|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
·
Indo-European |
|
|||||||||
|
|
·
Italy Schweiz |
·
Germany |
·
Greece |
·
Thrace
Dacia |
·
Anatolia |
|
|||||
|
|
The Proto-Languages of Families Reinterpreted as
Heterogenous National Administrative Domains Clickable terms are red on the yellow background |
|
|||||||||
|
|
Table 1. National Dialects Linked into Ancient Dialectal Continua |
|
|||||||||
GERMANIC DIALECTS
§
German §
Dutch dialects §
Frisian dialects §
Albanian dialects §
Moldavian dialects §
Macedonian dialects |
SCANDINAVIAN DIALECTS §
Danish dialects §
Norwegian dialects §
Swedish dialects §
Icelandic dialects §
Faroese dialects |
||||||||||
ROMANCE
DIALECTS
§
French dialects §
Spanish dialects §
Portuguese dialects §
Romanian dialects §
Sardinian dialects |
CELTIC DIALECTS §
Scottish dialects §
Irish dialects §
Welsh dialects §
Cornish dialects §
Breton dialects |
||||||||||
|
SLAVIC
DIALECTS §
Czech dialects §
Slovak dialects §
Polish dialects §
Russian dialects §
Ukrainian dialects §
Belarusian dialects §
Sorbian dialects |
BALKANIC
DIALECTS §
Slovene dialects §
Croatian dialects §
Serbian dialects §
Albanian dialects §
Bulgarian dialects §
Moldavian dialects §
Macedonian dialects |
||||||||||
EVOLUTIONARY ETHNOLOGY
§
The
Evolution of Ancient Racial, Ethnic and Social Castes §
The
Growth of Ethnic castes in Economic Formations §
Genotypes,
Races, Tribes, Castes and Classes in Historical Formations §
The
Paragenetic Evolution of Races, Tribes, Castes and Classes §
The
Systematic Typology of Palaeolithic Tribes |
TYPOLOGICAL ETHNOLOGY §
Fields
of Typological Ethnology §
Lithic,
Ceramic, Funerary and Architectonic Taxonomy §
The
Ecologic Subsistence of Ancient Urstämme and Urrassen (Nutritiology) |
||||||||||
PROTO-LANGUAGES
§
Proto-Celtic
(Common Celtic) § Proto-Germanic (Common Germanic) §
Proto-Baltic (Common Baltic) §
Proto-Slavic (Common Slavic) §
Proto-Italic (Common Celtic) §
Proto-Greek (Common Greek)
|
LANGUAGE FAMILIES§
Celtic Language Family §
Germanic Language Family §
Baltic Language Family §
Slavonic Language Family §
Italic Language Family §
Greek Language Family |
||||||||||
Prolegomena to
Substratic Infradialectology
§
Dialectology is etymologically associated with Ancient Greek διαλεκτική,
dialektikē, defined as an art of debate and argument. Dialectics implies
antagonism between two concurrent rivals and their final synthesis by solving
contradictions. It recommends an analytic treatment of phenomena by
decomposing superficial entireties into concurrent and contradictory elements. §
Linguistic reflections are misguided by dogmatic delusions caused by
„the mixed character of all languages“ (Baudouin de Courtenay 1901).
Heterogeneous mixtures call for analytic approaches and decomposition into pure elements. §
Most languages are not compact, compatible and consistent structures
as they display heterogeneous nature. They exhibited compact homogeneity only
at the earliest beginnings in Palaeolithic times. §
Traditional opinions looked at national mother tongues as mothers of
dialects and considered dialects as their daughters. §
So classical linguistics found its basic elementary units in national
languages and neglected dialects regarded as their late outgrowths. § As a consequence, linguistics lacks pure essential categories and has to be reconstituted on the base of dialectology that treats languages in an analytic manner. § Most national mother tongues originated by convergent assimilation of circumjacent dialects, so they are posterior to oral dialects. This implies that oral dialects are prior to the written national standard. §
Dialectology analyses
living and extinct dialects into contradictory
element competing for supremacy and
therefore it is prior to linguistics that constitutes its subordinate
subdiscipline. §
Such preliminary
definitions interpret language
structures as clusters of chaotic cumulative complexes ordered in a steady
hierarchy of dialects.
