not 'br-', then at least 'r-', is left in
-March (or ‹mart› in Sl.) & in April, but there this isn't the only idea. So I hope you will not curse me, my dear reader (or reader
— I simply adore this w. bc. I have not met it yet in a book, but I don't meet much Eng.
moving around in my country 2(see Appendix-2)2, with the exception of, say: action, thriller, play-off, f#ck-off, & so on), for this distraction from the theme to the names of the months.
~ ~ ~
In short, it couldn't be a beg-ing but it's better to be
beg-ing. And it is an interesting thing with this w., too, bc. "begin" surely comes from Ger.
(
,
), but
- in Ger. is a prefix & ... well, there
a w. "
" in Ger. (& the etym-sts say it is from an
lang.?). Still, it is poss. to guess smt., namely that this
comes from Gr.
γωνια
|
| m-ing an angle, and there is Bul. ‹
I_gonja
› (as to pursue, or drive out) or Rus. ‹
gnatþ
› |‹I_gnat$|› (t.s.), bc. to run away or after is to make some angle (isn't it? 2(I mean that if one tries to run away going always in straight line, one wouldn't succeed to run away)2; and, besides, there was in o. Gr. a w. γονη as a birth, fruit, or womb — i.e. smt. driven 2(or driving, or capable of doing this)2 out), but — but this isn't quite a proper way to look at the w. begin. And what is the proper one then? OK, the proper way is
to discard
as prefix but to begin with the r.
and then to remember about the ... Heb. name
I_Begin
, which surely means a big men, smt. like the
(or
, or
), what is a widely spread in Asia & the Near East (Tar., Azr., Tur., & so on) title of a ruler, which may became also
(or ‹bej› in Sl.); then very near to this is Tur. ...
(a religious feast, but mainly big eating or big blast 2(i.e., a king's meal, I sup.)2 ), or
(known also in Bul., a banner), or Tur.
|
| (read 'bekjar', a bachelor, not married man, i.e. he is feeling like a
–
), or, poss., the town
(a
-town 2(or route?)2 ). Aside of this there are sim. ws in Blt. langs (like
&
as to run), as also in the Sl. langs (in Bul. ‹
I_bjagam
› is to run, in Rus. ‹
bezhatþ
› |‹I_bezhat$›| is t.s., also ‹
I_beg
› is a run there), hence this big man simply
the folks! But there is smt. more here, bc. you know the Eng. ...
I_back
, and the
I_bay
(in diff. m-ings), where the latter is given as rel-d to Lat.
(small fruit, but a bay on a coast too) & Fr.
& Sp.
etc. (hence it is known on the West). And, why is here this running, and the power, & the back, & the coast? Well, this is part of what can be said about ... just the let. "b" (or
- /
), bc. to say it one has to make round cheeks & compress the air & the cheeks begin then to blow out; this may also be ... a shell of an egg (half of it, to be more precise), bc. this is usually the coast (& our back), and you know that we like to have our backs guarded (by a bay or a
).
So this is the beg-ing, but if we haven't forgotten about the egg–hen rel-n then we come to the
I_circle
,
I_cycle
, or cyclone, what is o. Gr.
κυκλοσ
|
| . Here are other ws, like the
I_typhoon,
or the tycoon, but this isn't so interesting; more interesting is to go to the ... sickness, bc. one is
I_sick
when he/she goes round & round, in circles, or sees that the world around him/her goes in circles. So that here comes the heard Fr.
(
in Ger.), or Ger.
(a destiny, what is a bad or destroying one, not a fortune), then Heb.
(non-Judaic woman — it is obvious that the name sounds disdainful), or your
I_sickle
(or the scythe). Then I may quote, hmm, the
I_sycamore
-tree, or also the
(the biblical fig-tree), which are very twisted trees & coming from ancient times. All this is rel-d to Ger.
(moving rapidly, in & out, or by rotating — but you must allow me to explain that if we
the circle & go to one dimensional 2(1-D)2 figure this is exactly the reflexive movement of the piston, for- & back- ward, in & out, what is unavoidable by the copulation too), which r. is widely spread in the Sl. langs (Bul. ‹
I_shibam
›, what means to hit with a stick, but also in the sexual m-ing of copulation, a sim. Cz.
or Pol.
2(swishing flying)2, etc. ), here is the Eng.
I_shiver
(bc. smb. may begin to
me), but there is also Heb.
, what is the mourning week after a funeral (‹shibana›-fucking — ah, sorry — week). Here is also the widely known
I_shock
, or your (to)
I_shake
/shook, or Rus. jargon ‹
siganutþ
› |I_siganut$| (to hit hard), or your (to)
I_shove
(together with the shovel), also Tur. & Ar.
|
(a monkey — bc. it moves fast), & so on, what in the sexual m-ing is best represented in Tur.
(more precisely in
&
, what are hard curses, the latter one about the mother 2(which is
in Tur.)2 ); there is
also in Lat., but this means ntg. bad (just: so, in this way — as in the sentence |I_sentences|: "
", i.e. "So perishes the world glory."). ( From here one may go, if one likes it, to the Eng. shit, but about that on some other place. )
This r. begins smw. in the Skr. where were 3 main Gods, namely:
I_Shiva
,
I_Brahma
, and
I_Vishnu
(&
I_Krishna
is one of the incarnations of the latter). And do you know what their names mean (bc. in ancient times all the names have had some m-ing, or, as the Lat* said |I_sentences|:
)? Well, this is easier to be observed in the Sl. langs (but in the Western ones too). The God Shiva was the destroyer (that is why he
-f#cks; to add that there was a name
2(«
)2 m-ing "The Red Penis") & in this connection I may ment. also the Ar. ...
(or your
I_shut
&
I_shatter
), then ... the play
I_chess
, of course (bc. it's
in Ger. or in the Sl. langs, but this is also title of a ruler), then even just the let. "s" especially in Gr. ("σ", i.e.
I_sigma
), bc. it is the most "snakish" one (curled & with heaved head) & it hissed, like
I_Sibyl
(
in Lat.; or
what is hissing); the snake was also a goddess in some ancient religions. To the monkey-
may be added also the wild dog
(
in Ger., ‹chakal› in Rus.,
I_jackal
in Eng., & so on), which sounds very near to Skr.
, what meant strength or power (or
was strong). In a wider sense this is not only the destroying but the life as a whole; still, some shaking or shoving stays put in the root. OK, & then comes the God
I_Brahma
who is the highest god, the creator, and his name sounds like some "brr", what in Bul. is ‹
bråmcha
› |‹I_bra^mcha|› (to zoom; in Eng. there's a sim. w., ...
I_broom
, though you usually don't put it in rel-n with the sound of sweeping), but you know about the
I_Brahman
s & surely have heard the w.
(giving the Eng. brave); this "brave" s-ing. of the name has been found very convincing of the power hidden in it from representatives of many ancient folks bc. there are many names that can be traced to Brahma, like, say: Tur. Abram or
(and then, maybe their
as a kettle — bc. of its nicely curved nozzle, I sup.; as much as their, known also in Bul.,
|
| meaning a spool of thread — this bc. of the cycle), Heb.
I_Abraham
, their very name ...
I_Hebrew
, resp. ‹
I_evrej
› in Rus. /Sl. (not that they think of themselves as Brahmans, of course), and maybe others. And the 3rd god,
I_Vishnu
, is he who
the things, keeps them running, maintains all — ‹vårsha› in Bul, or ‹
vershitþ
› |‹I_vershit$›| in Rus. is exactly to do (in Western langs there are, e.g.: the
I_vertex
or vortex, vertigo, verification, etc., i.e. the rotation, which is a kind of work 2(though not all, or each, work)2 but we shall come to the rotation). Even
I_Krishna
is present in the Sl. bc. in Rus. ‹
krushitþ
› |‹I_krushit$›| is to destroy, as also in Eng. (your to crush), or there's also Bul. (not Sl.) ‹kråshen› as lissome, flexible (usually used for maiden's waist), though here the ideas become mixed with Shiva; but poss. one can't repair the things without some crushing, where the shivering is smt. diff.
In other ws, and this is a very important moment, there is not just the Creation, there is also the maintenance, everyday work; but there must also be the
(and one of the reasons for the wars, looking from psychological point of view, as some unconscious feeling, is that there is
. to be destroyed 2(well, not exactly ours, by the enemies, but still smt. for crushing)2 — bc. this will give rise to a new creation, will give work to many people, will give goals for living)!
~ ~ ~
So no Creation begins without
or shivering, or, to put it bluntly (& to change the r. but not the meaning), without — let me say it in Ger. bc. there it sounds more decently —
-ing
. In Ger.
is given as pocket, but I hope all of the readers understand well what kind of pocket it might be (it's also fem.) bc.
is fast & trembling movement (m.o.l. like your fickle as unsteady). The r. was known in Lat. as
, and if we return to the
I_sycamore
/sycamine (
–
), then these trees are very "
" twisted, but this is also Fr.
