U R R H ,
CUM COMMENTIS -- cut to 14 % !
(Impressions On Etymological Canvas)
(English Internet Version)
Chris MYRSKI, 2007
[ Ah, my readers, I am sorry to tell you, but no matter that I have one shortened version (excerpts, up to 6 %), this book also will be shortened (cut to 14 %, the first 3 chapters), so that, in fact, there will not be full version published on my sites for free! This is dictated, naturally, by the fact that I am publishing myself on the West for some fee, in form of ebooks, so that you can search for me on the Internet; I am doing this not because I want much, but something, not nothing at all. So that, although you are the best Russian site, some truncation is necessary. And this shortening will continue, I'm afraid, till 2030 or so. But there remain many other materials that you can read free, more than 2-3 dozens as titles only in English, beginning with "The Communism As Religion", and ending (till 2020) with the "Open Letter to God Almighty". So that you are welcome to read them (and ask for more, ha, ha). ]
[ Although this is a whole, and quite enormous, book, I have no 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. ]
To the readers:
This book is not what you might think it is, because it isn't work of fiction (say: action, thriller, or love story), neither dry etymological research, nor philosophical essay, but has elements of all this and something more. You may think it is some popular etymology (guide around the interesting world of words), though certain ideas that I give here are beyond any etymology and I also work in several languages (like: English, German, Bulgarian, Russian, French, Italian, Latin, Greek, even Persian and Sanskrit). Although some knowledge of foreign languages (and I don't say exactly of which) is preferable this isn't strongly required (because almost every person understands some other language besides his /her mother language, or, then, every language contains many foreign words); and if you don't know some words or don't believe in the given explanations (or even if you believe in them) you may do your own research in every other language that you know or use. It might not sound decent to boast that this is an unique work but it is --- what can be explained mainly with the fact that my guesses are not strictly scientific, but then they are interesting (what should not mean they are not true). In a way, the book is popular explanation of all the things viewed through the eyes of different nations; and when I say "all" then be sure that this work is an open system and many more things may be added even by you.
Still, being very informative, this isn't a book to be read in slumber, or to be read and forgotten, but to be used as kind of handbook --- if you want to think about what you say (what young people, as well as old ones, like to do, only those in the middle don't like, neither to read, nor to think because they have no time for such "luxuries", they have to win their bread). So, those that like to think about the words are, still, a big amount, but they are handicapped by not having enough knowledge about the words and roots and relations between them. And this is so because they have not yet read this book, but now they may amend this failure. At least I, for my part, have answered many questions, and you are invited to participate in the answers. And I'll tell you, some of them are pretty piquant, not to say cynical, so maybe you would like them.
The author
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 another 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 langue or Latin I_lingua mean, which are related to the longitude and all the I_long things, and which words come from old time, from Sanskrit I_linga (or lingam), 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 Preliminary Remarks); 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 not common ones (like w. for word, syl. for syllable, bc. for ... because, etc., so that you better read the Remarks 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 ... falling |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 one such day in a century, 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 some God but of the 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 Remarks 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 single quotes 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. jour or bourgeois;
'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. Zahn or Lat. Cicero;
then 'å' is used for one often met vowel like in Eng.: bird, burn, alive, etc. (or in Ger. endings -er, like Lehrer, Bauer, 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. cañon (= canjon, read 'kanþon'), or (if some of you like to say it) as in Sp. coño, 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. ygreck (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 worldwide 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 also 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 written, 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 just 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 mutilated Lat. & shouldn't be taken very seriously (f.ex., they use 3 diff. kinds of stresses above the letters where neither 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 all 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 not 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, bonjour)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, bon 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). 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 taxidermist |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 don't even try this! What you may try & do is to read by half to one (so called) chapter of the book, say, once in a week; 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 couldn't 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: |I_phrases| ad ovo). So that it is suitable to say at this point smt. about the names of the months, which are called so not 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 imagined 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 march (in Eng. there isn't even any diff-ce in these 2 ws but in Ger. it exists and the month is März |I_Maerz| where the march is I_Marsch).
And if we count in this way then I_April is smt. I_apres (after 2(the winter)2 in Fr., or, better, before 2(the summer)2 in Lat., bc. a I_priori |I_phrases| is before 2(the experiment, or the time --- >> hora--ora)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(>> jubeln)2 --- I_June & I_July (for which we say just smt. like "yeah"), then follows the I_August which is au + I_gusto (m-ing: what a kief, kef 2(>> k.)2, or keif-pleasure), & then comes exactly the 7th month which is called therefore I_September! Then there are I_October, I_November & I_December (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: 'jah'-yeah + new + year! If not 'br-', then at least 'r-', is left in März-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 readeress --- I simply adore this w. bc. I have not met it yet in a book, but I don't meet much Eng. ws 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 some beg-ing. And it is an interesting thing with this w., too, bc. "begin" surely comes from Ger. I_beginnen (begann, begonnen), but be- in Ger. is a prefix & ... well, there isn't a w. "ginnen" in Ger. (& the etym-sts say it is from an unknown lang.?). Still, it is poss. to guess smt., namely that this gin- /gon- comes from Gr. γωνια |I_go^nia| 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 not to discard be- as prefix but to begin with the r. beg- and then to remember about the ... Heb. name I_Begin, which surely means a big men, smt. like the I_beg (or bek, or bekh), what is a widely spread in Asia & the Near East (Tar., Azr., Tur., & so on) title of a ruler, which may became also I_baj (or bej in Sl.); then very near to this is Tur. ... I_bayram (a religious feast, but mainly big eating or big blast 2(i.e., a king's meal, I sup.)2 ), or I_bayrak (known also in Bul., a banner), or Tur. bekâr |I_bekar| (read 'bekjar', a bachelor, not married man, i.e. he is feeling like a beg--baj), or, poss., the town I_Beirut (a baj-town 2(or route?)2 ). Aside of this there are sim. ws in Blt. langs (like begu & begti 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 runs 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. baca (small fruit, but a bay on a coast too) & Fr. baie & Sp. bahia 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 bo- /bu-), 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 baj--beg).
