History - Fiction or Science/Russian roots of the "ancient" latin/Chapter 1

From Alternative Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Introduction. Find a close meaning and a close sound[edit | edit source]

It is extremely interesting to analyze the connections between languages ​​from the point of view of our concept, according to which, in the distant past, that is, in the XV-XVII centuries, the majority of modern “Indo-European” languages ​​originated on the basis of the Slavic language or under its strongest influence. This was the inevitable consequence of the Great = "Mongol" conquest and the emergence of a huge Empire of the XIII-XVII centuries. The local and adverbs of the colonized territories were superimposed by the Russian and Turkic languages ​​of the Horde-Ataman conquerors. Both languages ​​for a long time were in use throughout the Great Empire and formed the initial language picture as a whole. In our book, we show THE GREAT HUGE PLASTING OF A LINGUISTIC MATERIAL NEEDS A NEW THOUGHT. After the split of the "Mongolian" Empire in the XVII century, the newly emerged European languages, diverging in different directions from the Slavic-Turkic fundamental principle, interacted with each other for about three hundred years as more independent. Words' could flow from language into language in different directions. There are a lot of "newcomers". Therefore, from the mere fact of the similarity of words (meaning the same thing) in different languages, one cannot immediately conclude about the direction of borrowing. However, previous studies inevitably relied on erroneous Scaligerian chronology. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the previous theories on the basis of the New Chronology.

As stated in the Preface, we will look for pairs of words (from different languages) that are close in meaning and close in sound or spelling, that is, have close bones of consonants.

From the New Chronology, it follows that writing originated more or less simultaneously with languages. People communicated and transmitted information not only verbally, but also in writing. Words' were perceived not only in sound, but also in writing. However, the letters could be confused. This led to distortions of words and sounds. No "suffixes", "prefixes", "roots", etc. people did not know then (there simply were no such concepts). And they perceived the whole word as it sounds. Only much later, in the 17th and 19th centuries, linguistic schools emerged, which began to create abstract theories about the “components” of words: roots, suffixes, etc.

Pay special attention to the large number of SLAVIC-LATIN and SLAVIC-GREEK parallels that we discovered. After all, Scaligerian historians and linguists chorus assure us that the Latin language is incredibly ancient. Allegedly in those days when the “ancient” Romans exquisitely reasoned on the “oldest” sweet-hearted Latin about mathematics, poetry, music and the fate of the universe, all other nations (except, of course, even more “ancient” and elegant Greeks) still huddled in the cold caves at the smoking fires. They exchanged clumsy gestures and primary laryngeal lowing. About any Slavic, for example, languages, and even more so about the Slavic script, supposedly there is no question yet. As we now understand, this picture is fundamentally wrong.

We must constantly remember that modern theories of the origin and evolution of languages ​​are entirely based on the supposedly known Scaligerian chronology. With the change of chronology, the “theories” also change radically. By their internal methods, linguistics is not able to determine not only absolute dates, but in most cases even relative ones.

SACRED LANGUAGES. - When and for what purpose were sacred languages ​​created, for example, Church Slavonic, which is still the language of the priesthood and liturgical books? It is known, and we do not argue with this, that the sacred languages ​​were created in such a way as to ideally accurately convey divine thought, to exclude the possibility of different interpretations and different interpretations of the created Holy Scripture. Naturally, such a super task was not immediately solved. The sacred language was created, the divine texts on it were recorded, and after a while disputes and interpretations still arose. Then scientists gathered and invented an even more complex and subtle language system, eliminating the shortcomings of the former ones. In particular, all new and new tenses of verbs were introduced. Not only the present, the past and the future, but also numerous "future in the past", "past in the past", "completed" and "incomplete", "long action" or, on the contrary, "short". Etc. Naturally, when such languages ​​were used in everyday life, they were inevitably simplified. For example, the Russian language is significantly simplified compared to Church Slavonic. Apparently, all this lasted until the era of the XVI-XVII centuries, when the Bible was created.