(a pimple, or a small tumor), or It.
, what is the fruit of the sycamine (a currant), which is
in Fr.,
in Ger, & so on in many Sl. langs (say, ‹fig› in Rus.). ( From this ‹fig› in Rus. exists the jargon ‹
I_figovina
›, what means smt. small, a gadget, what is, m.o.l., = to ‹hujovina›, but the latter is derogatory & rel-d to their ‹
I_huj
› what is, I beg your pardon, a penis. And a
I_gadget
, b.t.w., in Bul. sounds very near to your w., namely ‹
I_dzhadzha
›, what surely is Tur., although your w., I sup., has to be split in gad + get, m-ing: to get the bug! Such building is interesting though not unique for you, bc. t.s. is the situation with the ...
I_target
2(to get, here hit, the tar, i.e. the point marked with black)2, or the ...
I_budget
2(to get the bud, though etym-cally this isn't very sound & here Fr.
3('buzhet')3 m-ing a money bag is given, which had come from an o. Fr.
m-ing a cask or a bottom of boat, but I sup. it might as well be also from the known
— shortened to bud)2, or then the
I_midget
2(here the small fly coming from Ger.
|
| comes into play)2, & others 2(say, the
I_spigot
may mean to get it where it spits)2. On the other hand this may be just some ending in Fr. manner 2(bc. in Bul. the budget is ‹bjudzhet› 3(c. Sl.)3 & the midget is ‹mizhiturka›)2, but it has to have come smh. — and that is what I'm telling you. Even if this is etym-cally questionable it may as well be the so called
, bc. the people have to have some image in their heads, & rel-ns to other ws, in order to accept a given foreign w. )
But to return to the Lat.
, which isn't of the kind of ws that one will find in dicts (or, if you find it in some dict. then it will be given as to
I_fertilize
2(& that is where this Eng. w. comes from)2, or make pregnant) but it's exactly your (to)
I_fuck
— ah, sorry, I didn't intend to spit it but it's better not to be squeamish in etym-cal matters — and when the Ger. variant is more legal in its m-ing & nearer to the
-currant (it is said there was a Norw.
as vivid movement, also
as to hit with a stick — & then, I think, I have to ment. the
I_Viking
s too), then your (& Lat.) w. is a better imit. of the pushing of air out (of "some" place). Well, it's a matter of taste, there are sim-ly s-ing ws in many langs, say, in Bul, we use ‹
I_fukam
› (‹se›) as to show off, but also as to hit or
(» fog or vogue too), or also the variety ‹
I_fucha
› as to move very fast or to swish, blow (like a wind), here are the known
I_fusion
(or Ger.
&
|
| 2(to fill or join, also to put up with)2, & the musical
) &
I_fission
, which both are near to Lat.
(or Fr.
or Eng. physics, etc., from o. Gr. φυσικη), though the m-ing is diff. (from here we may go also to the ... pissing, but about this on some other place). ( And, again b.t.w., from this physical r. I derive one often used Rus. cynicism, namely ‹
I_pizda
›, what is a vagina, medically sp-ing! Nobody says this is so 2(bc. such ws are missing from the etym-cal dicts)2, but I have thought many days 2(or were they sleepless nights?)2 and have come to the conclusion that it may be just some naked feminine physical part, but this is the most attractive one for the men. To go from the mere pissing I found very dull 2(& even if it is so this is closely rel-d & they say ‹
pisþka
› |‹I_pis$ka›| for the penis — well, for a boy's one)2. )
Yeah, but then surely has to be ment-d also the
(simplified in Eng. to fetus, an embryo), though we will come to it later too; and also your ... (with or without "to")
I_fit
with all of its m-ings, partly = to those of Ger.
, which w. might have started from the
(bc. of the let. "t") but was then modified under Ger. influence (bc. of the "i" in
) & suggested some actions performed usually by the phalus (bc. of the beg-ing "f") — so I hope I was sufficiently precise with the last w. bc. it deserves it. And not to forget also the ...
I_future
(as tense or not — bc. it is like a wind, one can't grasp it, and in Fr.
is read 'fjutju' 2(though in Eng. it isn't much diff.)2, but, on the other hand, it begins with the current moment, i.e. it is a kind of creation or beg-ing), what is also Lat. (
; &
is one of the forms of their verb to be 2(
)2, resp. in It. for the Perf. tense:
-I
,
-you
,
-he
, etc. — smt. has just ‹otfuchalo›-gone-by). But also — now obvious for me — the
I_function
, in nearly every poss. lang., bc. it means: to stick in, fit, fill the place, some
-action, & that is why you say that smb. functions at a given position, occupies it (what is so in many langs: the Bul* 2(Sl*)2 say ‹
izpålnjavam
› |‹I_izpa^lnjavam›| for to perform some duties or work on a certain post, where ‹izpålvam› is to fill smt., the Ger* use even the phrase "to put the post on", like a dress 2(
)2 ). You see that the ws are very interwoven & the m-ings differ, so let us return now & stick to the
-fruit, where, really, many ideas are put in work, bc.: here are the known in ancient Greece
es
|
| (in Lat. writing), for whom is said (in philosophical literature) that they were showing (selling)
; then the sign of
(to put the thumb btw. the next 2 fingers) comes on the scene (I shall explain why); but also the twisted form of their leaves plays its role, which gives the ...
I_figure
, of course, together with the shame of showing some hidden (by leaves of
) places. I should add also your ...
I_wig
, bc. it performs the function of a leaf of
, only put on the head; and there is also Lat.
m-ing: to build, make, invent, lick etc.,. what isn't much away from the act of f#cking, if you look at it as act of creation (what is true, bc. up till now it remains the only way for reproducing of human beings), but on the other hand this
gives your
I_finger
|s. ( I sup-ed here have to be the
I_Whig
|s, adherents of Presbyterian cause in Eng, one of the 2 leading parties for about a cent., but they are given as poss. shortening from some expedition called in Scan.
what was to be split in:
2(as to drive — i.e. smt. like your whip)2 +
2(as your mare-horse)2, so maybe this is a coincidence. )
Then bc. of the
& Ger.
the w.
means there a coward (or take Eng. 2(to)2 feign), and the Rus*, for their part, use ‹
I_figljar
› for a clown, a person making indecent or silly gestures. And about this
: I personally don't believe in what is said that they were selling sacred currants (from a coppice around some temple), bc. for me is clear that the negative m-ing or the w. comes from the ... well, from the so called (men's) balls, which have the habit to shake like pendulums — don't they? T.s. idea hides the sign of
(
in Fr., or
in It., but the Rus* say also "to make the bird", waving with the 2 curved fingers, what is a try to behave more decently), for to show one's testicles, obviously, isn't decent (what I explain here bc. many people think this sign has a more vulgar m-ing of a shit — ah, sorry, girls). Then, have you ever thought: why your
I_currant
& ...
I_current
(things) sound almost t.s.? This is bc. the time is measured (or at least
) by mechanical clocks & they have some kind of "currants" that say tick-tack, &, besides, ‹
kurantû
› |‹I_kurantu^›| in Rus. is a clock that chimes; the idea of a
I_pendulum
is to be seen also in the variety ‹
I_mandalo
› (t.s., but » ‹m›.), what rel-s very well with Ger.
, what is their name for an almond. And maybe (or at least I think this is highly poss.) the ...
-mast (given as from Hol.) may mean that it is smt. for "f
cking", bc. it is placed in the foremost part of the ship where every man has smt. for
(& maybe the naval people just
to say "fock it", or the like?).
~ ~ ~
But these are not all the approaches to the beg-ing and let us look now by the Slavs where they (or rather, we) say ‹
I_nachalo
› (for a beg-ing) or ‹nachatþ› (for to begin, in Rus.), and here the r. has come from old times bc. in Skr.
was to get or reach smt., t.s. was Avs.
(also
was to reach). This is not only the beg-ing, this is the whole process of the beg-ing together with the delivering to some end, and the Rus* say also ‹
I_nesti
› for to carry (what is o. & c. Sl., in Cz. it's
, in Pol. is 'nishch' — with some "chicks" above "s" & "c" — in Bul. is ‹nosja›, etc.), but this is used also for ... hens in the m-ing of laying eggs (i.e., giving birth). At t.s. time this sounds exactly as your nest, which is Ger.
(or
), given from an o. I/E.
, what in Sl. is nearly t.s. (‹
I_gnezdo
› in Rus., Bul., etc.), and the Rus* use also the w. ‹
I_nerest
› for throwing off fish-eggs (o. Rus. & Ukr. ‹ners›); and where the
is there is your ...
I_next
. There was a Lat.