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 |I_kyklos| . 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. I_chicane (Schikanie in Ger.), or Ger. I_Schicksal (a destiny, what is a bad or destroying one, not a fortune), then Heb. I_shiksi (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 I_sycamine (the biblical fig-tree), which are very twisted trees & coming from ancient times. All this is rel-d to Ger. I_schieben (moving rapidly, in & out, or by rotating --- but you must allow me to explain that if we smash 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. shibati or Pol. I_szib 2(swishing flying)2, etc. ), here is the Eng. I_shiver (bc. smb. may begin to schieben me), but there is also Heb. I_shiva, 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. şebek |I_shebek| (a monkey --- bc. it moves fast), & so on, what in the sexual m-ing is best represented in Tur. sik (more precisely in I_siktir & I_sikana, what are hard curses, the latter one about the mother 2(which is ana in Tur.)2 ); there is I_sic also in Lat., but this means ntg. bad (just: so, in this way --- as in the sentence |I_sentences|: "Sic transit gloria mundi.", 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|: Nomen est omen)? 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 schiebt-f#cks; to add that there was a name I_Shivlinga 2(<< linga)2 m-ing "The Red Penis") & in this connection I may ment. also the Ar. ... I_sheikh (or your I_shut & I_shatter), then ... the play I_chess, of course (bc. it's I_Schach 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 (Sibylla in Lat.; or sibilo what is hissing); the snake was also a goddess in some ancient religions. To the monkey-şebek may be added also the wild dog shakal (I_Schakal in Ger., chakal in Rus., I_jackal in Eng., & so on), which sounds very near to Skr. I_shakti, what meant strength or power (or shaktra 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_Brahmans & surely have heard the w. I_bravo (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 I_Ibrahim (and then, maybe their I_ibrik as a kettle --- bc. of its nicely curved nozzle, I sup.; as much as their, known also in Bul., ibrişim |I_ibrishim | 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 does 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 unavoidable destruction (and one of the reasons for the wars, looking from psychological point of view, as some unconscious feeling, is that there is smt. 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 I_schieben-ing 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 --- I_fick-ing. In Ger. Ficke 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. fickerig is fast & trembling movement (m.o.l. like your fickle as unsteady). The r. was known in Lat. as I_futuo, and if we return to the I_sycamore /sycamine (sic- -- fic-), then these trees are very "fickingly" twisted, but this is also Fr. I_fic (a pimple, or a small tumor), or It. fico, what is the fruit of the sycamine (a currant), which is I_figue in Fr., I_Feige 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. bougette 3('buzhet')3 m-ing a money bag is given, which had come from an o. Fr. bouge m-ing a cask or a bottom of boat, but I sup. it might as well be also from the known bouquet --- shortened to bud)2, or then the I_midget 2(here the small fly coming from Ger. Mücke |I_Muecke| 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 vulgar etymology, 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. I_futuo, 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 I_figue-currant (it is said there was a Norw. fik(l)a as vivid movement, also vycken as to hit with a stick --- & then, I think, I have to ment. the I_Vikings 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 futuo (>> 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. Fuge & fügen |I_fuegen| 2(to fill or join, also to put up with)2, & the musical fugue) & I_fission, which both are near to Lat. physica (or Fr. I_physique 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 I_foetus (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. fügen, which w. might have started from the futuo (bc. of the let. "t") but was then modified under Ger. influence (bc. of the "i" in ficken) & 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. futur 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. (futurus; & fui is one of the forms of their verb to be 2(sunt)2, resp. in It. for the Perf. tense: io-I fui, tu-you fosti, egli-he fu, 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 futuo-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(den Posten bekleiden)2 ). You see that the ws are very interwoven & the m-ings differ, so let us return now & stick to the figue-fruit, where, really, many ideas are put in work, bc.: here are the known in ancient Greece sycophantes |I_sycophant| (in Lat. writing), for whom is said (in philosophical literature) that they were showing (selling) figues; then the sign of I_figue (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 figue) places. I should add also your ... I_wig, bc. it performs the function of a leaf of figue, only put on the head; and there is also Lat. I_fingo 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 fingo 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. whiggamaire what was to be split in: whig 2(as to drive --- i.e. smt. like your whip)2 + mere 2(as your mare-horse)2, so maybe this is a coincidence. )
Then bc. of the sycophants & Ger. Feige the w. I_Feigling 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_sycophant|s : 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 I_figue (faire la figue in Fr., or far la fica 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 was) 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. I_Mandel, what is their name for an almond. And maybe (or at least I think this is highly poss.) the ... I_fok-mast (given as from Hol.) may mean that it is smt. for "focking", bc. it is placed in the foremost part of the ship where every man has smt. for ficking (& maybe the naval people just liked 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. I_nachati was to get or reach smt., t.s. was Avs. I_nasaiti (also ashnaoti 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 nesti, 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. I_Nest (or Nestel), given from an o. I/E. nizdo, 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 Nest is there is your ... I_next. There was a Lat. I_nidus (sim. to nudis what is naked) m-ing a nest or a box, but it sounds slightly diff., though the idea of lying down --- I_nieder 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 bo- /bu- 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. nanciscor (to meet occasionally, or to receive --- maybe some god has put it for me to find), or I_natal (resp. prenatal), or native (Lat. I_nativus), or the nations, or Lat. I_natura (a nature), or Lat. nascor (nascere, to give birth, to happen, to arise --- from here is your I_nascent), or Lat. nato 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. I_naissance ('nesa~s', a birth, a beg-ing, from here is the I_Renaissance), or naître |I_naitre| (to give birth, etc. 2(which in o. Fr. must have been read 'nestr'2 ), what has given your I_nee (just nè in Fr., past participle of this verb) as maiden name. Here has to be ment-d Ger. naß |I_nass| (wet --- bc. some moisture is needed in the sexual matters), and poss. their I_genesen (genas), what is to become well, or to give birth to a child (it may be stated that the last comes from the gene, but ge- is much used Ger. prefix 2(for building of Partizip Perfekt)2 & might have to be taken away for analysis; & then the m-ing is m.o.l. that of the naissance). 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. co- (& 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 co- 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 social communication, & even the Ger* use the expression "geselschaftliche Kopulation" in this sense; you, for your part, use sim-ly to intercourse).
We shall return to naître 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. I_nahe what is your I_near, or nahen, what is to come nearer, but then nähen |I_naehen| is to sew (bc. this is a way to make pieces of cloth to stick one to another); also Ger. Naht (a stitch) & I_Niet (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. I_nun, but also na or nanu with slightly modified m-ings), & smt. Gr., & Skr., what may hardly be rel-d to naître, 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.) I_nostalgia 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) ... our things or cause, bc. in Lat. I_noster means exactly our (what explains the so called Cosa Nostra as "The Cause Of Ours"), or in Fr. it is nôtre (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. I_Nase, Sl. nos, & so on up to Skr. I_nasa --- 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 I_Nabel (or Nabe is a hub, center of wheel), but then here surely emerged some ... clouds in the form of Ger. Nebel (a cloud, mist), which is Lat. I_nebula & also Sl. I_nebe (in Bul, or nebo in Rus., m-ing a sky), what has come from far off times, namely from Skr. I_nabhas (a cloud, vapour, sky) or Avs. nabah (an air space), or, if you like, from old Assiro-Babylon & the name of a king, ... Navuhudonosor or I_Nebukadnesar (or how you name him, bc. there are several variants), which begins with some Nebu 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 nebula). 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 Bohne), 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. nebh- (a navel or center of a wheel), Per. naf (a navel), o. Prussian nabis (t.s.), but also Lat. I_nefas 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 nèfle |I_nefle| m-ing a medlar (which is smt. misspelled --- >> Ger. Mispel). In the sense of native (i.e. born via the navel, widely sp-ing, bc. in Lat. I_natis is a ... bottom, but surely with the idea of the womb) is given also Fr. naïf (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 (I_natrium or natron), or Lat. natrium or nitram (or Ger. Nitron, & sim. in Sl. & other langs), or your I_nitrogen (signified with the let. "N"), but this has come from ancient Egypt, & written with their hieroglyphs had to be read as 'ntr(j)'. This explains the I_natura, natio, etc. (bc. N 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 |I_entera| (t.s.), and before that was Skr. I_antaras (internal) or I_antram (intestines), or Avs. antara, giving also Lat. interus, your I_inter- (also = I_intel-, b.t.w.), Fr. I_entrez ('a~tre', come in, enter) etc.; but if we had started with "in" only we have hardly had come to the N, and the giving (or carrying) of birth. Hmm, we might have come to the birth but via the Ger. suffix I_-in, 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: Lehrerin, Arbeiterin, Bauerin, Professorin, etc.) --- and how else could you explain this, if not with the idea of some entering into them (by men)? In this sense Fr. I_encore 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 nursing |I_nurse| too) then the plants take what they need from the earth, where is this nutritious I_algae (or algue in Fr., a see-weed), or, more precisely, Ar. al-kali (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 N Fr. w. I_azote 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 |I_zo^os| was (and still is in the current lang.) alive, ζωη |I_zo^e^| 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. I_hayas, 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., I_haedus, what is this time a wild goat, what may be correct bc. we may go from here to some o. Teu. gaits 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 has 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. I_zeugen (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 testis), & resp. erzeugen is to produce; from here it is rel-d also to their I_zeigen (to show) or I_Zeichen (a picture, sign), but the r. can be found also in Rus. zhiznþ|I_zhizn$|, what is a life (though >> also gene, zygote). Bc. of this lively 'zh', which has to buzz but doesn't much in the Gr. original, the life becomes I_vivo (-are) in Lat. (to live; here is the vivarium), or the short Fr.I_vie (that you must have heard bc. of the phrase:|I_phrases| c'est la vie), but vivo (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. ntr- we may come to Ger. I_Narr, what is a silly person (& to fall in love is often called vernarren, what is a rightful observation), for which the etym-sts are in doubt. On the other hand there's your narration|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) narro (-are) as to speak, tell smt., inform, & narratio 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 granatum (>> g.), or pomegranate for you, but this is the well known on the South Tur., Ar., & Per. I_nar. 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 Narren (Ger. Narr in pl.). But there are even more "hands", bc. there is Tur. & Per. I_nargile (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: nar (in Ger. m-ing) + I_gaile (= gaire, 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 I_nar- 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 I_Narajana was an alias name of Vishnu. With this I don't want to say that the sacred Vishnu was a Narr, 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 look like a Narr, & 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 nar, when you open it, looks like a mouth with many tiny (though red) teeth, & it, surely, is also a food. And if the fool-Narr is unique in this m-ing in Ger. (Teu.) there are other sim. & rel-d ws, like: I_nahren, what is to feed (resp., Nahrung is a food, & nahrhaft is wholesome food), but this is a kind of nahen-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 nahren-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. naschen as to bite, given from an o. Teu. nasjan (= I_genesen), & others. But the feeding is present, bc. the Ar.-Per. nar-fruit might have been called also I_naranj ('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. ernähren as t.s. to feed), & this naranj has given --- would you guess it? --- the well known Fr. I_orange, resp. It. arancia ('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 not as a colour but as the typical colour of a fruit that feeds good, and this has come from the old Skr. where I_narangas was an orange tree, what says us that the kind of fruit is not exactly fixed & may be: an orange, or nar, or apple (or paradise-apple), or the like (to what we shall come on pomme too).