So it was invented several sacred languages. The most difficult is probably the Church Slavonic. As for Latin, its creation dates back to the epoch of the collapse of the "Mongolian" Empire in the XVI-XVII centuries, when languages ​​began to be created again and with a new goal - in order to quickly separate from each other not only in the state, but also in the cultural, linguistic respect. They sought to build language barriers between people. Most likely, the Latin language was created on the basis of Church Slavonic and folk dialects of Western Europe.

WHAT ARE THINKED FOR LINGUISTICS. - When and why did they create linguistics, that is, the science of languages? Indeed, according to our reconstruction, in the era of the XIV-XVI centuries, the main language of the whole Empire was Slavic in combination with Turkic. In that epoch, apparently, there was no need to invent a special science of languages, for the people of the Empire used in general one language. The presence of minor fluctuations, dialects, most likely, did not interfere with understanding. Like today, throughout the large territory of Russia. Therefore, the idea arises that linguistics as a special, special science first appeared only in the era of the Reformation of the XVII-XVIII centuries, when independent states were formed on the fragments of the "Mongol" Empire. In each of them began the process of creating "their own language" in order to quickly separate from the previous Empire, not only in the state, but also in the language, attitude. Apparently, the first linguists appeared or were, so to speak, “called up for service” by local authorities for the really important (in their opinion) goals of that time - the rapid creation of “new languages”. This was done, of course, on the basis of the Slavic language, that is, the language most common in the era of the XIV-XVI centuries throughout the Empire. The Dictionary of Parallelisms, compiled by us, shows that the first linguists of the XVI-XVII centuries used a rather limited arsenal of tools and simple techniques to solve the problem. For example, the Western European population was forced to read the Russian letter C in many cases as "Latin C." Or, for example, they learned to pronounce the Russian H as "Latin H". Sometimes they turned the letters on the line or mirrored them. In France, a ban was added on the pronunciation of certain letters in many words. And so on. A comparatively small list of such "progressive transformations" revealed by us is the essence of tables 1 and 2 .

As a result of “language reforms,” the original sound of Slavic words in the overwhelming majority of cases was distorted beyond recognition and after a while people naturally forgot about the original Slavic origin of the words. What the Reformers wanted. The process went especially fast, because, of course, it was first of all implemented in schools where children and young people were taught. As a result, after one or two generations, the linguistic picture was distorted beyond recognition. Then, when by the XIX century the frankly political task of creating "new languages" was basically solved, linguists lost their former high state status of reformers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, their role was considerably narrowed, reduced only to maintaining the stability of the recently invented languages. As a result, linguistic science became more intimate, focused on solving its internal problems. For example, in the XIX-XX centuries, they took up "the reconstruction of the history of ancient languages", mistakenly relating their origin (for example, the "most ancient" Latin) to the deepest antiquity. Forgetting that all this happened relatively recently, only 150-200 years before them.

BRIGHT EXAMPLE: Crimson RING. - In Russia, everyone was well aware of the expression "crimson bells", referring to the melodic bells. Today it is believed that the use of the word "crimson" here is not very clear. After all, it seems to indicate the color. But what about the "crimson color"? Some modern historians have found a way out. They began to assure us that the word "crimson", in relation to the bells, "of course" came to us from Western Europe, from the name of the town with a similar name, where supposedly they made particularly good bells. So, they say, after “cutting a window into a civilized Europe” under Peter I, the overseas expression “MALINOVY RING” appeared in Russia. Get into trouble Most likely, the Russian word "crimson", applied to the bells, came from the quite understandable Russian word "prayer", "prayed", that is, "prayer", "prayer". After all, the bells were associated with prayers in the church. Then, already in the era of the Romanovs, the term "prayer" was slightly distorted and it turned out "raspberry". So there is no need to invent any sophisticated theories in order to understand the origin of the famous expression "crimson jingle".


We will list the correspondences found by us between the Slavic and the main Western European languages. Namely, with Latin, English, German, French, Greek, etc. Of particular interest are the parallels between the original, BASIC WORDS, which are not narrowly specific terms, but are included in the core of the language. These are kinship relations, names of numbers, designations of natural phenomena, basic industrial actions, military and household terminology, etc.