(sim. to
what is naked) m-ing a nest or a box, but it sounds slightly diff., though the idea of lying down —
in Ger —, presumably to lay eggs, has to be present. So that this r. is known on the West, but the m-ing of giving birth is restricted to birds only, bc. women don't nest (and then the w.
I_birth
is one more modification of on
based ws 2(more precisely, birth comes from to
I_bear
, of course)2; but the
I_bird
sounds exactly like the birth 2(acc. to me, bc. it isn't Teutonic or Fr., and in the dicts is given an unknown etym-gy for bird)2 bc. they often give birth, but we shall disc. this further).
Still, there are many slightly modified ws on the West like: Lat.
(to meet occasionally, or to receive — maybe some god has put it for me to find), or
I_natal
(resp. prenatal), or native (Lat.
), or the nations, or Lat.
(a nature), or Lat.
(
, to give birth, to happen, to arise — from here is your
I_nascent
), or Lat.
what is to swim over (where from
I_NATO
has come, i.e. the abbreviation was so chosen to match this Lat. verb; and life has come from the sea, your know); or take Fr.
('nesa~s', a birth, a beg-ing, from here is the
I_Renaissance
), or
|
| (to give birth, etc. 2(which in o. Fr. must have been read 'ne
tr'2 ), what has given your
(just
in Fr., past participle of this verb) as maiden name. Here has to be ment-d Ger.
|
| (wet — bc. some moisture is needed in the sexual matters), and poss. their
(
), what is to become well, or to give birth to a child (it may be stated that the last comes from the gene, but
is much used Ger. prefix 2(for building of
)2 & might have to be taken away for analysis; & then the m-ing is m.o.l. that of the
). Also Rus. ‹snoshatþsja› (to copulate) or ‹
I_snoshenie
› (a copulation) is rel-d to ‹nosja›, bc. the beg-ing "s" here is equal to the Lat.
- (& the Cyr. let. "s" is written exactly like the Lat. let. "c", & also you read the let. "c" as 'si', so there are no reasons why the Sl* shouldn't translate
into "s"), and the copulation, as you well know, is the only way to give birth for many animals, including the human beings (& I find it interesting to ment. that ‹snoshatþsja› is used also in the sense of
communication, & even the Ger* use the expression "
in this sense; you, for your part, use sim-ly to intercourse).
We shall return to
shortly but for now let us remember the consonants "ntr" and continue with the Sl. particle ‹
I_na
› (there 2(it is)2, take it). Particles are not exactly ws but here we have good rel-n to Ger.
what is your
I_near
, or
, what is to come nearer, but then
|
| is to sew (bc. this is a way to make pieces of cloth to stick one to another); also Ger.
(a stitch) &
(a rivet) & your
I_nut
(though it means smt. else) must be ment-d, together with Rus. ‹nitþ› or ‹
I_nitka
› (a thread); but then I may add also your "
I_now
" (Ger.
, but also
or
with slightly modified m-ings), & smt. Gr., & Skr., what may hardly be rel-d to
, but "now" is a very near time & this fits in the context. Well, and then I may cite o. Gr. νοστεω as to go home, to return, where from Lat. (etc.)
has come, & this is a kind of cycle; on the other hand the nostalgia has to have come from (or at least to be closely rel-d to) ...
things or cause, bc. in Lat.
means exactly our (what explains the so called
as "The Cause Of Ours"), or in Fr. it is
(where this sign above "o" is used to mark missing char, hence before some time it was again "nostre"), & in Bul. /Rus. our is ‹
I_nash
›. But, did you get it: why our things should be here? Ah, bc. of the grasping movement with the hand, what is a cycle or returning (or beg-ing, when it, anyway, is a cyclical process)! Even, if you would like it, I may cite here the well known
I_nose
, which is Ger.
, Sl. ‹nos›, & so on up to Skr.
— maybe bc. we always carry (‹nosja›) it with us (?); or, more seriously, bc. it sticks out, it is the beg-ing of our face (especially if one goes on 4 legs, as the animals do), but we shall come again to the nose.
Sp-ing about birth we come now to the
I_navel
, and even to the ... Galaxies, but let us not hurry up. The navel sounds better in Ger. where it is
(or
is a hub, center of wheel), but then here surely emerged some ... clouds in the form of Ger.
(a cloud, mist), which is Lat.
& also Sl. ‹
I_nebe
› (in Bul, or ‹nebo› in Rus., m-ing a sky), what has come from far off times, namely from Skr.
(a cloud, vapour, sky) or Avs.
(an air space), or, if you like, from old Assiro-Babylon & the name of a king, ... ‹Navuhudonosor› or
(or how you name him, bc. there are several variants), which begins with some
who was a god, and the whole name is said to mean: "(Oh, God) Nebu, defend my borders"! This r. has given also o. Gr. νεφελη (a cloud or darkness; the source for the
). Now, some of you may observe a rel-n with some be- /bo- /bu- sound of filling or infusion (we shall come to this on
), what isn't surprising bc. you can't bind together the center (the navel) & all that lies around it (the nebula) without this idea in your head — and the ancient people were born philosophers (in sense that in old times all was in one heap — the philosophy, sciences, religions, myths, & morality). So, then let me add also the given I/E. r.
- (a navel or center of a wheel), Per.
(a navel), o. Prussian
(t.s.), but also Lat.
m-ing ... a dishonesty, misdeed, or a monster (what can be explained only with the idea of the nebula-mist), or also one Gr. w. that we have as jargon in Bul., ‹
I_nefela
›, with m-ing of diseased, unsuitable, applied mostly to women (for which some guys say that they are: either "a little undisposed or much displeased"), hence they are "dark"; maybe with sim. ideas in their heads the Fr* have formed their
|
| m-ing a medlar (which is smt. misspelled — » Ger.
). In the sense of native (i.e. born via the navel, widely sp-ing, bc. in Lat.
is a ... bottom, but surely with the idea of the womb) is given also Fr.
(or
naïve
|I_naive| /naive for you), which has to be written (in Fr., not in Eng., where it is just a matter of taste) with 2 points over the "i" in order not to be read as 'nef'.
~ ~ ~
Well, now let us return to the consonants "ntr" (as in the nature) that give us the ... nitrates, of course! This is o. Gr. νυτρον (
or
), or Lat.
or
(or Ger.
, & sim. in Sl. & other langs), or your
I_nitrogen
(signified with the let. "
"), but this has come from ancient Egypt, & written with their hieroglyphs had to be read as 'ntr(j)'. This explains the
,
, etc. (bc.
is basic element for all life forms), hence your
I_nut
too (either as a food, or used to fasten a bolt), but there is smt. interesting in the Sl. langs where ‹
vnutrþ
› |‹I_vnutr$›|is the prep. into, and ‹
I_nutro
› is o. Rus. w. for intestines, guts, what has come from o. Gr.
εντερα
|
| (t.s.), and before that was Skr.
(internal) or
(intestines), or Avs.
, giving also Lat.
, your
I_inter-
(also =
, b.t.w.), Fr.
('a~tre', come in, enter) etc.; but if we had started with "in" only we have hardly had come to the
, and the giving (or carrying) of birth. Hmm, we might have come to the birth but via the Ger. suffix
, which is not only your (and Lat.) prep. but is used for building of fem. form from ws being initially masc., bc. were applied only to men (you don't have this bc. you've discarded the genders, but they 2(& maybe all other nations)2 have, like, say:
,
,
, etc.) — and how else could you explain this, if not with the idea of some entering into them (by men)? In this sense Fr.
m-ing "more" may be explained as a further movement to some core (viewed here as a hole) until you enter into it.
Anyway, in the mere s-ing of 'ntr' is hidden some torsion appropriate for the intestines (they are twisted, interwoven), and if animals feed through the mouth (& that's why you speak about
I_nutrition
; & about
nurs
ing |I_nurse| too) then the plants take what they need from the earth, where is this nutritious
(or
in Fr., a see-weed), or, more precisely, Ar.
(to be decomposed, b.t.w., in: all + καλο, but for the ambiguous m-ing of the last w. » calamity). And bc. in other langs (e.g. Sl.) for the element
Fr. w.
is used let me say that this is: "a" (here not as negation but as an article, or for taking of breath) + some "zoe" — which has come from o. Gr., where:
ζωοσ
|
| was (and still is in the current lang.) alive,
ζωη
|
| was a life or means for life, ζεω was to be excited or to boil with feelings, etc., what has given the known
I_zoology
. ( This reminds me to add here Rus. ‹
I_zajatz
› what is a rabbit 2(although the etym-sts say it has to be from a Skr.