And now some ws about the I_narcissus, which obviously (by the ending -us) 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. I_Narr-fool; and you know that this person (Narcius or Narcissus), 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 |I_naros| as a fluid, what isn't rel-d to the fool, but is to the food (say, to mother's milk); we'll find also their ναρκη as frozen in stupor, what is also Lat. (I_narce), 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 are 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. an-. Let us start here with Ger. I_ander (another one; where is aslo your I_other, & Fr. I_autre, 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-I_tropus 2(in Lat., or τροποσ in Gr.)2 and here are all the androids |I_android| from SF). But ander--I_anthro comes from old times (and what doesn't?) & contains some piquant ideas. In o. Skr. I_anas was a whiff or breath and aniti was to breathe, what has given o. Gr. ανεμοσ|I_anemos| (a wind), then Lat. I_animus (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 I_ana = anna in Tur., & analik is a motherhood) but a beg-ing, & sim. unisexual idea like this ana -- ανδρο stays behind the rel-n I_Hera -- I_Herr (to be disc-ed). But some sexual notions are still present bc. in Lat. we have I_Anno (Domini, shortened to AD) as an year (a beg-ing), then the annals (I_annalis in Lat., m-ing a chronicle, history), then the analysts & analyzing|I_analyze|, etc., but these are (I mean, they have 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. annulare), what officially comes from ad + nullum, but it might also be anno + 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. ... I_hysteresis, 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 |I_hazeyo^| with t.s. m-ing (what is also Bul., but not Rus., jargon I_zjapam), & near to this χαζοσ |I_hazos| m-ing ... a fool, simpleton (the opened mouth as synonym for silliness; >> Tor--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. I_talaz as a wave, & even not Tur. bc. there was o. Gr. θαλασσα m-ing a sea, but this must be diff. r. (>> Tal); nevertheless the m-ing fits here, and I will use the place to add also Tur.-Ar. I_talasim (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. I_causa 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 not 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 has 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 moderation 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) can't cope with the destructive processes (& 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. the idea was, & is, very good & very old, & it is applied, but thoughtfully, in many Western countries; what was bad was not the idea but the realization), 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 the strongest 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 puts some chaos 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. I_ander (etc.) but on the bottom of it lies the anas--animus or the 1st let.; and the end surely is Ger. I_Ende (t.s.), given with old ws like: o. Frisian enda, Dan. einde, etc., or an I/E. r. antio- --- but the point is that this is not an end, but smt. controversial or opposed, a cycle, bc. here is given the well known Lat. I_anti-, but also their I_ante, what is before (to remind you the shortening "a.m." for ante meridiem, i.e. before midday 2(and there's also It. anzi meaning "rather")2 ), though there was a Lat. antiae 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. antecamera what is an anteroom, entrance hall. There were also: o. Gr. αντιοσ as opposed and ανταω as to meet occasionally, and in Skr. was I_antas as an end, limit, death, and antiah 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: I_wider (against) & I_wieder (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 wider is sreshtu or protiv & wieder is pak or otnovo or snachala (Bul., Rus.), or in Fr., where the 1st is contre & the 2nd is a noveau, 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 some, 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 the scale, & 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 bend the scale in circle, & after reaching the limit or end point, then, continuing to go in the same direction, to move through the 1st point! We, & all the animals, use both ways. The 1st way leads us to the most beautiful (if such superlative may be used) curve called I_exponent (etym-cally built as ex- beyond all points, or the like), marked as ax (or ex) which is an infinitely smooth 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 differentiation|I_differentiate|), what has to say, that the exponent always rises (resp. falls), and its speed is like the initial curve, & so on ad infinitum, i.e. it is an ever differentiable function with a deriv. (providing we use as basis the so called Neper number e) exactly the same 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 straight 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 clock arithmetic, 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 works, 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) don't break the measuring unit --- and this is what matters here. ]
But let us return to I_wieder -- wider 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 >> neu or novûj for etym-gy), as much as Fr. a noveau (or It. di nuovo) 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: ongean, ongen, ongegn, ayen, etc. leading us to an o. Ger. ingagan /gign, what is now I_gegen (= wider, i.e. against), but I am sure this contains t.s. idea.
Ah, if some of you ask: why I_gegen is again a cycle (roughly sp-ing), then let it be said that this is Fr. I_gage ('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 gagne 2('ganþ')2 ). Also I_gagner in Fr. is to get wages /fees, and I_Gegner in Ger. is a competitor (gegen-against whom we fight), & your gage is smt. sim., & the Ger* use literally Fr. gage, & 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. I_engager (engage for you), but, on the other hand, this is officially given as coming from a ... Gypsy (or rather Zigeunerish, bc. there are some diff-ces --->> Zigeuner) 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 and 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. I_Widder, 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 Widder-wether the cycle must be hidden?
But don't think that the etym-sts will help you to guess bc. for the I_Widder they give Lat. I_vetus as old (where from the veterans|I_veteran| & the veterinarians|I_veterinarian| have come; I would squeeze also one Rus. w., I_vetchina, m-ing a ... ham, smoked joint of some vetus animal) but I doubt in this. I mean, I don't doubt about vetus being old, bc. I have heard the It. phrase I_vecchio ('vekkjo') mio, or t.s. in Fr. as mon vieux ('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. vici 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. Vedas|I_Veda|, 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 I_wissen later on, but this is smt. diff. (the r. has initially to be vek-, though it may mutate to vid- --- >> video); where with the Widder 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. Widder (so much efforts for a poor castrated ram wouldn't pay), but for the hidden cycle. ( B.t.w., a century in Fr. is ciècle|I_ciecle|, 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 Widder 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 vetus not bc. of their (current) age, but bc. of their precedence before the humans (for in Lat. veterinus was an old animal, veterinarius was working animal, & veteres 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. I_Tag (a day) or Rus. I_shag (a step) or Lat. pag- (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. I_poco (a little), which you might have heard from the musical phrase|I_phrases|: a poco a poco (little by little, slowly, like given in drops); there's also some Lat. I_apocopa (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|I_apo| (a prep. m-ing: forward, from, out), and then this has to have given the known ... apocalypses (I_apocalypsis in Lat. and αποκαλυπτω in o. Gr.) --- if we take the apo- apart then from the rest a kalo-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--poco--apo 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 I_Widder 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. I_Rind as horned animal, bc. t.s. s-ing has their Rinde (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 Rind 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. I_Rebe, 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. con-; and let us distinguish it from co-, which we shall disc. later (>> I_coño), no matter that for the Fr*, f.ex., it may be the same. So here is Lat. verb I_connecto (to connect, fit together), or continuus (continuous, you write it in Fr. manner, but in Lat. this means also: adjacent, connected, unchangeable; or take Fr. continu 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. (exactly 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., kün 2('kjunþ')2 in Cz., kone 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$|, what is to throw (& look at it as a way to connect 2 points 2(there's also Sl. I_kinzhal as a dagger, which may be split, come to think of it, in: kinþ + zhalo-a-sting)2 ), or their I_kanun /nakanune m-ing: on the eve of smt., or their ... whip, which is called knut (what is Ger. I_Knute, but surely here is also your to I_knit), or --- why not? --- Bul. I_kjunetz, what is a pipe for leading of the smoke out of the oven & to the chimney, and what turns out to be Tur.-Per. künk|I_kuenk|. Some of you may go from here to the ... gene (via your I_kin), bc. it also provides a connection, now of the generations, but I find this is a diff. r. (though rel-d --- all is rel-d to almost all).
On the other hand the Sl. konþ|I_kon$| 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 I_census 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. I_draco (a snake or dragon) or Sl. I_drakon, and if a decomposition (of 2 syllabic w.) may be questionable (-co(n) might be a suffix, or the r. may be drak- where the idea is of scratching 2(like in Fr. I_drainage)2 ) the dragon itself comes from the Far East and, besides, it is rel-d to the horse through the I_dragoon|s! (Also >> canna 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. skinn) --- 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 do kona 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. zakon, 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.