Dialects are arranged as pyramids composed from ethnolects, sociolects,
supralects, infradialects, chronolects, geolects,
endolects and exolects. §
Endolects are
internal subdialects, and exolects are external
subdialects. §
Ethnolects are dialects
anchored inseparably in ethnic tribes, sociolects are dialects anchored
inseparably in social communities. §
Linguistic materialism
proclaims that languages cannot be regarded as chimeras suspended in the
vacuum and detached from living speakers; as such they have to be anchored
firmly in the underlying human ethnic communities. §
Dominant superstrate dialects are called supralects, languages of
subordinated minorities are
classified as infralects. §
Supralects are dominant major dialects that have absorbed concurrent
minorities and their dialects as subdialects. §
Infralects are subjugated minor dialects that were absorbed by the
dominant supradialects. §
Infralects are
residual structures dying out in a depleted premortal state but they shine
transparently through the written standard.
§
Languages,
language families and macrolanguages are fallacious unities, they have to be
treated as hierarchised domains, where one dialect is dominant,
its main rival is a subdominant and
further subdialects are adstrate components.
|
Prolegomena to
Linguistic Natiology
§
Language unities are fallacies concealing multiethnic domains created
by convergent development of one administrative, military, demographic or
quantitative majority. §
National mother tongues pretend to be ancestors of all subordinated
dialects although they are not cognate relatives. They were reinforced by the
ruling dynasty of the kingdom that promoted its regional tribal dialect to a
written standard and degraded autochthonous native elites as subdominants. §
The written standard is determined by a tribal dialect promoted to
supremacy by the ruling administrative, military, proprietorial or financial
caste. §
Linguistic predominance is determined by the sociolect of the ruling
royal dynasty, by the geolect of the principal regional tribal dialect, by
the ethnolect of the most populous ethnic tribe, by the provincial regiolect
promoted to the chief supralect of the capital city, or by the exolect of
foreign raiders and conquerors. §
In Ancient Egypt and China the official written standard changed
according to different geolects as a new dynasty seized the throne and moved
the capital to their native-born town. §
Ruling dynasties do not govern for ever and so their domination
delimits different temporal chronolects in the diarchronic history of the
national standard. §
Dialects win and withdraw with changes of the social position of their
speakers. So ancient slavery and medieval serfdom suppressed the sociolect of
commoners and thrust forward the foreign exolect of foreign raiders. When the
rule of their kings was pulled down, republicanism rehabilitated popular
speech at the expense of upper classes. §
National languages are not careful cognate mothers of regional
languages in the kingdom but their merciless oppressors. §
Dialects are not cognate daughters of their national mother tongues,
but its oppressed victims absorbed by the official written standard as ethnic
minorities. §
Dialects are not new outgrowths of national mother tongues but archaic
residual structures of extinct ethnic tribal minorities. §
Dialect are not budding and blooming as newborns, they are vanishing
in residual remnants and dying out as ancient forefathers of national written
standards. |
||||||||||
Prolegomena to
Substratic Indoeuropeistics
§
Indo-European was not a cognate mother of European and Indo-Iranian
languages but their step-mother that
absorbed foreign languages as her step-children. §
Nostratic languages are not daughters of one Euroasian mother tongue
but cumulative clusters overlapping several heterogeneous Palaeolithic tribal
languages. They pretend cognate affiliation by intertwining lexis as contact
loan-words . §
Indo-European languages did not originate by splitting and
fragmentation from one postdiluvian (post-eneolithic) source but by means of convergent
cohabitation. §
There exist no direct mother-daughter relation between languages, only
mutual interwoven intersections uniting statistic entities. §
The false impression of Indo-European unity originated from the core
of the European Palaeolithic axe-tool plant-gatherers infiltrated by
Mousterian, Aurignacian and Magdalenian cultures of Asiatic hunters. §
Indo-Aryan languages came into existence thanks to the eastward
travels of Mesolithic cord-impressed cultures of western shell-fish eaters
addressed as Getae; they settled down on their eastern pilgrimage as
Frisians, Prussians, Permyaks, Khotanese and Brahmans. Their ethnonyms are
all derived from Goths and Frisians. §
Most Indo-European reconstructions consist of parallels found on the
two-way highroad linking the western Mesolithic Getic shell-fish eaters with
the Mehrgarh culture in Pakistan and Creole Pidgin Getic in the Vindhyas
Ranges in India. The Bronze Age spread of the Gotho-Frisian Corded Ware (c.