, in what I don't believe bc. it meant a horse, and it is very difficult 3(in spite of its jumping)3 to confuse a horse with a rabbit; but it is sim. also to one Lat. w.,
, what is this time a wild goat, what may be correct bc. we may go from here to some o. Teu.
which corresponds well with your
I_goat
3(&, resp., goad, bc. it has horns)3, but this, of course, is another matter — and that is why I have put this in parentheses)2. ) This "zoe" is rel-d (I mean, it just
to be so, not that I have met this smw.) in o. Gr. to their ... god
I_Zeus
(Ζευσ) as maker of all zoological (& not only) beings, as also (I sup.) to Ger.
(pronounced 'tzojgen', just like Zeus is read 'Tzojs'), what is to speak, make statement, or produce children (we shall come to very sim. idea on
), & resp.
is to produce; from here it is rel-d also to their
(to show) or
(a picture, sign), but the r. can be found also in Rus. ‹
zhiznþ
›|‹I_zhizn$›|, what is a life (though » also gene,
). Bc. of this lively 'zh', which has to buzz but doesn't much in the Gr. original, the life becomes
(
) in Lat. (to live; here is the
), or the short Fr.
I_
(that you must have heard bc. of the phrase:|I_phrases|
), but
(which, still, isn't with 'zh' but that's the Lat. lang.) corresponds well with our Sl. ‹zhivo /zhivoj› (alive) or Bul. ‹
I_zhivot
› (a life). And even, I sup., it is poss. that this "zoe" has given also the name of the whole ...
I_Asia
— bc. of the many exotic animals living there (tigers, monkeys, elephants, also lions, no matter that they are to be found also in Arabia, bc. the latter may be counted for an outpost of Asia).
Now, sp-ing about filling of the mouth and going around the r.
- we may come to Ger.
, what is a silly person (& to fall in love is often called
, what is a rightful observation), for which the etym-sts are in doubt. On the other hand there's your
narrat
ion|I_narrate|, which is Lat., for they have (or have had — I usually sup. that what is B.C. "was", and what is after "is", but I'm not very strict in these matters)
(
) as to speak, tell smt., inform, &
is (or was) a story. On the 3rd hand — why not?; Hindu gods have even 4 hands — there is one southern fruit with tiny red seeds (which you just suck & spit out) which in Lat. is
(»
.), or pomegranate for you, but this is the well known on the South Tur., Ar., & Per.
.
And on the 4th hand there is a Rus. (known also in Bul.) ‹
I_nar
› as hard bunk made out of wooden planks (though I, personally, have the suspicion that the Rus* have been influenced by some southern 2(for them)2 folks), what has to be explained (I mean, this can be done) as a bunk for
(Ger.
in pl.). But there are even more "hands", bc. there is Tur. & Per.
(a kind of pipe for smoking of tobacco looking like a pumpkin with long elastic tubes; you call it hookah), what I think has to be split in:
(in Ger. m-ing) +
(=
, Tur.-Ar. for worries 2(but these are not big troubles & the m-ing is often inverted to pleasures)2 ), i.e. "these are the worries of the man"; then there was said smt. about another Southern-Rus. (Uzbekian, Kirghizian, Turkmenian) ‹
I_nar
› as a cross btw. dromedary & camel (you use 2 diff. ws, b.t.w., but we say a camel with one, resp. 2 humps), what I can't even imagine (but it's said so), so that it has to be some very "narry" animal (& you know, that if you call, say, some girl a camel she wouldn't be much pleased). Then I have the rights to ment. also the ...
I_narcotic|
s and the
I_narcissus
— so let us bind now the pieces together.
What I propose as an explan. is that this
- r. is rel-d to the ... teeth, and taking of food or sp-ing, & it was very old r. bc. in Skr. was known that
was an alias name of Vishnu. With this I don't want to say that the sacred Vishnu was a
, but poss. he has spoken very eloquently, or was the giver of the food (what rel-s us with the nitrates); on the other hand, if one speaks too much he may
like a
, & even if he doesn't speak but just stays with opened mouth this was observed, from ancient times, as an evidence for silliness; and then the fruit
, when you open it, looks like a mouth with many tiny (though red) teeth, & it, surely, is also a food. And if the fool-
is unique in this m-ing in Ger. (Teu.) there are other sim. & rel-d ws, like:
, what is to feed (resp.,
is a food, &
is wholesome food), but this is a kind of
-nearing (about which we've spoken before a while); and mark that in Eng., out of nowhere, a double "r" have emerged, giving your
I_narrow
, & the
-feeding is done by taking the food with hands &/or teeth (we narrow the space btw. it and our teeth); there's also a Ger.
as to bite, given from an o. Teu.
(=
), & others. But the feeding is present, bc. the Ar.-Per.
-fruit might have been called also
('naranþ', I sup.), what sounds paradoxically near to Bul. (‹da›) ‹
I_nahranja
›, what is to feed (though this isn't etym-cally very sound bc. ‹na›- in Bul. is a prefix & the r. is ‹hrana›, but the prefix is around this r. & means to stick in, & the r. is smt. old where diff. ideas may be mixed; comp. also with Ger.
as t.s. to feed), & this
has given — would you guess it? — the well known Fr.
I_orange
, resp. It.
('arancha') & sim-ly in Sp. (where, in my view, the people have put an "o" in front of it seeing well how obese & tasty it is)! So the orange colour is meant
as a colour but as the typical colour of a fruit that feeds good, and this has come from the old Skr. where
was an orange tree, what says us that the kind of fruit is not exactly fixed & may be: an orange, or
, or apple (or paradise-apple), or the like (to what we shall come on
too).
And now some ws about the
I_narcissus
, which obviously (by the ending
) is Lat., but then also Gr. (ναρκισσοσ), and it is not difficult to guess that the '-kiss' here is some laugh (even not going to your kiss bc. in Bul. we say ‹
I_kiskam
› (‹se›) for to giggle), what is in accordance with the Ger.
-fool; and you know that this person (
or
), having looked once at his reflected in the river image, had fallen in love with himself (what surely is a silly behavior), and later on he had withered & died & turned to flower (punished by the gods, presumably); and also: look at this narcissus flower — isn't it like an opened mouth with white (or yellow) teeth-leaves? Taking a look in an o. Gr. dict. we may find
ναροσ
|
| as a fluid, what isn't rel-d to the fool, but
to the food (say, to mother's milk); we'll find also their ναρκη as frozen in stupor, what is also Lat. (
), what explains why the o. Gr* have chosen this name; though it is also poss. that in stupor falls not only the fool, but those who look at him too (bc. from ancient times is known the saying that: even the gods cease talking seeing some great folly). From this stupor come the
I_narcotic|
s & narcoses, of course, but they
like food for those who take them, they can't do without them.
~ ~ ~
That's OK, but there, still, is another approach to the beg-ing and it is through the 1st let. of maybe all alphabets, or more precisely via the syl.
. Let us start here with Ger.
(another one; where is aslo your
I_other
, & Fr.
, read 'otr'), which comes nearly in space from o. Gr. ανδρο- (prefix for smt. human) or ανθρωποσ (a human being, though one may look at it as some "an-" 2(father or mother, m-ing a beg-ing, an idea of smt.)2 going on the path-
2(in Lat., or τροποσ in Gr.)2 and here are all the
androids
|I_android| from SF). But
comes from old times (and what doesn't?) & contains some piquant ideas. In o. Skr.
was a whiff or breath and
was to breathe, what has given o. Gr.
ανεμοσ
|
| (a wind), then Lat.
(a soul), & from here are the following Lat. ws:
I_animal
, animation, anemia,
I_anatomy
, all the
I_ancient
things, & so on (the let. "a" is the most open one, & 'a' or 'an' is t.s. vowel, especially if you ask the Fr*). So you see that it is not only a mother (which is
=
in Tur., &
is a motherhood) but a beg-ing, & sim. unisexual idea like this
– ανδρο stays behind the rel-n
–
(to be disc-ed). But some sexual notions are still present bc. in Lat. we have
(
, shortened to AD) as an year (a beg-ing), then the annals (
in Lat., m-ing a chronicle, history), then the analysts &
analyz
ing|I_analyze|, etc., but these are (I mean, they
to be) some sort of
I_canal|
s through which smt. flows (some particles), & there is one special canal called ...
I_anus
(I've promised you piquant ideas, haven't I?), which in Lat. meant also a circle, ring, or an old women.
Here is also your (to)
I_annul
(Lat.
), what officially comes from
+
, but it might also be
+ some suffix (bc. the number zero haven't existed in old Greece, the numbers beg-ing with the one, hence it has been added later). As far as all things exist only in dynamics (|I_sentences| or παντα ρει, παντα κυνηται, i.e.: all flows & changes) there must be some (imaginary) annals /canals, that lurk also in the ...
I_history
(ιστορια in o. Gr., and ‹
I_istoria
› in Rus.), which is rel-d to the, hmm,
I_hysteria
(υστερισμοσ), where the latter comes from o. Gr. υστερα what is exactly a womb! This, b.t.w., says that in ancient times people were well aware that the hysterias are rel-d mostly to the women, or to the humans with "isteras", what has to be known by technically educated persons, bc. they know the w. ...