As we shall see, many old Slavic words gradually changed and produced whole “bushes” of words in the Western European branches of the Slavic language. Today, many of these branches are considered to be "originally Western European", "Latin", and allegedly have nothing to do with Russian. These semantic bushes consist not only of words that are close in sound, but - which is very important - CLOSE FOR MEANING. We managed to find about 3520 such Slavic words- "parents". It is clear that further work will significantly expand the Dictionary of Parallelisms. It is necessary to more widely attract the Russian language dictionaries containing obsolete, obsolete words. We used the Explanatory Dictionary of V. Dahl [223], [225]. Of course, one should pay attention to the related Slavic languages, such as Ukrainian, Polish. Of course, not all the parallels we found are unconditional, some may be random or even erroneous. Nevertheless, we also provide such material in order to facilitate the work of future researchers.

Next to each Greek word, we indicate its reading in brackets using the Cyrillic alphabet (with its “ie” symbol), based on today's reading of the Greek alphabet, see the table in [758: 0], p.11. For example, a (alpha) is read as A, r (po) as P, etc. Therefore, we write like this: palaioj ( PALAIOS , i.e. PALAIOS). At the same time, we reproduce all the Greek letters in a given word, not taking into account the sounds of some combinations accepted today. For example, mp today is voiced as a Russian "b" or "d". We indicate here the MP, so as not to lose information. Recall that Greek b is read as B and as B.

In compiling the Dictionary of Parallelisms, we used, in particular: the Latin-Russian Dictionary [237], the Russian-Latin Dictionary [666: 1], the Greek-Russian and the Russian-Greek Dictionary [758: 0], the English-Russian Dictionary [23], German-Russian dictionary [573], [87], Russian-German dictionary [749], Spanish-Russian and Russian-Spanish dictionary [318], French-Russian dictionary [915], Russian-French dictionary [751], Russian Dictionary languages ​​of V. Dahl [223], [225], Russian-Tatar dictionary [750], Portuguese-Russian and Russian-Portuguese dictionary [676], Turkish-Russian dictionary [854], [87: 1], Russian-F Inski dictionary [750: 1], Hungarian-Russian dictionary [122: 1], Irish-English dictionary [1208: 1]. In addition, we used the electronic dictionary ABBYY Lingvo 6.0 (Electronic Dictionaries System), 1989-1999, BIT Software, and then the newer ABBYY Lingvo 10.

Fig.1. Portrait of V.I.Dal Taken from the Internet. See also [550], p.293.

In Figure 1 The portrait of V.I.Dal is given, the famous dictionary of which we actively used.

It may be asked, what is our advantage in comparison with classical philologists and linguists who have devoted their whole lives to learning, for example, the Latin language? Why they did not notice or did not consider it necessary to point out many of those parallels that are found in us. The answer is simple. Previous scholars were hammered by the wrong Scaliger chronology hand and foot, within the framework of which the parallels we found are impossible or very difficult to explain. They "interfere". But now, when a corrected chronology has been created on the basis of mathematical methods, such correspondences take on a profound meaning, since the era of the creation of many languages, previously considered "terribly ancient", is transferred to the XVI-XVIII centuries.

Our dictionary was made up like this. We took, for example, the Latin-Russian dictionary and consistently analyzed ALL CONTRACT LATIN WORDS and all their Russian translations-synonyms. There are usually several such synonyms, sometimes quite a few. It turned out that in a large number of cases, right among Russian synonyms, the word “parent” was found, a slight distortion of which once produced the corresponding Latin word “child”. COMPARING THE RUSSIAN "PARENT" WITH ITS LATIN "CHILD" (meaning the same thing and sounding like it), we found several typical transitions of consonants. Such distortions are naturally explained by the instability of the writing of letters in antiquity. As we begin to understand, in the XIII-XVII centuries several alphabets were used, in which the same letters-consonants were depicted in general by the same symbols, but their position on the line sometimes changed. The letter could be turned upside down, placed on its side, and mirrored. For example, “p” could be recorded as “b”, “q” or “d”, which then led to the transition of the sound “p” into the sounds “b”, “ku”, “d”. After the solidification of the new Western European languages, the “children” that emerged on the basis of the Slavic “parent” language, in the 16th-18th centuries, such oscillations “ossified” and were recorded in textbooks.