}
IN THE BEGINNING {} WAS THE GOD |I_GODCHP|
{
And, of course, we have to speak now about the I_God, bc. in Eng. (& Ger., I_Gott) he is rel-d to the I_good, & this is rel-d to the ... I_get|ting, bc. all that we want is to put our hands on smt. Here are given: o. Teu. guda as a god, I/E rs ghuto- /ghou- m-ing to summon or call via magic formula (to remind you about Ger. I_Gauleiters, or, if you don't like them, then about Lat. I_gaudeo m-ing to be happy, to amuse yourselves, like in the student's hymn Gaudeamus Igitur), also ghedh (or ghodh) m-ing to catch, get hold of smt.; in this sense turns out to be Ger. I_Gatte as ... husband. Hence the God is smt. that we want to get, or Smb. Who we want to catch --- I'm sorry to say this, but that is how the people imagine the things --- by the balls! Smt. sim. we have in Sl. langs where I_gotovo means ready, but also to cook (Rus. gotovitþ), what is traced to a Skr. I_ghatate (to work hard on smt.); this gives also the known Lat. I_gusto (with its derivs), what is in good accordance with the Gr. view to the cooking as kind of I_magic (bc. μαγερικο|I_mageriko| is a pub, restaurant, μαγερασ is a cook 2(& also Ger. I_Magen is a stomach)2, & μαγεια is a magic, but this is widely spread r. going to Skr. I_maja, what is an illusion, to what we shall come again on I_machen).
~ ~ ~
Well, this God--get--good was the Teu. viewpoint but this is not always the case, bc. in Fr. he is Dieu (in pl. Diex) but deux is two, what comes from the Rom* where I_deus was a god and dea was a goddess, what in turn is from o. Greece where Θεοσ|I_Theos| was a god (what is from sim. I_Devas in Skr., or Devi as goddess), but δυο (in Lat. I_duo) was the number two. I sup. it is well known that the one am I, my ego, and the two is the God bc. only God may exceed his I_ego and think about the others (in Bul. we have the saying: "He who knows 2, knows 200.", m-ing that if one can make some distinction then he can make also a more profound one), but the inability to take into account more things than one's own wishes is the cause of all human errors & misbehaviors. The struggle against the ego is the capstone of all religions, like: the Christ's love to the humans; the Islamic hospitality & tolerance; the Buddhist's thesis that God is the truth, and one has to meditate long in order to understand better 1st himself & then the other beings; and the Zen-Buddhist's, who say that Buddha has to be forgotten & a new man has to arise, who has killed entirely his self; and even, if you like, the main postulate of the communism (& fascism), the requirement to live & work not to satisfy his/her personal desires but to think about the community (or the better part of it), & to follow the "predicts" of the ruling party & the current ruler. But alas, too radical propositions rarely lead to smt. useful (and here people simply can't change their nature).
[|I_comments| Yeah, they can't change their nature, but often they (& the animals too, who have even stronger instincts than the humans) have to, & do so being forced by the circumstances. So that it turns out to be just a matter of power, which was, & still is smm., used by religious authorities, or in totalitarian states (for the Communists, f.ex., rejected all religions simply bc. they observed the communism as a kind of religion, not bc. they were against the delusions 2(if they worked in interest of the 1-&-only ruling party)2 ), but in many aspects it is so even in democratic societies, what is (partly) justified when done with purpose to force the people to work for the others instead of against them. But it might be said that this is also a matter or intellect, bc. every (m.o.l.) intelligent creature has to apply in his reasoning some reflection --- i.e. "I think that he /she /it thinks", what is, let us call it so, a reflection of 1st order; then "I think that he thinks that I think" is one of 2nd order, & so on --- what is t.s. as to take the others into account! So you see that the intellect may help, together with some unavoidable power (that of the law & order institutions, to which we shall come later again), but ntg. can be done if we lack the basic reflection, that of order zero, for which the old Greeks had had the proverbial saying |I_sentences| "Know thyself" --- bc. if one doesn't know good his or her own ego then how (and here usually, as I have learned from many of your books, the phrase "the hell" has to be put) he/she will know what the other beings want? Of course one has to be born philosopher, &/or have strong personality, for to be capable to know oneself, but if one can't, then what to do? Well, there are 2 major ways to make people do what they don't want to (feeling it is smt. against their ego) & they are: the force and the delusion! Both ways are, & have to, be used, and that is one of the reasons why all the religions have arisen (& even I have found my own God, the allmighty Urrh, which I will introduce to you in the next chapter).
One may deny this, saying that there are also other ways, like: convincing explans, or personal examples, or genetic selection of the best people (the idea of aristocracy), or building of good habits from the nursery age (like a kind of social conditional reflexes), or the like. Yeah, these ways exist, but ... but they are not powerful enough to be applied without the 2 above-ment-d ways. If you just try to explain (without force or delusion) to smb. that he/she doesn't behave good, or why he does what he does, you will only make more enemies instead of friends (unless you are a psychoanalyst, bc., strange or not, but when people pay to hear smt. they may listen to what is said to them, but not for free!), so that you have to apply some sort of delusions (bc. you can't always apply power), what is t.s. as to say that the slogan "Honesty is the best policy" turns out to be just a good wish (& that is why it is so proclaimed, b.t.w. --- bc. it is rarely applied). So that it doesn't matter much whether one thinks about the others bc. he is afraid of some punishment, or of the Hell, or that he may be turned to a pig or monkey in his afterlife, or that he may make the blunder to eat, say, his late ... grandma during the dinner (bc. that is why the Buddhists don't eat, not only meat, but even eggs & caviar, the last 2 being the children of those animals), or he is just reasonable enough to exceed his ego & try to understand our controversial world. If the next phrase may help you a little then let it be said that: this world may not be a very good one (& it surely isn't, for many of us), but it is the 1 & only possible world, under the circumstances. ]
Anyway, the God may be signified with the number two what goes back at least to the Pythagoreans, and here is the place to remind you that the ... I_theorem is smt. from the gods, or beautiful like God; or that the ... I_idea is based on some "dea"; as much as your I_dear, & ... the I_deer too (bc. it isn't a doe & is usually "he"). Also the I_Teuton|s, or die I_Deutsch|en, who were before Teutschen, are rel-d to I_deuten (to show, explain --- the God's truth, maybe), but smh. to the Deus-Theos too (we'll come to this again much further), and acc. to some Buddhist myths the Universe was created as emanation of the ... bowels of God I_Tathagata, whose name is interesting bc. it may easily be decomposed in some Theos-"Tata" (he who have I_done 2(I_tun-tat in Ger.)2 the things, or the father 2(in Bul., f.ex., I_tati is a father, but >> also papa)2 ) plus the I_Gott-Gata (giving also the I_Goth|s & the Gothic). To finish with the tun--done idea I have to stress also on the ... hitting (with some cudgel, & probably on the head) in doing things properly, what is perfectly clear in your do-done (comp. this with your dud or dull), or in I_due (it has to say "done" but has not yet said so), or in the I_deed (Ger. I_Tat) which corresponds to ... I_dead, of course (for the best deed is to make smb. dead!); or to cite also one of the sacred Skr. syls, tat, m-ing: that, absolute (Tat-deed). But there are more ws, e.g.: in Lat. there is I_totalis (total) or totus (whole) or totum (all), so that here is the I_totem too, or also I_tundo (-ere, to hit, blow, step upon), & others; in Ger. may be added the I_Tatort (a place of some deed but usually of crime); there is also It. I_tutti (whole, entire), or Fr. I_partout ('partù', everywhere) or tôt (soon, in a short time --- i.e. one may expect that smb. or smt. will soon be dead or finished), or the deed in Fr. which is I_etat (what means also: staff, situation, budget, action, state 2(with the heard coup d'etat 3('ku d'eta')3 as military change of government)2 ), or o. Rus. tatþ|I_tat$| (a vampire, ghoul), & many others (I sup. the ... I_intuition is to be split in: in + tue-do). But there were sim. words in o. Eastern langs too, like Skr. I_tundate or tudati (to prick, sting) or todas (that who stings 2(& to here, b.t.w., is traced our o. Sl. stoud m-ing a cold, what is now Bul. I_stud, or Rus. studitþ as to make it cold)2 ), or some Sumerian du (to be fit, valid, ready for smt.). There is also your don as a professor, which is Sp. (& Lat.) I_don as a master, and though the w. is rel-d to the donation, the point is, still, in his ability to give a healthy 'dånn' on the head.