, and the picture of it is a vertical oval with twisted vertices (the top one to the right, & the bottom one to the left) & a bit slanted to the right — it is formed when a curve rises (say, increasing the temperature) in one way (the lower curve), but when you go back (decreasing it) it falls by a sim. curve, though leaving some space btw. both parts. But that is how one will draw a draft picture of a vagina.
From the zeros-holes & canals is easy to come to the
I_chaos
, which is also a beg-ing (& an end, alas) of any organized system, so let me tell you smt. to this point too. The chaos is o. Gr. χαοσ (& in Sl. it is ‹
I_haos
›), which is given from their verb χα m-ing to open the mouth, to say 'aa', i.e. it is one bug mouth that eats all; in today's Gr. there is no χα, but one may find
χαζευω
|
| with t.s. m-ing (what is also Bul., but not Rus., jargon ‹
I_zjapam
›), & near to this
χαζοσ
|
| m-ing ... a fool, simpleton (the opened mouth as synonym for silliness; »
–door with sim. idea), or also χαλαζι (a hailstorm; so that add your
I_hail
too, as also Bul. ‹
I_hala
› with sim. m-ing of smt. fast moving & devastating). Near to the latter is one Bul. dialect, ‹talazi› (in pl.), m-ing a gush, which is not Bul. but Tur.
as a wave, & even not Tur. bc. there was o. Gr. θαλασσα m-ing a sea, but this must be diff. r. (»
); nevertheless the m-ing fits here, and I will use the place to add also Tur.-Ar.
(surely read ‹talasåm›, as in Bul.) m-ing a ghost, vampire (i.e. smt. sowing chaos). Then, looking around in the o. Gr., may be found also: χαζο as to retreat (like to fall in a hole), or χασκω as to open the mouth, or χασμη as to
I_gape
(where the latter comes from your gap, which is poss. rel-d to the gate). Yeah, but in Lat. this makes a strange rel-n to the ... cause (» Lat.
for poss. etym-gy), as if the chaos is the cause for all things to emerge, what isn't exactly true (the chaos is like a field on which diff. plants may grow, but one doesn't call the field a cause for growing, the cause are the seeds), but this m-ing is widely accepted, especially in the social matters, and, really, there are many examples when the things must 1st go worse or broken, in order to become better later.
[|I_comments| And now I can't miss the chance to indulge in some thoughts about the chaos & the society bc. what the contemporary democracy tries to put in our brains is that the more kinds of freedom we allow (of markets or wealth or behavior or the like) the better for the society, but this isn't always true. What is true is that the ultimate state of freedom is the chaos or
I_anarchy
(where the latter means
arch-things, » arc), & our goal should never be to create disturbances but to build a good order. It might be said that the God (or the Nature) uses in His (its) doings 2 major instruments: law & chaos (or order & disorder), so that there
to be some chaos in the best order, as much as there exists an orderliness in the utmost chaos, but He /it uses them both, and, of course, there has to be
in all things. Our main problem in this aspect is that we (all the humans, as well as all the other animals, not to ment. less organized forms of matter)
(& there, surely, is no development without some destruction); we can build & create, but we can't (in general, with only small number of exceptions) rationally destroy what has to be destroyed, and not knowing how to perform the destructive part of any creative work we are forced to believe that the chaos will do what is needed. Well, it does it, but with great social sufferings; we reach, smh., the (near to the desired) order, but at a big social price! This is to be seen in almost every time, but we in Bul. have in the recent times seen it very well (I mean, those who are capable to observe, compare, & make conclusions have seen this), bc.: only the free market doesn't help us at all (it has to be monitored & governed by the state), only allowing private businesses doesn't make better the businesses (people have not the money to search for better things, they look just how to survive), only the total rejection of the idea of communism doesn't better our living conditions (bc.
was, & is, very good & very old, & it is applied, but thoughtfully, in many Western countries; what was bad was not the idea but the
), only allowing more freedom (say, each citizen to have rights to buy as much weapons for his security as he likes) doesn't enhance the security but on the contrary, only hiding us behind the democratic ideas doesn't eradicate the economical & other inequality (bc. more freedom generally means that
2(as a person or a state)2 will have better chances to survive & prosper), & so on. So that a big part of the human population on the Earth still looks at the chaos or anarchy, or terrorism (as it turns out in the beg-ing of this new cent.), as a way for escaping the crisis, but it isn't the right way. The democracy
in the system of governing, yeah, it does this, but, I am afraid, this isn't the needed quality, nor the needed dose. ]
~ ~ ~
So, and after all this I may as well include here some illustrative examples about the bending in circle & nearing of the end to the beg-ing. Let me start with the curious Eng. rel-n btw. end & "
I_and
"! I have just explained that the latter is Ger.
(etc.) but on the bottom of it lies the
or the 1st let.; and the end surely is Ger.
(t.s.), given with old ws like: o. Frisian
, Dan.
, etc., or an I/E. r.
— but the point is that this is
an end, but smt. controversial or opposed, a cycle, bc. here is given the well known Lat.
I_anti-
, but also their
, what is
(to remind you the shortening "a.m." for
, i.e. before midday 2(and there's also It.
meaning "rather")2 ), though there was a Lat.
too, m-ing bent-down hairs, i.e. this time not a beg-ing (but maybe again a cycle); I would add here also the Fr., Eng., etc.
I_antenna
, which is named so bc. it stays before the wave entry on radio etc. sets; or It.
what is an anteroom, entrance hall. There were also: o. Gr. αντιοσ as opposed and ανταω as to meet occasionally, and in Skr. was
as an end, limit, death, and
as last. It is clear that here are also: the antic or
I_antique
, the
I_ancient
things, the ancestry, etc. (» further east), which are not so much at the end (looking backward) of the things but at the beg-ing. ( Here may arise also the question: why what is ante- or before should mean also anti- or opposed, but from the point of view of the contemporary position all ante- things are contrary 2(there exist, in fact, only what was and what is, the future can't be really seen, so that if it is not the one thing it must be the another)2. ) But all that was easy. Let me pose now a more interesting question, namely: what rel-s both Ger. ws:
(against) &
(again)? Yeah, but put in Eng. this is again easy, bc. you've taken t.s. idea & transferred it onto another r., and being now convinced in this (& ment-ing the cycle) you may easily guess the answer, but in Sl., where
is ‹sreshtu› or ‹protiv › &
is ‹pak› or ‹otnovo› or ‹snachala› (Bul., Rus.), or in Fr., where the 1st is
& the 2nd is
, this isn't at all obvious.
[|I_comments| Let me philosophize here again. In our unlimited world, & with our limited perceptions, there are only 2 ways to get
, m.o.l. adequate, picture of this world, to be capable to still measure quantities going on & on in one & t.s. direction, and these ways are as follows: either to
, & distort it as much as poss., or, to put it better, the more we go away from the zero point the more we distort the scale; or, otherwise, to
in circle, & after reaching the limit or end point, then, continuing to go in the
direction, to move through the
point! We, & all the animals, use
ways. The 1st way leads us to the most beautiful (if such superlative may be used) curve called
I_exponent
(etym-cally built as
beyond all points, or the like), marked as
(or
) which is an
curve (the mathematicians have devised a complicated method for measuring of the smoothness of a curve not by moving of finger above it & waiting to be hurt or not, but by measuring of the speed of rising or falling of the curve, & the speed of the speed, & so on, until it is poss., what is called building of derivative function, or
differentiat
ion|I_differentiate|), what has to say, that the exponent always rises (resp. falls), and its speed is like the initial curve, & so on
, i.e. it is an
differentiable function with a deriv. (providing we use as basis the so called Neper number
) exactly the
initial function. It has to be well known that we, f.ex., hear in
logarithmic
|I_logarithm| (the w. being built from logging onto some rhythm, measured in times, not by adding or subtracting) scale (and the logarithm is the reversed operation of the raising to power; and, to show that changing of the scale may drastically change the form of a given curve, let me add that if you use one-sided logarithmic scale 2(i.e. only for the abscissa)2 & draw an exponent by points then you will get an exactly
line), and that is why the power of a sound is measured in decibels (where, f.ex., the difference btw. 2 & 3 is t.s. as btw. 2000 & 3000, what, obviously, isn't the case with the linear scale).