Let us explain by a clear example. The Latin word MIXTIO means "mixing", "mixing". Probably, the Slavic word “parent” here is the word MIX. Comparing the Slavic parent word MIX and its Latin reflection MIXTIO, we immediately discover that Russian III has here shifted to Latin X.

Another illustration. The Latin word MOENIA means "city walls", "fortifications", "fortified place", "stronghold". After some reflection, the thought arises that the Slavic "parent" here was the word TYN, from where, by the way, the Russian word WALL. Comparing the original Slavic word TYN with its Latin reflection MOENIA, we immediately see that the Russian T passed here in Latin M. And you can understand why. The fact is that the Russian "te" was also written as "m", that is, in the form of three sticks with a dash at the top, which is almost identical with the Latin "m = M". In this form, the consonant "m" (Russian "te" with three sticks) and entered into some Latin words like M.

We have compiled a table of typical consonant transitions that we found, see Table 1 in Figure 2.

Table 1 of typical consonant transitions.

In table 2 , given at the end of the book, the most frequent consonant transitions that we found are collected, which were repeatedly discussed in the seven-volume "Chronology". It can be said that both tables are the result of solving numerous “semantic equations”, which we talked about above.


TABLE 2.

MAJOR TRANSITIONS OF AGREED EACH TO EACH OTHER (IN RUSSIAN TRANSCRIPTION)

V7B2 Table 2.gif

Today, philologists, educated in Scaligerian chronology, believe that the transitions and confusion of sounds occurred mainly in the pre-written era. That is, they arose because of only “different pronunciations” among various peoples. In other words, the transitions were determined, they say, only by physiology, "by different larynxes." Therefore, they say, it is impossible to talk about possible transitions of sounds due to the confusion of letters (written on paper or parchment) due to, for example, their close writing. The basis of such an opinion is the Scaligerian theory that languages ​​appeared before writing.

According to the New Chronology, many languages ​​have arisen (more precisely, they were invented) already in the era of writing. Therefore, the transitions of sounds often arose because of the confusion of written letters. The same letter, written differently on the line (for example, upside down) could lead to confusion of sounds.

We see how much chronology determines. Changing it, we significantly change the view on linguistic concepts. We now comment on table 1, fig.2 .


Sounds Z and M could go into each other, since the letters Russian “z” and Latin “m” differ only in orientation. The letter "m", lying on its side, coincides with the letter "z".

Sounds H and H could go into each other, since the Latin letters N and Z differ only in position on the line. The letter N, laid on its side, turns into Z and vice versa.

Sounds B and B could go into each other, since the letters - Russian "in" handwritten and Latin "b" handwritten (with a loop at the top) - coincide.

Fig.3. "The archaic Latin alphabet contained 21 letters, the pattern of which was somewhat different from the pattern of the capital letters of the modern Latin alphabet" [385: 1], p.56. Pay attention, for example, to the record M in a form similar to W. The shape of the letter H is also curious. Taken from [385: 1], p.56.

The sounds of M and B could go into each other, since the letters — the Russian “m” and the Latin “w” —are different only in orientation. The inverted M could read as W and vice versa. In addition, Latin M was sometimes written in much the same way as W. In Figure 3, we present a table compiled by linguists based on old Latin texts and showing how sometimes Latin letters were written in different ways. Pay attention to the entry of the Latin letter M, which is similar to both W and Russian handwritten M with tails right and left.

Sounds M and M (or g) could go into each other, since the letters — Russian “g” and Latin “m” —are written in the same way and could be confused.

Sounds T and M could go into each other, since the letters — Russian m (“te” handwritten with three sticks and a dash at the top) and the Latin “m” —are spelled almost the same way.

The sounds of L and B could go into each other, since the letters - the Latin "l" handwritten and the "b" handwritten - are written very similarly. The only difference is in the bottom loop.