B.t.w., this may be a curious coincidence (but may also not be so), that in the lang. of Aztecs, ancient American inhabitants, the w. I_theo-kal (or teo-kal bc. I have read this in a book in Bul. & we don't have "th" at all) meant "God's house", where theo meant exactly God, and kal was a house (>> kal--kalo, but >> kåt too; or, on the other hand, see ... ntg., bc. there is ntg. strictly proved about any rel-n btw. ancient Am* & other parts of the globe); even more curious seems that the sign for this theo looked like the Gr. let. "θ" (meant as an opened mouth with the tongue in the middle)! We may only wonder, whether there was really an ancient Atlantis, or some Asian tribes have walked through the Bering Strait when frozen and then down to the south & to the lands of Mexico, or smt. else. There is also much spoken about the commonness of their pyramids with those of the old world, but I don't think this is so important bc. the pyramid is a very natural figure, in fact the only one (if you don't count the cone, but to make a good circle isn't easy, and, you know, the buildings are almost always polyhedrons) that both, stays stable on the ground, & rises high up; more scientifically I have met this put smw. as the "principle of uniqueness of the simple ideas" which doesn't require imagining of non-existent rel-ns. Whatever the reason for this common things, I may add also that in the lang. of Aztecs I_tli meant a step & was pictured as a wave (>> Tau, Tal); also their ferocious god, to whom they sacrificed many human lives, & who was taken for Satan by the Spaniards, was called I_Huitzilopohtli, what (though this isn't serious) contains for the Sl-ic ear 2 peculiar moments: the huj-penis & the pohotþ-lust.
So, now let me add here that if we go back to the Skr. Devi, what is Lat. I_Diva (& your I_devote), we may understand why the Sl* say divitþsja|I_divit$sja| /udivljatþsja (in Rus.) m-ing to wonder! Really, in Rus. deva is a virgin (& Deva Marija is the V. Mary), or I_devka is a girl, in Ukr. it is divka, in Pol. dziewa, & so on, though nowadays it isn't pretty clear whether people wonder bc. she is so beautiful, like a goddess, or, hmm, bc. she is still a virgin (bc. it isn't very polite to call a girl in public devka). This r. is present also in the Blt. langs where in Lithuanian I_deivoti is to look with I_awe, hence it is very near to the name of I_Eve, & to Lat. I_ave (Maria). B.t.w., in Lat. devi & I_vidi (also in Rus.: divitþsja & videtþ) sound very sim., having t.s. consonants but in reversed order (though these are just assocs, and >> video later). It may be interesting to add also that in some Sl. langs one does not only wonder seeing a girl-virgin but thinks she is a ... wild thing (in Bul. div means wild, & I_divak is exactly a child of wilderness --- in Rus. it is slightly changed to dikarþ|I_dikar$|, what is nearer to Ger. I_dick or Dickicht 2(a thicket)2; also a game anymal, wild, is divech in Bul., dichþ|I_dich$| in Rus., divljač in Srb., etc. ), what is in the sense of God's creature; although one may wonder just seeing smt., bc. in Cz. I_divak is a ... spectator, say in a stadium. But then it isn't imposs. that you I_wild (with o. wilde, so that any assocs of the ... name of O. Wilde are justified) is also here, bc. this is t.s. Ger. wild, which is c. Ger. with Got. wildeis, & the m-ing is the same as Bul. div, hence the old people might have cut the 1st (for the Deus) syl. & added some ending, or roughly sp-ing have swapped its syls (if we look at the Got. w.). And the creature, b.t.w., in spite of its often disrespectful m-ing, comes from the creation |I_create| (Lat. I_creo (-are) what is to build, make, create; also the creator), what is usually done in ... I_crater|s (Gr. κρατηρ --- where you may grind & stir & boil the concoction), so that here the I_pantocrator|s have to be ment-d (who were so called not bc. they often, hmm, pant, or have nice pants, but bc. they "stir" all 2(>> also panis 3(not penis, but this wouldn't be a big error)3 )2 ). Yeah, but from the creature the etym-sts derive the known ... I_cretin (which was originally Fr. 2(read 'crete~')2, and in Bul. we say also I_kretam, what is to move slowly, to vegetate just making the ends meet). Smt. sim. exists in Church-Sl., the phrase bozhþja tvarþ|I_tvar$|, where the 1st is from our God (to be explained soon) and the 2nd is our creature (to be disc-ed), though tvarþ means mainly ... a bug or cockroach. But the rel-n btw. beautiful & wild things turns out to have come from very old times, bc. in Per. div was a devilish creature (semi-human & semi-animal), & the divs were usually of fem. sex.
~ ~ ~
On the other hand one may find a sim. rel-n in the w. I_devil, bc. he is a bad one but he is of the "species" of gods, & in Eng. we have good splitting in: deo + vile (or "the evil one", in vulgar etym-gy), where I_vile (giving also your I_villain) comes from o. Fr. vil (bad, mean, dirty, etc.), coming in turn from Lat. vilis (cheap, mean, bad), but the last is, in fact, the will (Ger. I_Wille, or Lat. I_volo as to will)! And if you ask "why the will has to be bad" the answer is that this is the free will, a willing without taking into account the wills of others (>> smt. sim. on malus). If you look for an etym-gy of the devil you will be told that there was an o. Eng. deofol (to be split in: deo + I_foul), etc., up to o. Gr. διαβολοσ (a vicious, contemptible person, libeler, devil), or διαβολη (to libel), what poss. has given Fr. (& then your) w. I_deviation, but this doesn't contradict to the just said bc. each folk has modified the w. & added his own explan., as f.ex.: Fr. diable, Sp. I_diablo, Bul. I_djavol, etc. A bit diff., but in t.s. line of thoughts is Ger. I_Teufel (read 'tojfel'), again a devil, and how the Ger* think about him becomes clear by citing one Swiss dialect, tüüfü (where 'tju', 'tfu', or the like, is a kind of spitting --- pfui in today's Ger., or tþfu in Rus., or pooh in Eng.).
The Rus. devil, to finish with him, is called (besides their dþjavol, which w. is older) chërt |I_chert| (read 'chjort') and is usually rel-d to the black colour (chërnûj |I_chernu^j|, 'chjo...'), but this has to be an assoc., as much as the rel-n to chertitþ |I_chertit$| (to draw) is (which is a very strong one, bc. pl. from I_cherta 2(a line)2 is chërtû, where pl. for chërt is cherti, and this might have his explan. in the basic colour for drawing --- black, or, smm. red; where the s-ing, for its part, speaks about some torsion or crushing). Personally I think that more important here is the idea of some exclam. for driving, say, dogs off our way, bc. in old times the Rus* said I_chur (what isn't present in the current lang.) when they wanted to avoid some temptation or to drive the devil away, also churatþsja is an o. w. (but still to be heard today) for being afraid of smt., & I have also incidentally found that in Afghani I_chur means a robbery (i.e. when people usually cry smt., either to drive the bandits away, or to attract smb's attention). But much later I guessed that here an It. influence is quite poss., from their I_certo ('chèrto') m-ing "smb." where pl. becomes exactly certi (& the dropping of It. "o" is explainable with the masc. gender, as well as the emerging of "ë" is natural for a stressed "e"). And if smb. asks: why "smb." here has to mean exactly the devil --- well, I sup. you know that in times gone not long ago a mere ment-ing of God or devil was qualified as cursing, where nowadays --- but you know how it is now. ( The It*, b.t.w., have the habit to drop smm. some ws that can be easily guessed, what is also Lat. habit, and they say, f.ex., I_purtroppo 2(literally "for big")2 meaning regretfully, i.e. "for big regret", but the "regret" is just missed. ) So, and then sim. to the devil is, of course, the I_demon (& then your I_damn), what is o. Gr. Δαιμονασ (where "αι" is read 'e', as it is even today with "ai" in Fr.), but this, too, may be split in: "deo" + "monas" (the latter m-ing one whole thing, smt. monolithic, or rather separated like a monk).