So, and as to the curved in a circle linear scale you have to think about the face of a normal (analogous) clock where after 12 o' clock comes the 1st hour, so that it is called also
, but it isn't centered, so that it is better to imagine a thermometer measuring, say, from –50 degrees through 0 to +50 degrees (this will be centered modal scale), with the only requirement that it
, what has to say that by raising the temperature after +50 degrees there follows -50, then -49, and so on! This may seem pretty strange for some of you but it isn't entirely new idea, bc. you have seen also digital devices with, say, 2 positions, which after 99 give 00 (only here the center of the scale, or the zero point, isn't in the 0 but btw. 49 & 50); such devices & arithmetic are, in fact, easier to make bc. we don't need to bother about the carry. And this also has to be known (& used in live forms), bc you all are well aware that the poles are connected one with the other, say: big love turns (& this when it grows!) almost always into hatred; burning & freezing give t.s. sores (& are treated in t.s. way); when the light is too strong (say, when one looks into the Sun) one becomes blind (at least temporary); or in a very noisy room one may become deaf; or take the colours, where in the rainbow (& also as wave lengths) they follow from red, orange, etc., to violet, but we feel that as much the orange stays near to the red colour so also stay the red one to the violet (but they are diametrically opposed), etc. In short: in one &/or the other way we get distorted information, but we (normally)
the measuring unit — and this is what matters here. ]
But let us return to
–
rel-n & look more precisely at the words for "again" in diff. langs bc this may teach us smt. The Ger*, as a folk of philosophers, use here the idea of the cycle, about the Eng. understanding we shall come again after a wile, the Rus* say ‹snachala› or ‹zànovo› or ‹snova› (in Bul. it's ‹
I_otnovo
›, but also ‹pak›), what (with the exception of ‹pak›) goes from the new thing (though »
or ‹novûj› for etym-gy), as much as Fr.
(or It.
) does. Well, to begin anew may also be observed as a kind of cycle, but the point is that in rejecting all that has been done in btw. and returning to some point wide away in time we, in fact, go back in time! That's it, but this isn't an evolution (or at least isn't a good one), this is a revolution, and you have seen that this is characteristic not only for the Slavs (as f.ex. Bulgaria, where we've succeeded to return about half a cent. back in the living standard; and, I sup., the situation is sim. in Ukr. or Bjelarus, m.o.l. t.s. is in Russia, though it isn't so in Czech or Poland, so that there might be exceptions, of course), but also for the French (who, really, are widely known for their revolutions & guillotines for killing of dethroned kings or aristocrats). And as to your
I_again
the vulgar etym-gy (or at least I think so) has to make the splitting: a + gain, m-ing that this isn't an entirely new way & we have some gain going on it again (the beg-ing "a" here is meant as article, like in, say, your
I_ado
= a + do). Your etym-sts don't say exactly this and give old:
,
,
,
, etc. leading us to an o. Ger.
/
, what is now
(=
, i.e. against), but I am sure this contains t.s. idea.
Ah, if some of you ask: why
is again a cycle (roughly sp-ing), then let it be said that this is Fr.
('gazh'), though it means a payment, fee, wage (» wage), salary, but this is also Bul. (Tur.) ‹
I_gaga
›, what is a hook (what explains how the Fr* get their wages — with a hook, called
2('ganþ')2 ). Also
in Fr. is to get wages /fees, and
in Ger. is a competitor (
-against whom we fight), & your gage is smt. sim., & the Ger* use literally Fr.
, & your gag is smt. that one has bitten (like a fishing hook; or else it's an imit.), etc. There's also Bul. jargon ‹
I_gazhe
› /‹gadzhe› m-ing a (sex-) friend, beloved, what is, on one hand, Fr.
(engage for you), but, on the other hand, this is officially given as coming from a ... Gypsy (or rather
, bc. there are some diff-ces —»
) ‹
I_gadzho
›, m-ing this time an alien person and from here a beloved girl, but this surely is again in the sense of smb. "hooked" (when it means alien
beloved), and there was also a Gypsy ‹gadzhal› as paid soldier, & so on. ( Your jargon gaga is an imit. & will be ment-d on another place. ) OK, and now I have to say smt. about the jumped over Bul. ‹pak› as again, but before this I will raise a new question, bc. in Ger. there's also the w.
, with the special m-ing of castrated ram, which in Eng. has become wether (which I shall never cease to confuse with weather & whether 2(and that is, maybe, the reason why thе wether is now thrown out of most Eng. dicts)2, but that is my problem, isn't it?). And the new question is this: where in this
-wether the cycle must be hidden?
But don't think that the etym-sts will help you to guess bc. for the
they give Lat.
as old (where from the
veteran
s|I_veteran| & the
veterinarian
s|I_veterinarian| have come; I would squeeze also one Rus. w., ‹
I_vetchina
›, m-ing a ... ham, smoked joint of some
animal) but I doubt in this. I mean, I don't doubt about
being old, bc. I have heard the It. phrase
('vekkjo')
, or t.s. in Fr. as
('vjo'), what means "my old (friend)", then there is the known Lat.
I_veto
as the right for rejection (given initially to the Roman Tribunes in order to oppose the Senate), and I know pretty well that ‹veht› in Bul. is old, weather-beaten (so that the veto then is to be explained as the right of the "‹vehti"›-old ones), as also that ‹
I_vek
› in Rus. (what is c. Sl.) is a century, which might be thought as smt. old & strong (it's given as coming from Lat.
as to conquer, make victory, but in my view this is a small confusion, though with sim. m-ing), and you all know about the Scan.
s
|
|, which may lead us to the Skr. There are also our Church-Sl. ‹
I_vehi
› (usually of the history), what are the most important moments (in it), or ‹zavetû› (‹
I_zavet
› in sing.), what are the commandments of our predecessors, their heritage, » also
later on, but this is smt. diff. (the r. has initially to be
, though it may mutate to
— » video); where with the
we might have started from the video (bc. to fight smb. one has to see him, to stand against him), but this is another idea. Anyway, you see that the things are mixed, but we are not looking for an exact etym-gy of Ger.
(so much efforts for a poor castrated ram wouldn't pay), but for the hidden cycle. ( B.t.w., a century in Fr. is
|
|, where also a cycle may be seen, but this has to be meant as smt. cut away, a big chunk of years. ) And, besides, it (or, rather, he) isn't really old bc. it is said that the
was one-year old ram (& even if we weren't told this it must be clear that there are no reasons in keeping a castrated ram to grow really old); to explain also that the animals are
bc. of their (current) age, but bc. of their precedence before the humans (for in Lat.
was an old animal,
was working animal, &
was a predecessor — a kind of father). So that you, still, continue to think and I will proceed further.
The particle ‹
I_pak
› (again) in Bul. has to be smt. of the kind of Ger.
(a day) or Rus. ‹
I_shag
› (a step) or Lat.
- (e.g.:
I_page
, pagan), to which we shall come in its proper place, and may be easy rel-d to Rus. ‹
I_poka
›, what means: after a wile (& is used as your bye-bye). But this is known on the West too, bc. there is an It.
(a little), which you might have heard from the musical phrase|I_phrases|:
(little by little, slowly, like given in drops); there's also some Lat.
(grammatical cutting, what reminds me about Rus. ‹
kopatþ
›|‹I_kopat$›|, to burrow or dig), which is given (the 1st syl. only) from o. Gr.
απο
|
| (a prep. m-ing: forward, from, out), and then this has to have given the known ... apocalypses (
in Lat. and αποκαλυπτω in o. Gr.) — if we take the
- apart then from the rest a
-good (to be disc-ed smw. later) may be extracted, i.e. with the m-ing of: until (before) the things bettered (bc. they have to become worst at 1st!). ( Απο-forward is smt. like your
I_afore
, and don't be bothered that before isn't after bc. in a cyclical process the direction isn't much important. ) So the cycle in ‹pak›–‹poka›–
–
isn't very clear to be seen but it is still (smh.) present. But, having begun to dig here, there is also Rus. ‹
opjatþ
›|‹I_opjat$›|, m-ing again "again", what might be rel-d with Bul. ‹
I_napuk
› (in spite of), what is an imit. (of the kind of your, sorry, fart), but I think it's better to rel. it with your ...
I_oops
(i.e. to repeat bc. an error has been made).
Ah well, let me spit it now — the cycle in the
is in his horns, bc. he has fought so much against the others, that they have become curved back. And then it is highly probable that Bul.(but not Rus.) ‹
I_oven
› (again a ram) was named so bc. of his bent down (‹ovezhdam› /‹navezhdam›) horns; though, on the other hand, his name has to be from the she-sheep (‹
I_ovtza
› or ‹ovechka›, and this time also Rus. w.), but this may be explained as imit. of the disgusting (bc. of animal's smell) exclam. 'off /uff' ("pooh" for you, but it's with the s-ing of your
I_oaf
), so that it may be a coincidence (‹oven› – ‹ovtza›) as far as in many langs there are diff. ws for both sexes of the sheep (he is ‹
I_baran
› in Rus., what may sound not much away from Eng. ram, but the idea is diff. & he will be disc-ed later). Then there might be t.s. idea (come to think of it) also in Ger.
as horned animal, bc. t.s. s-ing has their
(a rind in Eng. as a bark of tree) & it surely curves around the trunk in a kind of ring; on the other hand this w. might have come from the animals' hides, as imit. of tearing, but I think the point here is again in the horns bc. a horse or donkey or swine isn't counted as
but their hide can still be used. OK, and in order not to think that we may find the cycle only in the ram or the bull (though there may be other examples in the text) I shall ment. also Ger.