The sounds of I and P could go into each other, since the letters - the Russian "I" and the Latin "R" - differ only in orientation, mirror reflection. It is usually considered that the modern writing of the letter I entered the Russian language only under Peter I, during his reforms. However, it is not. In the 17th century Russian SCRAPTURE, long before Peter, this form of the letter I was used, see "The Secret of Russian History", ch.1: 5.

Sounds H and X (or g) could go into each other, since the letters - Russian "H" and Latin "H" are written in the same way.

Sounds T and L could go into each other, since the letters - Latin "t" handwritten and Latin "l" handwritten are very similar.

Sounds T and Z could go into each other, since the letters - Latin "t" handwritten and Latin "z" handwritten (with a dash in the middle) are written similarly.

The sounds of H and P could go into each other, since the letters — the Russian "p" and the Latin "n" - are written in almost the same way.

The sounds of H and M could go into each other, since the letters — the Latin "n" and the Latin "m" - are written similarly.

Sounds H, U and B could go into each other, since the letters — Latin "n" and Latin "ü - differ only in orientation (turn upside down), and the Latin" ü and Latin "v" are written in the same way and often replaced each other .

The sounds of F and C could go into each other, since the letters — Latin “f” and Latin “s” —was previously written almost the same, see, for example, the book “Empire,” ch. 14: 4, old inscriptions on the Martin globe Beheim

The sounds of P, D, B, KU, P, D or F could go into each other, since the letters are Russian "p", Russian "d" handwritten (with a buttonhole below) and Latin "d", "b", " q "," p "," g "- differ only in orientation. And since T and D also often turned into each other, all the sounds listed here could also be confused with T. At the same time, we note that the Russian “d” handwritten with a loop below is written the same way as the Latin “g”. Regarding the transition of Gd, we also add that this transition was known in Russia. For example, as V. Dahl informs, the word PAPER in some Russian dialects was pronounced as HUMAGA [223], v.1, column 1008. Moreover, V. Dal has given quite a few such examples.

The sounds of M and III could go into each other, since the letters — the Russian “sh” and the Latin “m” —are different only in orientation: they turned the letters upside down.

Sounds Z and B (or D) could go into each other, since the letters - Russian "Z" handwritten with a loop at the bottom differs only in orientation from a similar writing of a handwritten Latin letter "b" with a loop at the top (see also "d" Latin) . Note that this transition was quite rare.

The sounds of P and K could go into each other, since the letters - the Latin "R" and the Latin "k" handwritten with an eyelet on the top - were written in a similar way. Such a transition was quite rare.

The sounds of P and K could go into each other, since the letters - the Latin "P" and the Latin "k" handwritten with a closed loop at the top - were written in a similar way.

The sounds of H and L could go into each other, since the letters — the Latin "n" and the Russian "l" (or ^) - are written similarly.

Sounds B and C (or S) could go into each other, since the letters — Latin "v" and Russian "s" - differ only in orientation: they put the letter on its side and as a result, "v" turned into "<" and vice versa.

The sounds of G and R could go into each other, since the letters — the Russian "g" and the Latin "r" - are written in almost the same way.

Sounds R and L could go into each other, since the letters — the Latin “r” and the Latin “L” —are different only in orientation, that is, they either turned the letter over or reflected it in mirror: l --- r.


We emphasize once again that the listed transitions of consonants are not only theoretically possible because of the various variants of their graphic representation, but they were actually discovered by us when comparing foreign words with their Slavic "parents". That is, when we "solved semantic equations." Since the Scaligerian chronology "has turned a lot upside down", including in linguistics, today Slavic words "parents" are most often regarded as "translation-synonyms" of these "foreign words." In fact, the picture is reversed. PRIMARY ORIGINALS were most likely Slavic words.

Analyzing "translation-synonyms", we found a curious fact. If a Latin word arose from a Slavic as a result of a slight distortion of his record (or pronunciation), then this usually happened in one jump, that is, by simultaneously replacing one or several Slavic letters with corresponding Latin ones, see table 1. That is, the Slavic word was changed , basically, only single transitions of letters. Multiple long chains are not commonly used. In other words, if medieval linguists-reformers changed the record of the Slavic word, turning it into a Latin one, BUT SAVING AT THIS MEANING, then they did it in ONE STEP. Immediately replaced in the word one or more consonants. The typical replacements we found are compiled in table 1.