3000 BC) was a resurrection of eastern excursions undertaken by the
Mesolithic cord-impressed and kitchen midden cultures of Getic littoral
mollusc eaters (c. 10,000 BC). §
Indo-European languages did not come into being as cognate daughters
of an eneolithic language unity in Eurasia but arose as heterogeneous islets
of Asiatic raiders assimilated in the Getic western indigenous sea. §
Dialects are not new outgrowths of national mother
tongues but archaic residual structures of extinct ethnic tribal minorities.
|
Prolegomena to
Linguistic Taxonomy
§
Linguistics profiles as a discipline dealing with national mother
tongues and their ancestors reconstructed as large language families. §
Their archetypes are embodied in proto-languages assembled
hypothetically as syncretic lists, catalogues and cumulations of many
inorganic and incompatible
grammatical traits. §
The
most urgent task of every scientific discipline is to revise its nomenclature
of preliminary terms and to reshape them as essential
categories acting as valid taxa. § Linguistics lacks pure essential categories and has to be reconstituted on the base of dialectology treating languages in an analytic manner. §
Baudouin de Courtenay (1901) submitted a proof of „the mixed character
of all languages“ and warned against treating them as compact homogeneous
wholes. Linguistics tackles the
theoretical situation of medieval alchemy that did not distinguish elementary
elements such as oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen and had to do with mixtures
such as earth, clay, sand, mud and dirt. §
Homer distinguished eteo-languages as ‘pure, genuine languages’ of
Eteo-Cretans and Eteo-Cypriots in contrast to mixed ‘misce-languages’ of innumerable other
mingled languages1.
§
American philosopher Santayana coined a new
trend of genetic essentialism maintaining that ‘human
beings are only their genes’. §
The ultimate goal of linguistics is to separate genuine language genotypes
from syncretic cumulative phenotypes. Their valid taxa are hidden pure
essences that can be extracted by distilling superficial phenomena of mixed
lexical blends. §
Post-eneolithic languages do not
represent consistent integrated structures but chaotic clusters full of
lexical grammatical and phonological anomalies. Consistent homogeneous
languages existed only in the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, when prehistoric tribes lived in absolute
isolation. §
The birth of Indo-European is dated to 3000 BP at the very end of
prehistory, when the Bronze Age megalith-builders started to conquer the
earliest civilisations with mixed ethnic populations. §
Language unities are fallacies
concealing multiethnic domains created by convergent development of one
administrative, military, demographic or quantitative majority. §
The essence of linguistic
units does not lie in their modern appearance but in their dying genes
conserved residually in their surviving dialects. §
The core of languages does not lie in their
static substance but in their dynamic tendencies. Tendencies may be formalised metrically as
directional vectors. §
Lexical and grammatical repertories of dialects are less important
than their deplete typological tendencies. §
The ultimate goal of comparative linguistics is to extract essential
genolects from superficial phenolects and reconstruct the human glottogenesis
as a systematic evolutionary taxonomy of interrelated pure Palaeo-languages. |
||||||||||