, what is a vintage (& it surely winds), which w. you may split (I mean, you can, although it isn't etym-cally sound) in: re + be!
~ ~ ~
Still, bc. there is so much to tell you in this book, let me include here 2 more paragraphs about the
I_continuum
, starting with the r.
; and let us distinguish it from
-, which we shall disc. later (»
), no matter that for the Fr*, f.ex., it may be the same. So here is Lat. verb
(to connect, fit together), or
(continuous, you write it in Fr. manner, but in Lat. this means also: adjacent, connected, unchangeable; or take Fr.
as also: durable, whole) & from here comes the continuum. This r. in this m-ing is unknown by the Sl* (the Rus* use ‹prodolzhitelþnûj› what comes from ‹dolgij› 2(long)2 & for that » ‹dolg›), with the exceptions of scientific usage of the continuum, but we have smt. shorter, namely ‹
I_konetz
›, what may be interesting for you bc. in Rus. this means an end, but in Bul. (
t.s. w.) is a thread, so you see that the idea is t.s. as in Lat.; there is also an obsolete Bul. ‹konchov› as bottom end of a dress; or ‹
I_konchina
› as a demise, death. More than this, there is also Rus. ‹
konþ
›|‹I_kon$›| (‹kon› in Bul., ‹kinþ› in Ukr.,
2('kjunþ')2 in Cz.,
2(in pl.)2 in Pol., etc.) what is ... a horse — and try to explain this without the idea of smt. often used for connecting, or shortening, of the space (bc. the etym-sts give dubious etym-gy)! But I may enhance your conviction ment-ing that this sounds very near to Rus. ‹kinþ /
kinutþ
› |‹I_kinut$›|, what is to throw (& look at it as a way to connect 2 points 2(there's also Sl. ‹
I_kinzhal
› as a dagger, which may be split, come to think of it, in: ‹kinþ› + ‹zhalo›-a-sting)2 ), or their ‹
I_kanun
› /‹nakanune› m-ing: on the eve of smt., or their ... whip, which is called ‹knut› (what is Ger.
, but surely here is also your to
I_knit
), or — why not? — Bul. ‹
I_kjunetz
›, what is a pipe for leading of the smoke out of the oven & to the chimney, and what turns out to be Tur.-Per.
|
|. Some of you may go from here to the ... gene (via your
I_kin
), bc. it also provides a connection, now of the generations, but I find this is a diff. r. (though rel-d — all is rel-d to almost all).
On the other hand the Sl. ‹
konþ
›|‹I_kon$›| may have smt. in common with the ... mythical
I_centaur
(o. Gr. Κενταυροσ), for he was believed to be half a horse & half a man, and also bc. κεντειω was to prick, sting, go into, make a hole (i.e. a connection), or κεντημα was a sharp end, or the prefix κεν(ο)- meant to empty (what we'll disc. on
too). This is poss. bc. the 2nd half (ταυροσ) is a bull (»
I_Taurus
), and the Slavs (I sup.) couldn't have grasped this "horsish bull" properly and thrown the bull away; but then it wouldn't be surprising if the ...
I_dragon
also has to be here (as flying horse), bc. it's Lat.
(a snake or dragon) or Sl. ‹
I_drakon
›, and if a decomposition (of 2 syllabic w.) may be questionable (-
might be a suffix, or the r. may be
where the idea is of scratching 2(like in Fr.
)2 ) the dragon itself comes from the Far East and, besides, it
rel-d to the horse through the
I_dragoon|
s! (Also »
later). In the sense of Rus. ‹kinþ›-to-throw, & with the image of a dragon-snake, we may go to — hah, hah — to your
I_skin
(where the etym-sts don't go earlier of an o. Icl.
) — bc. we take out our coats (what is exactly ‹
skinutþ
›|‹I_skinut$›| in Rus.) just as the snakes their skins (the prefix "s" may easily arise or vanish; becides, in It. it is widely used with the measing of taking smt. out, i.e. = Lat. ex-); and the ment-d kin–gene also isn't much away bc. to make a child one (read a man) has to throw his semen-seeds, what in Rus. (as vulgar jargon) is exactly ‹
kinutþ
›|‹I_kinut$›| ‹palku› (the latter being a branch, twig, stick). ( Sim-ly s-ing to ‹kinþ›, & with a sim. m-ing, is Lat. cast, but there the point is not so much in connecting as in dividing, & about this on some other place. ) But there, still, is smt. else to be added, bc. it turns out that there was an o. Rus. ‹kon› (without "þ") with m-ing of a border or line, what even a Russian wouldn't believe until being reminded about the obsolete w. ‹
I_iskoni
›, or ‹ispokon vekov›, what means "from times immemorial" (i.e. from the end, but if you look towards the beg-ing), and there's also a Cz. expression
m-ing "to the end" (so that it, really, is smm. a beg-ing, but another time an end). And I have come to this ‹iskoni› looking for an etym-gy of the Sl. law which is ‹
I_zakon
› (o. Sl. & c. Sl.: Rus., Bul., Cz., Pol., etc.
, or Ukr. ‹zakin› 2(they still continue to ‹kinþ›-throw smt, it seems)2 ), for which is given smt. dubious but rel-d to this o. ‹kon› & the beg-ing (‹nachalo›); this rel-n is very vague but I think the ‹kon(þ)›–end–beg-ing (& some line to mark it) has to be in play here, together with smt. thrown (set, established) from the gods.
Well, let us hope that this is enough for the beg-ing of the Creation, so that I will close at last these curly brackets.
}
— — —
...
[ And so on, where this chunk, however big, was only about 7 % of the whole book; what follows are things more or less related with the titles of pseudo-chapters. But it is more than enough to allow you to cast a look in this enormous etymologically looking, but meaning much more than this, independent, though based on widely spread etymologies, work. If you could find a pair of
time to read the entire book, and if you find it on other sites (because here this is impossible, it is too big), you are welcome to do this, for I have written it to fill my time, but it may as well fill your time, too. Another variant for the readers is to call me on yahoo as chris_myrski and beg me to sent you — for some fee — a copy of it, also in printable form, with pages and real indexes, because one must have such book always nearby to use like a handbook, and reread it partially many times. If so, then hurry on, for I may soon be called by my Urrh. ]
...
Well, and this is the place for our final, or "fullest", full-stop. Bye-bye, & think when sp-ing — this may be useful for better understanding of the m-ing of the ws that you say or hear, but it will also give you some fun, you may be sure of that.
}.
finished July, 2007,
updated later till August 2008,
reread and amended in summer of 2009,
reread again with small addition at the end of the Afterthoughts in 2013,
internet version finished in the beg-ing of 2014,
Sofia, Bulgaria
— — — — —
LIKE A CONTENTS
|I_ContentsChp|
INTRODUCTION
{« INTROCHP}
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
{« PRELIMCHP}
THE CREATION
IN THE BEGINNING {« BEGINCHP}
WAS THE GOD {« GODCHP}
CALLED URRH {« URRHCHP}
WHO WAS THE TRUTH {« TRUTHCHP}
AND THE LIGHT {« LIGHTCHP}
AND THE WISDOM{« WISDOMCHP}.
HE WAS IMMENSELY POTENT {« POTENTCHP}
AND MADE THE TIME & THE SPACE {« SPACECHP}
AND THE MATTER {« MATTERCHP}.
THEN HE MADE THE GRASS & THE TREES {« TREESCHP}
AND THE ANIMALS {« ANIMALSCHP}
AND THE THINGS LEFT {« LEFTCHP}.
THEREAFTER HE MADE THE MAN & THE WOMAN {« MANCHP}
AND SAID THEY SHOULD PRAY TO HIM & BE HAPPY {« HAPPYCHP},
BUT THEY DISCOVERED THE SEX & MADE CHILDREN {« CHILDRENCHP}
AND BUILD THE SOCIETY {« SOCIETYCHP}
AND HE SAW THAT THEY ARE NOT MUCH INTELLIGENT {« INTELLECTCHP}
AND WAS PISSED BY THEM & SAID "URRH" {« PISSEDCHP}.
AFTERTHOUGHTS {« AFTERCHP}.
LIKE A CONTENTS
{« CONTENTSCHP}
APPENDIX 1: ABOUT THE AUTHOR
{» APPENDIX1CHP}
APPENDIX 2: ABOUT THE COUNTRY
{» APPENDIX2CHP }
APPENDIX 3: ABOUT URRH
{» APPENDIX3CHP }
— — — — —
Appendix 1
|I_Appendix1Chp|
: About the author
|I_verses|
By The Way ...