In many cases, it is AN APPEARABLE that the borrowing came from Slavic languages ​​into Latin, and not vice versa, as Scaligerian chronology assures us today. In other words, it becomes clear that it is the Latin words that arose from the Slavic in the XV-XVII centuries. AT THIS MEANING OF WORDS IN GENERAL WERE SAVED. For example, the Latin word MUSCERDA = "mouse droppings", most likely, arose as a result of a later joint reading of two separate Slavic words MOUSE + SHRAY (the second word is now considered rude, outdated). It is unlikely that the process was reversed. It is unlikely that the "ancient" Latin sweet word MUSCERDA split into two words MOUSE and SHRET, which began to live their own independent life in the Slavic languages.

Here is another example. Allegedly very, very ancient Latin PEDESTAL = PEDESTAL. Most likely, it came from the Russian FIVE + TABLE. That is, "the table on which the man stands, the statue."

Fig.4. Examples of inscriptions, where words are written in the form of a cluster, "heaps" of letters, the trajectory of which can be read very differently. Taken from [827], p.47.
Fig.5. Examples of inscriptions, where the words are written in the form of a "bunch of letters", the trajectory of reading which may be different. Taken from [827], p.57.
Fig.6. Examples of inscriptions, where words are written in the form of clusters of letters, the trajectory of reading which can be very different. Taken from [827], p.60.

We discovered another fact. It turns out that sometimes Slavic words “parents” turned into “foreign” as a result of the permutation of the consonants inside the word (for example, when it was erroneously read). That is, the consonants could be read in a different order. As a result, there was another word. The explanation is very simple. In the XI-XVI centuries, the ORDER of letters was not accurately recorded. Previously, letters were not written strictly one after the other along the line (as today), and sometimes each other, side, top or bottom, had a different size and inclination. Sometimes the letters "laid on its side", turned over or mirrored. In general, the word "painted" in the form of a cluster, a bunch of letters, the order of reading of which could be different. Each way of reading such a "handful" of a hieroglyph is determined by the trajectory of the eye movement,order of transition from the letter to the letter. But it is absolutely clear that the trajectory of reading a complex "verbal hieroglyph" could be different, which led to the fact that from the same close accumulation-jumble of letters could then "read" different words. Some examples of this kind are collected in the book of I.Tabov [827]. Cm. Fig.4 , Fig.5 and Fig.6. Broken lines, successively passing through the white dots, show different trajectories of reading the same word, that is, "piles of letters." From these examples it is clear how many, and in very different ways, could read in ancient times the same word “parent”.

Here we encounter traces of ancient and primary writing of words in the form of pictures-hieroglyphs, as in the "ancient" Egyptian texts. If the meaning of the text was forgotten, the complex picture could then be read in various ways. This led to confusion of words, names and titles.

We point to an interesting question that needs further study. In short, we already talked about him in the book "The Blossom of the Kingdom," ch.4: 8. Apparently, the famous Christian Psalter and the "ancient" Egyptian Book of the Dead are, in general, the same Book. Or, more precisely, both of them go back to the same source. In addition, it seems that people who wrote down the Psalter in its more or less modern form, peered into the old hieroglyphic text, written in complex hieroglyphic pictures. The reading of the “pictures” was ambiguous, and complicated by the fact that the primary meaning of the text could already be almost forgotten. Hence, the increased imagery of the Psalms- "translation" and constant repetitions in it. The same picture is described in it several times. Generally, the text of today's Psalter looks very unusual compared to the later texts, which were already written in letters arranged along the line. Today, the Psalms are sometimes taken very hard.

But back to our dictionary. Some Latin words today have many meanings. Sometimes they are very remote from each other in meaning. Pointing to his Latin word Slavic original- "parent", we do not assert (yes it is wrong) that the parallel we discovered applies to all other translation values ​​attributed to this Latin word today. There is still a lot of work to do.

The number and distribution of the parallels we found allows us to draw interesting conclusions.