~ ~ ~
So till now we know that the God is always good for the Teu*, but in o. Gr. (& before) the gods could have been either good or bad (how they wanted to behave); as also that the important thing for the human beings is to exceed one's own ego & to think about the others. But there's another view to the God shown by the Slavs, where he is called I_Bog, what (besides the imit. ment-d on beg--bek--bay) comes from Skr. I_bhagas (giving to all, ruling over all), or Avs. I_baga (exactly a God), or Skr. bhajati (to give to, divide --- & this dividing is in the sense of number 2, of distinguishing; to add also that the let. 'B' is the 2nd one in all alphabets 2(at least from o. Heb. bina = to Gr. beta onward 3(>> later bina-two)3 )2 ). From here is also our Sl. bogat (in Bul., or bogatûj |I_bogatu^j| in Rus.) what means wealthy; and in Per. I may remind you the name of a known town, I_Baghdad, which (poss., I don't know Per.) has to mean "from the Gods given". One may say, "that's good, but there's ntg. of the kind on the West", and he/she will make an error, bc. the Ger* have their ... I_Bogen, what is an up-arc (whereas I_Boden is a floor, or a down-arc) & this is here, bc. you know that the I_arc|s are common element in all churches. Our Bog-Baga is an arc (which is I_arka in Sl.) bc. he stays above us (& may hit us on the heads, if we don't obey), & with the arcs, you may bet it, go all the I_archangels & the other arc(h)-things --- like the I_architecture, or the ... I_Arctic & I_Antarctic, which have to be here, bc. the 1st one is an up-arc (as it is on the map of the world) & the 2nd one is a down-arc or anti-arc. ( The etym-sts don't say exactly this but it's obvious; they give: Fr. arctique or o. Fr. artique and Lat. ar(c)teus as northern, coming from o. Gr. αρκοσ = αρκτοσ m-ing the north pole, but also a ... bear 2(bc. of the constellation)2; I may add also their αρχωσ as a leader 2(giving our o. Sl. I_arhont as title of a ruler)2, where all these m-ings fit well with the idea of the God-arc. ) There is (in my view) smt. of the kind also by the Muslims, where the name of the holy I_jami (Islamic church, which in Tur. will be written as cami) in Mecca is called I_Kaba (maybe Caaba for you 2(& then also the town Kabul)2 ), what has to mean "God's house" (as far as I know it is just a stone, but I am sp-ing about the idea), where I do the splitting in: ka- m-ing smt. around Eng. cut (let's not dig much now, but it is so for the Slavs, & also the Ger* say I_Kate for a small house in a village) + the 2nd syl. -ba for our God Baga.
And now let me extend our knowledge of big & inflated things on bo- --- like your, hmm, I am sorry, I don't mean exactly yours, my dear readeress, I_bottom, what isn't like the w. I_down (where we just 'dån' smt. on the floor), but has to be split in: bo(t) + "I_tom", where the last has to be influenced by o Gr. τομοσ (a piece or part of smt., but we shall disc. this on ... atom & tom), i.e. this is the thickest part of our bodies and it has to be down (bc., well, if our tops were thicker than our legs, then we could have never succeeded to come down from the trees, being unable to stay stable on the ground); though >> also butt. So, and what I meant to say is to speak about big & god-like things like ... like the I_bull, which we in Bul. call I_bik (bûk in Rus., or I_bugaj in Ukr.) but which is well known in Southern Asia (buga or buka), & he's a I_big animal. Although your etym-sts don't know exactly where from your w. big has come, I am sure the r. is old & Eastern and may add that in Hindu I_bagh is a tiger. And the bull may be looked at as god, bc. this is the golden calf, and its original name (what is from another r.) is I_Taurus (now known to you only as the constellation; in Fr. it is taureau, 'torjo'), which is o. Gr. ταυροσ, where one may hear his hidden power ('tårr') grinding all to dust. There was the mythical Minotaurus (Μινωταυροσ) who lived in the Labyrinth of Crete island, but in o. Gr. myths their god Poseidon was called also ταυρεοσ (bull-like), so that to be like a bull is usually a good quality; though not always, bc. there was the ancient name of Crimean peninsula (given by the o. Gr*), which was Taureus (I_Tavrija or Tavricheskij poluostrov in Rus.), where in a Gr. dict. is said that this comes from the name of some tribe (ταυριχη), but I am highly suspicious that these people were viewed as some ... silly calves! ( The r. taur- is also rel-d to the ... I_turn|ing via the curve of the horns, as we have explained this on Rind or Widder. )
Anyway, mark that "αυ" in o. Gr. was read 'aj' (now it is just 'u' but, I'm sorry to tell this, today's Greece isn't the o. G.), and in Lat. it becomes "au" but (bc. of the graphical sim-ty of upsilon with the Lat. "v") it often becomes "av", so that we come (i.e., have just come) to the r. tavr-, where an o. Rus. I_tavro (stressed on the end) may be cited, what was a stigma burned on the cattle to identify the owner, but these were normally bulls & cows (sheep have fleece and aren't so easy to be burned, & they are too small to care about each one), so that this is rel-d to the taurus. Then there is Tur. I_tabor, what is an army unit or camp (& surely here the bovine carts were meant); then by the mutation tavr- -- zavr- we may reach to the ... I_dinosaur|s (from o. Gr. δεινοσ 2(ominous, threatening)2 + σαυροσ 2(a reptile --- I_saurus in Lat., where from you say saurian)2 ), & (if you ask me) taurus -- saurus doesn't just rime, there's the curving circle hidden in both animals that unites them. One may say that this isn't rel-d to the god Bog, what is true, but it is rel-d to the ment-d creation, bc. in Rus. (but it's c. Sl.) tvoritþ |I_tvorit$| is to create or tvorchestvo is a creativity, & here is not only the creature-tvarþ|I_tvar$|, but many other Sl. ws like: Cz. tvoriti or Pol. tworzych (to create), Cz. tvar (a ... face or cheek) or Pol. twarz (a face), Lithuanian twora (a fence --- smt. just built, created), Rus. I_tvorog (a ... curd, though this might not be the only rel-n, bc. here some process of brewing is in effect, and it is given an Avs. tuiri with t.s. m-ing, but then I think tuiri fits better with Rus. varitþ |I_varit$| 2(to boil)2 ). In other ws, the taurus turns out to be a creator, & a very powerful one, bc. here has to be added also Sl. ... solid (body), what is tvërdûj |I_tverdu^j| ('tvjordûj') in Rus. or tvård in Bul. (or mutated to tzvjordû in Belarus) or the short trd in Slovenian or I_tvrdy in Cz., etc., as also the whole sky with all celestial bodies, what in o. Sl. was tverdþ |I_tverd$|.( The r. big- is rel-d even to the ... love, but we shall come to this much later. )
But there is even more to this, bc.: what do you think about your ... I_boss? As far as I can grasp the m-ing he is a boastful person (hence he is rel-d to the verb to I_boast, too), and in Bul. we have the jargon naduva se (he swells, inflates himself) applied to such persons, but the etym-sts give only Teu. I_Baas (a master), which was Hol. & Dan. but further etym-gy was unknown. Well, from strictly etym-cal point it might be so but the assocs are almost obvious, and there is also Tur. boş |I_bosh| (empty, free, acc. to the dicts, but it has to be so bc. smt. has been blown away; from here boşlaf |I_boshlaf| |I_laf| 2(known also in Bul.)2 means an "inflated phrase" 2(where, b.t.w., the 2nd syl. makes a perfect rel-n with your I_laugh, which, otherwise, is given as sound imit. from Ger. I_lachen)2 ). Or, then, there is also Tur. baş |I_bash| m-ing a head, or smb. acting as head, boss, or master (& in Bul. the jargon bash-majstor as top-master is often to be heard); there is also Rus. I_bashka as jargon for the head (or mug, as you would put it) given from Tur., Azr., Tar. & sim. langs. And to the Teu. Baas may be added that acc. to one of the fairy tales of Wilchem Hauf he was rel-d to the known Tur. I_pasha, being a bash-ruler of a province, but this has to be vulgar etym-gy. Slightly away from here is your I_busy (& the business), what is primarily an imit. (of buzzing), but may be rel-d (in my view) to o. Eastern I_bazaar, & to the boss too, bc. the bosses are usually those doing business. And as far as we have gone for a while to the syl. bi- (as in bik) it is convenient to insert here o. & c. Sl. bûstrûj |I_bu^stru^j| (in Rus., or bistår in Bul., or bistrûj in Ukr., or bystry in Cz. & Pol., or o. båstrå), what means fast, but also clear (for water, in Bul.), what has to be explained with the flowing water which is clear; here are given also: an o. Icl. I_bysja (to flow fast), Norw. boysa (to jump free), also their buse or Swiss I_busa (to throw oneself forward), & so on, but we'll stop here (hoping to come again to smt. sim. later).
Although I may add smt. else, namely the ... I_bus! Here (again) the official version is that it comes from Lat. omnibus, but this is a case form of I_omnia m-ing "all" (|I_phrases|omnia omnibus means "all for the people", omnibus horis is always, in each time, etc.) saying that the bus is a communal vehicle. But (if you ask me) it is strange, why some ending has to be taken as shortening of a long w. (it is like to shorten, say, dirigible to some gible, or democracy to ... mockery 2(& isn't it suitable?)2 ); and even if this is done it is done with some idea in the heads of the people, & that's exactly what I am telling you --- the idea of smt. big, or inflated like a I_bean, which idea we may see in Rus. busû |I_busu^| (small beads, in pl., 2(& add the I_bead too)2 used for necklaces), which were o. Ar. büsre |I_buesre|, which w. has given also our Sl. I_biser (a pearl).