By the way, I'm not a gay,
And I don't see how they
May prefer it from behind,
Rather than the other kind
(And you sure know what I've in mind).
By the way, I'm not a boss,
But I don't think I have lost
Many happy days in t'life
Having nobody to drive
(Or I've been especially deprived).
By the way, I make no bets,
I play not for money, that's
Not that I like not to win,
But I know it's only gin
(And to lose has no sense, it's a sin).
By the way, I don't know why
Many girls, as also guys,
Follow every bit of ads,
I think they must just be mad
(Or they will be soon, and that is sad).
By the way, I like to think,
Like to swing on reason's wings;
That's why actions, also thrillers,
Are for me resented killers
(Though they are good for some gorillas).
By the way, you may then guess,
That I don't like also press,
Television, and so on,
Pouring titbits with gallons
(But they were invented for morons).
2004
— — —
Appendix 2
|I_Appendix2Chp|
: About the country
|I_verses|
Geography Lesson
Well, dear children, we'll learn today something about a country called Bulgaria,
But you don't have to expect much of it, because it's one of the world's most poorest areas.
It has some rectangular form, but it looks so tattered,
That one may reasonably wonder how they have succeeded before to live much better.
For they have there such misery nowadays,
That one of you, dear children, may think they have messed all, all things, in a search for better ways.
And they, surely, have made one capital big mess
Reaching the point where their average income is not just less,
But they have made it to be three times so, four times, and even more times worse.
And do you know, children, when this tendency started first?
Well, just in the moment when they turned to the democracy and began making their first steps!
And then, in their efforts to better the things, they continued to go down till they nearly collapsed.
Because now, in winter days and nights, they began to freeze much and they began to pray
To the God, if He will be so good and give them just one more sunny day;
And, do you know, children, they often don't have even enough money to buy their food
And, I suppose, you are all clever now and could well tell me, of what kind this may imply moods
In all of those souls who have to sleep in their cold bets and with their empty bowels,
And who sometimes, at home or with their friends, may give way to either howls or, else, growls?
And then, to help you to understand better what it's to live their lives
I'll tell you that unemployed there is each one out of every four up to five;
And that their minimal monthly salary — and I hope you'll allow me to shorten it to MILS —
Makes some fifty filthy dollars or so (but they don't use such bills).
And what for one MILS they can buy I may, as well, give you some examples:
Say, circa one hundred milk litters, which is, as you see, not very ample;
Or meat of some kind about fifteen kilos or so;
Or what you call cheese, also butter, then kilos twenty, but you can't make them more;
Or grill chickens they'll buy thirty, I'll say;
Or bus tickets two hundred and fifty, or eight, if you count them per day;
And daily again they may have twenty eggs or something about;
Or five bottles of beer per day, but if it has to be in cans this makes only three, and your money is out;
Or, if you are intelligent enough to read,
Then you may buy five newspapers daily and with this your MILS' ceiling is exactly hit;
And so on, but you should not forget that in winters, when they have to heat,
Then the payment for a small two-room's flat per month often a whole MILS exceeds.
But well, this isn't all, because their total national debt,
Computed per capita (with the children in nursery beds),
Amounts to twelve hundred and something US dollars, or twenty four MILS,
But they rise to over five years, if you cast the debt between only employed people, so this, surely, is a bitter pill.
And now, children, you don't suppose that they will pay a MILS a month to the debt, for they could not,
They, possibly, may pay one tenth of a MILS and this, still, will be for them a very tough lot,
Because in the last ten years they have succeeded to pay just the debt's interests and ntg. of the bulk,
Hence, their debt can be paid in some fifty years, so you see, that their live seems very dull.
But if you think this finishes all their problems then you are positively in error,
Because there's one financial trick, approved by the last two governments, which sets the population almost in terror:
The trick is, namely, that MILS corresponds not to some real social minimum, and not to the one officially recognized by the state,
But the social minimum was exactly two MILS, and it is 1.7 MILS, as of late.
This means that very many people not only work on a full day basis for about two dollars a day,
But they have to pay taxes even if their income is much less than the officially established one, what we shall call: the
.
Well, you see that the situation in this poor land is so twisted and crazy,
That the major part of the population lives below the social minimum, though they are not lazy.
And so, my dear children, if you intended to go abroad to visit some aboriginal area,
I should strongly advise you to forget about the country called Bulgaria,
Because their criminality level has arisen to such heights
That you may be stripped there, and knifed or gunned — all right.
They may not live there so poor as in, say, Bangladesh,
But this isn't pretty sure and they badly want to put their hands over some more cash.
They were blinded by the democracy to a such extent,
That they have lost nearly all their moral sense.
And do you know, children, how they are called by their southern neighbours, the Greeks?
Well, they are called "vulgaros", and this sounds — doesn't it — as a tough kick;
And, even if this has to be observed just as a pun,
It, still, doesn't give them very much of a fun.
So, and with this, my dear children, my lesson is done.
2004
P.S. All figures that I give were true in 2004 but the things have not changed much, I mean that we live so miserable that some prices still
to rise (as, e.g., in 2008) and if there happens some minor growth of the salaries &/or pensions (normally about 10 per cent in an year) it becomes very fast eaten by the inflation (sometimes about 50 per cent an year). Or, to cite one old (totalitarian) pun: if the happiness is
in having money (or possessing other material goods) then the Bulgarians are very lucky nowadays. On the other hand, in the new millennium (or after 1998) we are not sliding deeper down economically, but we are also not heaving up, we've just stuck in the mud. And there remains to be answered the primary and more substantial question: why should we have to go down at the first place? But, hmm, we (all the people) are not as the ... sunbeams, that know which way to chose in order to move faster, we merely knock here and there, as blind (or, rather, blinded by lustrous capitalistic illusions) people do.
And well, I don't mean seriously that people from the West must not come at all to Bulgaria (because: the more of them come to us, the more money they will leave by us), but they have to be warned. Or, looking at this otherwise, we have even to be cared for, in a way, being so few (because: out of
people arbitrary taken from all around the world and lined in a row, only about one will be Bulgarian); so that this should give some piquancy to your visit to us.
— — —
Appendix 3
|I_Appendix3Chp|
: About Urrh
|I_verses|
Tell Me, Urrh
"Urrh almighty, tell me, please:
Why is life so full of sorrow?
It's not just and You know this.
Answer now, not tomorrow!"
  Listening to this Urrh said:
"When you to a circus go
And the clown's beaten bad
He's not glad, but you are, though.
Also: sorrow or decease
Must be had, for, when they cease,
On the contrast to feel pleased."
"Urrh almighty, tell me, too:
Why do we not live for ever?
It's so bad to die, it's blue.
Answer now, or then never!"
So said Urrh to this: "By Urrh,
Don't you know how life is made?
Do you want to put a curse
Over love and sex this days?
Hence, if you are not moron,
And you like the sex go on
You've to
for that, my son!"
"Urrh almighty, then I ask:
Why you made us bad and silly?
Why not wise? Was that Your task?
Answer now, I am willing!"
"Well, if you were ril'ly wise,
You should've been no egoistic.
I've made you to be my mice
And behave as gods is mystic!
Free will you have not at all,
Life's a game and has no goal,
So, be happy with your dole!"
"Urrh almighty, thank You then,
And I raise a question, last:
Why did You us, silly men,
Give this ego in Your cast?"
"This is easy: if not you
Care for yourselves then, who?
If you think I must this do
You are, surely, cuckoo!
And if you think, to be God,
What's my everlasting lot,
Is so easy — then it's not!"
|I_verses|
Pent-Urric
There is, ever was, my God Urrh,
He who makes the whole nature to stir.
He's not bad, neither good,
He's a reason or truth,
And the cause for all things to occur.
2004
|I_verses|
Our Pray
"Urrh, Bagh, Man, Put, Ing, Don, Giay,
Pan, Cle, Ibn, Jee, Rah!"
This is how in pray we cry,
Not at all blah-blah.
It's a pray to Urrh Almighty
Who's just everywhere
And who everything comprises
Like enormous sphere.
He was always, will be ever,
He is all and all,
You may not believe He's there,
But He's one and whole.
He's Creator, Maintenance,
And Destroyer, too,
He keeps everything balanced,
He's so much to do.
You may pray to Him or not,
It is as you like.
But it's you who'll need Him, what
Says you'd rather try.
Urrh Almighty, I'm in You,
Be aware mine,
I'm just nothing, but I move,
Help me be, not die.
"Urrh, Bagh, Man, Put, Ing, Don, Giay,
Pan, Cle, Ibn, Jee, Rah!"
This is how in pray we cry,
This is not blah-blah.
2009
— — — — —
E N D
Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/