1) It turns out that from about 3,520 Slavic words, about 3,400 bushes of Latin words occurred. Roughly speaking, on average, every Russian word in the Dictionary of Parallelisms gave rise to one “bush” of Latin words. Each such bush usually consists of several (sometimes many!) Latin words.

2) "Greek bushes", derived from the Slavic words, turned out to be about 1050.

3) “English bushes”, which directly originated from 3,520 Slavic words, turned out to be about 600 less than Latin, namely, about 2,750. Probably because the English language was already created later than Latin. With such a “second wave of reforms,” the original Slavic roots, “parents,” were already partially forgotten, the language slightly deformed and further distanced itself from the Slavic fundamental principle than the Latin one. Nevertheless, the deep commonality of the Slavic basis and its "English child" becomes well visible from our Dictionary.

We did not analyze the German language in such detail as Latin and English, simply because of the lack of time and a very large amount of such studies. Therefore, the "German bushes" in the Dictionary of Parallelisms turned out to be about 1120 so far. It can be safely assumed that a more careful analysis of the German dictionary will significantly increase the number of Slavic-German parallels. Apparently, their number will become comparable with the number of Slavic-English parallelisms. We analyzed the remaining languages ​​(French, Italian, Spanish, etc.) even more fluently, so there remains a large field of activity for all who are interested in such an analysis.

We repeat that different people could read the same words “parents” in different directions: from left to right and from right to left. This caused additional confusion and "propagated words." It is not excluded, for example, that the Russian KOLOS and the Russian ZLAK came out of each other with such a reverse reading and transition of the NW. In addition, before the words were written without oglasovok, some consonants. Therefore, the later announcements of the same "backbone of the consonants" could differ: ear = CLS ===> ZLK = cereal.


Fig.6a. A.S.Shishkov. Portrait of George Doe (1781-1829). Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Taken from Wikipedia.
Fig.6b. A.S.Shishkov. Portrait of the work of Orest Adamovich Kiprensky (1782-1836). Taken from Wikipedia.

Several dozen Slavic words and roots which gave rise to a lot of Latin and other foreign words found Alexander Shishkov (1754-1841), Figure 6a, Figure 6b. Today historians and philologists have plunged his studies on the Russian language into oblivion. AS Shishkov was the President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, admiral, state secretary, minister of education, served faithfully to the four Russian tsars. It is believed that he was one of the leading Russian ideologues of the Patriotic War of 1812, a well-known conservative, initiator of the publication of the protective censorship charter of 1826, was a member of the State Council of the Russian Empire. He was a philologist and literary critic. Emperor Nicholas I wrote about the book of A.S. Shishkov “Slavonic Russian Korneslov: Our language is the tree of life on earth and the father of other adverbs” as follows: “Alexander Semenovich! I allow you to dedicate this book to My name, and expressing my appreciation to You for your labors, I am always kind to you ”. In Wikipedia about A.S. Shishkov it is said: <<As is clear from the subtitle, the book is devoted to justifying the role of the Russian language as a world original language. The following quotation from the book should not leave any doubt about this: “For foreign interpreters, in order to find the original thought in the words they use, we should resort to our language: it contains the key to explaining and resolving many doubts, which they will not look for in their own languages. We ourselves, in many of the words we use, revered as foreign, would see that they are only at the end of foreign language, and by the root our own ”>> [977: 2], p.17. Needless to say, modern linguists are very skeptical about this research of A.S. Shishkov and are silent about them. The book of A.S. Shishkov fell into our hands only in 2013, when our Dictionary was actually completed and published. It turned out that almost all the basic facts collected by Shishkov, were somehow independently discovered by us and have already entered our Dictionary. Nevertheless, something in Shishkov’s book turned out to be new for us, and we included several of his observations as an Appendix to our work, at the end of 2013, when preparing a new edition of our Dictionary.

The following abbreviations are used in our Dictionary: eng) = english; Hungarian) Hungarian; Greek) Greek; Irl) Irish; Jude) Jewish; Spanish) Spanish; ital) italian; lat) Latin; German); port) portuguese; Russian) Russian; tour) Turkish; Fins) Finnish; franc) French; Swedish) Swedish; Scottish) Scottish.


Next: Chapter 2.