~ ~ ~
Ah well, we have spoken about the Sl. & Eastern god Bog--Baga, so that let be ment-d also our Sl. Gospodþ as synonym (it's in Rus., or I_Gospod in Bul. --- you see, we, the Bul*, don't like much this softening sign, not that we haven't it as char. in the alphabet, we have it, but we almost don't use it; and the more I think about this the more I am inclined to believe that this is bc. ... our women don't like it when "it" is soft, they prefer "it" to be hard 2(& that has to be also the reason why we don't have the w. gentleman)2, but this was small diversion from the holly theme). So the shortest (& poss. vulgar) etym-gy (bc. that was what I thought at 1st) is that Gospod has to be rel-d to the Western I_gospel and understood as Gospod spel (the "God has sung" it), bc. there is much singing in the churches (& people who know this say that o. Heb. texts just cannot be read without singing 2(bc. they had had no vowels in the alphabet)2 ); but you, for your part, may rel. the gospel with the I_gossip|ing, if you like. This may sound not very serious, but looking into some etym-cal dicts it turned out that my guess was, in general, right (though they say ntg. of the kind bc. they don't pose themselves such questions), although let me give 1st the official version & then my comments. Yeah, but for this I have to say some preliminary ws about the strange contradiction btw. Ger. I_Gast (your guest, of course) & your (& Lat.) I_host, bc. the latter is the opposite of the 1st! Well, the point here is not in this who pays the bill, but in taking part in a common meal, also in returning according to the given, bc. I_hostis in Lat. (giving your hostility) was an enemy, a foreigner, and hosteo was to return accordingly (!), but then I_hospes was both a host &/or a guest. From here is their hospitalia (your hospitality), the I_hospital (which is Fr. hôpital 2(read 'opital')2, or Rus. gospitalþ |I_gospital$|), and there were o. Fr. hospel & hospis which have given your hospice & hostel, and Ger. I_Spital, what is a hospice or a hospital (& sounds a bit contemptuous, as if a spitting); the important ideas here (comp-ing hostile with hospitable), in my view, are not only in returning acc. to the received, but in treating of each foreigner as a guest, bc. some other time you may be in the same position & he may be the host.
So, and the official version for I_Gospod(þ) is from Lat. hospitus (a host) combined with potis (powerful), where is also Fr. I_hostie (church host), which is divided very hospitable btw. the church goers (but how you can still accept this heathen habit to chew, like dogs, the 2(would be)2 body of your savior, I can't grasp --- I, for my part, don't eat any part of my Urrh, at least bc. I cannot describe Him, neither His parts; I am not so silly to believe that I know how He looks like). So our Gospod(þ) is the Lat. hospitus (what is not much away from the house, though there other ideas come into play), but He being a host this has given Rus. (etc.) I_gospodin, what is your Mister (& Ger. Magister), & Bul. I_gospodar, what is a boss or master, so that we show nowadays our good manners in seeing in every man some kind of god (what I can't accept as a good idea, b.t.w.). Now about the rel-n I_gospod -- I_gospel: the latter was o. Eng.-Saxon goDspel, where the God is more than obvious, and this also tells us where from your ... I_spell|ing (of the words) comes, so you see that this is a kind of singing; more than this, your I_gossip, really, has to be here bc. it was o. godsibb (again with "d"), given from o. Norw. guðsefi |I_gudhsefi| m-ing a godfather.
~ ~ ~
In this way we have come to the name of I_Christ, which (etym-cally) was coined in o. Greece --- Ηριστοσ --- coming from χρισισ what meant to apply unction, where some grounding & friction is in play (what in my view sounds a bit dull for a name of god 2(bc. I have better name to comp. with)2 ). On the other hand his old names were Jahve (you prefer I_Jehovah) or I_Jesus, which are some awestruck exclams (I've met smw. that Jahve ment "I am" 2(maybe "I was"; >> Ja-I, also was)2 but this doesn't contradict to the said); such is the case with I_Allah too (through the idea of all the things, what is a very old r.). ( There is also o. Heb. Savaoth to which we shell come on unexpected place. ) Yeah, but there are other words near in their s-ing to the name of Christ, so that I'll say smt. about them too. One is Bul. I_hrisim m-ing humble, I_meek (where the latter is poss. imit. of some mooing), which isn't really ours but new Gr. χρισιμοσ m-ing suitable for unction, so that this is a deriv. of Christ (i.e. from χρισισ). Then I may go, with some doubts, to the ... aristocracy (Fr. I_aristocratie, where the interesting part is the beg-ing), which is also o. Gr. (αριστοκρατια) m-ing ruling of the best (of noble families, usually), what reminds me, naturally, about the I_Aristotle (Αριστοτελησ), who, if it may be said so, justified his name. Nobody tells us whether this is rel-d to the unction (bc. the m-ing is sim., & "a-" not always is negation), but there was o. Gr. αριστα |I_arista| m-ing the best, the excellent, and if "a-" is a negation then this may be explained as smt. /smo. not from the I_rest (like also the I_arrest --- you see, there are 2 m-ings of the w. rest, where one is of the left part, and the other is of the state of no activity, but they have to be united with some idea and it has to be this, that we prefer always to be or to have the best, & what isn't αριστα we just leave 2(to rest)2; >> also ... restaurant). ( Well, some of you may say that this 'aris-' is sim. to your arise, but that's the same idea, so that let us not diverge. )
I can't be pretty sure, but this Gr. w. sounds (to me) near to the ... Aryans, and they have come from the Skr. where aryas meant noble, and exactly I_Aryan was a Skr. w. with t.s. m-ing of elected people. This w. hasn't now a good m-ing (after Hitler, who, as I have read, had family name Schicklegruber, & you see well that with such name one cannot make a political 2(or whichever)2 career so that he had thought it better to chose a hit-s-ing name), but there was an Aryan lang. & Aryan people, & from here the name of the country ... I_Iran is given --- though in those ancient times this was name of only a small tribe living on the slopes of Hindukush mountain, but then the sphere of m-ing widened including the whole India, Iran & I_Iraq, and after many cents nearly all nations (i.e.: the Romans, Gr*, Teu*, Slavs, etc.) began to call themselves (or at least to wish to be) Aryans. ( I even find it poss. that Tur. 2(known also in Bul.)2 I_ayran 2(stirred yogurt diluted with water)2 is also influenced by this r., bc. milk is a precious, one may say elected, beverage 2(comp. with gallant later)2. ) In o. Gr. there was also αρειων as brave, the best one, from here is the name Αρειοσ, which, I sup., might have been mutated to Αρησ (though for this >> I_Ares), and (acc. to the Ger. etym-sts) from here has to be their I_Ehre (a fame); I wouldn't be surprised if also Lat. I_ars (your art, not what some of you might have thought) is influenced from this root. In short, & for fun of course, we all may count ourselves aristocrats, & Christ may as well be Aryan.
~ ~ ~
Now, I have already ment-d I_Buddha (& the -ists), who is not exactly a god but a very important prophet, whose name means Awakener & makes a perfect rel-n with Bul. budja (Rus. buditþ |I_budit$|, to wake up) or with bodatþ |I_bodat$| (to prick, stick into), as also with Sl. ... future tense (bûtþ |I_bu^t$| in Rus. is will /shall, from here bådeshte |I_ba^deshte| in Bul., or budushchee in Rus. is a future), after what also your verb I_would may be added. In the Skr. there were, e.g.: I_bhutus as a (well-) being, success, I_bodhati (to awake or make to see; = to Avs. baodaite), or I_bhavati as the verb to be, became, arise, hence this gives aslo your verb to I_be (Ger. ich-I I_bin, du-you bist, etc.), but from bhavati one may reach also (though not strictly etym-cally) to the verb to I_have. But there are very many sim. words (o. Teu. bhen, bhn, beo, bim, binm, ben, etc.), also the known o. Gr. βιοσ |I_bios| (a life or way of life --- the latter more precisely is βιοσισ, from here is Lat I_biosis), then o. Sl. bûti (to be), a Blt. biti, o. Irish buith, Per. bud (it was) or budan (it will became), and if the time isn't so important then also Rus. bûl|I_bu^l| (or Bul. bjah) for "was". I should add also the heard Ar. ... I_ibn (son of smb., or I_ben in Heb., but this is rel-d 2(what is only natural)2 with the father, bc. in o. Semitic I_abu was a father 2(though you may come to this conclusion also reading the 1001 Nights)2 ), then also your I_bud & I_body /buddy (the etym-sts cite a Teu. botich but not what was before), your I_beast (why not? --- at least in Ger. this 2(bist)2 is 2nd pers. sing. from to be), etc. And maybe you have heard that in the Zen-Buddhism I_bodhisattva meant an enlightened person (i.e. a satisfied body --- >> sattva).
~ ~ ~
So, we are moving around diff. gods, but are not done with them yet. Let me turn now your attention to old Greece, where I have already ment-d Zeus, but I may say smt. about I_Poseidon too, namely that he possesses such a big power that may make the things well posed. But, on the other hand (& as a joke), it is poss. that he has made the Rus. ... river I_Don, bc. posèv there is a crop, smt. that grows from seeds, hence he might have planted it. His name, in fact, consists of 2 rs, bc. a r. usually is one or 2 syls (& this has to be, b.t.w., the core idea lying in you building of comparative & superlative forms in 2 diff. ways, depending on the number of syls, say: longer or happier, but more beautiful). The 1st syl. hides the possession (Lat. I_possesio is a possession, & possum is a power 2(& that is the idea of your I_power, though, in my view, this isn't very suitable building bc. it comes near to the poverty; etym-cally it is given from Lat. I_potencia, but, though sim., these rs have to be perceived as diff. --- we shall come to the potency later on)2, or Fr. puissance, what is again a power; or possede, what is possessed), also the posing (in Fr. I_pose is a building of smt., posing or positioning), also the posting (though for the I_post may be applied an imit-al approach of ... saying 'psst', smt. that animal drivers often use 2(at least in Bul., but all horses "understand" only one lang.)2 ), & the possibility (Fr. I_possible), & other ws. If you want to remain in o. Gr. then there ροσον was the question "how much" or "to what extent" --- but do you know why it sounds so? Well, bc. of the compressed air, that says 'påss' when it goes out (it says smm. also 'piss', but that's not what I've in mind here); this forcing out of the air is not always very decent what may be illustrated with Ger. die I_Posse, what is a farce (smt. fem.), or der Posse, what is a joke (smt. masc.), & this masc. Posse is just another name for the Eng. --- sorry --- fart.
Then there is the other part of Ποσειδων (-οσ), which is not only the river I_Don, but also Ger. I_Donau (becoming Danube in Eng.), or poss. your ... I_London (bc. there also flows a river). In o. Gr. δονασ or δωνασ was a cane (which grows on rivers' grounds), δονεω was to shake, stir, run off, excite, what surely is alike your I_down, & Rus. I_dno (dåno in Bul, a bottom), & Ger. I_donnern (to I_thunder), & from the last w. is their often used I_Donnerwetter, what is a polite (acc. to the current views) curse m-ing "by gosh" or "darn it" or "by Jove" (literally it says "thunderous 2(or stormy)2 weather"; in Rus. this idiom is |I_phrases| chërt 2('chjort')2 pobery, lit-ly "the devil take it"). So that, seriously said, I_Poseidon (called also Neptune, brother of Zeus & Pluto) just possesses the dno-bottom, but my funny explans have reasons for existence, bc. the rivers, acc. to many fables, were made by some god or giant throwing smt. (& he has his trident for that purpose), & where this thing falls it makes a hole & the water just pops out.
~ ~ ~
OK, but there was also the Roman god I_Mercurius, who before that was called I_Hermes (Ερμησ in o. Gr., son of Zeus) and he contains very contradictory ideas in his name. On one hand we may come from here to the Eng. murky, which is given as emerged in 13th cent. from o. Teu. I_merkwjo, but this isn't only Western w. bc. t.s. means Rus. I_mrak (a darkness), what is o. & c. Sl. (Church-Sl. morok), with derivs in Rus. like morochitþ |I_morochit$| (to worry, but in sense of meshing things in one's head as if darkening the situation) & morgatþ |I_morgat$| (to wink), but here is cited today's Ger. I_Morgen (your morning --- bc. then the light begins to blink) & even a Skr. I_markas as a darkness. So this was about the dark aspect of Mercurius, bc. he was messenger of the gods & carried human souls through the river Letha in the kingdom of dead of Hades, and bc. of this accompanying he was patron of almost everything --- of travelers & businessmen, of thieves & bandits, of magicians & astrologers (& was often called Hermes Trismegistus, or triple-great), but he went there & returned, i.e. hid & I_emerge|d (hence count also the w. I_merge), & that is why he has also his shining side. Bc. he is, on the other hand, very bright & luminous, having given the name of the nearest to the Sun & the hottest planet, & not only this but the name of the shining, liquid metal mercury (Fr. I_mercure) too (which is I_zhivak in Bul., i.e. smt. alive --- << zhivot); to add that in the morning the light begins to shine, not to disappear.
( B.t.w., having ment-d the morning, let me say that in Rus. it is I_utro, also tomorrow is I_zavtra 2(& zavtrak is a I_breakfast --- which in its turn has to be, I sup., breakfirst, bc. it comes from Ger. Frühstück saying literally "early piece")2, what is also o. & c. Sl. 2(o. zaoutra, Slovenian zajtra, Cz. zeitra /zitra, Bul. utre, Srb. sutra, etc.)2, where, taking aside the prefix za /ze 2(here as "after")2, remains the r. I_utro 2(that's in Bul., or in Cz. I_jitro, or in Srb. jutro, or o. Sl. outro)2 what means exactly morning. For this r. or ws is said that the etym-gy is difficult, but in my view they belong to the cluster to be disc-ed not much later on jour & Jura 2(of fast, rubbing movement)2; poss. this is also the reason for Rus. mercury to be called rtutþ |I_rtut$|, which is also c. Sl. 2(like Cz. rtut, Pol. rteč, & others, but not Bul.)2, what sounds near to the utro 2(where the etym-gy is again dubious, sp-ing about old causes for actions, about the Eros, but this is tasting of the right way and I sup. the rel-ns to the jour & Bul. zhivak are stronger)2. )
When Mercurius was patron of almost all professions, and alternated the light & the darkness, we may search for more rel-d ws, & they, really, are to be found, like: Ger. das I_Mark (a bone-marrow, neutral), die (for fem.) I_Mark (a border 2(to stress that the core & the border may be observed as dual notions!)2, but also the known Ger. Mark as their former currency), the name Mark, if you want, Ger. Marke (as a post mark), also all of the m-ings of your mark, the I_Markt-market (place where wares & money change hands); and in order not to think that this is only Teu. let us go to the Lat. where mercatus is a business or a fair, I_mercator is a tradesman, then your I_mercantile & merchandise (which are Fr.-Lat.), or to cite also Fr. marche as a market (hence << March & Marsch), & so on. ( To squeeze the small remark that your-Lat 2(to)2 I_alternate 2(resp., the alternative)2 has to say that we 2(or smt.)2 returns to its alter-old state, & then again to the last old state, & so on, for what switching movement in other langs usually the w. "pulsate" is used. ) This Mark--Markt surely is rel-d also to the r. of messen-measuring (bc. a fair in Ger. is I_Messe --- i.e. the people go there to I_measure or comp. diff. wares), & to the remembering /marking (I_merken in Ger.) or I_remark|ing, & to ... the murder /morgue (we'll come to this after a while), but coming from a powerful god here has to fit also the ... I_mercy (though it seams strange to say that, e.g., the merchandise comes from the mercy). But then: what means to say I_merci (Fr. for "thank you" 2(stressed on the end, as usual for them)2 ) if not "have mercy with me"? A sim. idea, b.t.w., exists in Rus. I_spasibo (thank you), which is built from: spasi + bog ("Help God!", or rather "God help thee!"), and in Bul. we say I_blagodarja, what is blago + darja (smt. like "Be blessed!"), & >> also gnädig. But there is also Bul. (not exactly Rus.) w. mråsen |I_mra^sen| that means dirty, & mårsja |I_ma^rsja| is to make dirty (with a form "toj mårsi" for "he makes dirty", what sounds exactly as your mercy), and this fits well with the bad m-ing of Eng. I_mercenary (to do all for money). But it is not only this, and don't forget the changing, what here means to return acc-ly (measure for measure).
[|I_comments| Ah, let me insert here some explans about the measure, and why it is so important to return acc-ly --- bc. it was observed from ancient times that this is righteous principle but, still, the only cases when it is applied are usually in form of some vendetta, or eye-for-eye returning, though even this is better than the escalation of power & atrocities. It is simple: there is just a common law for all live forms to react not acc. to the cause, but in a distorted way, or, more precisely, to answer slight causes with stronger effects and, resp., strong causes with slighter effects, but never to return acc. to the cause; or that the law of mechanics for equal reaction to an initial action is not valid for the biological matter. It is only natural --- I'm afraid to say reasonable, bc. such reaction is very primitive, and we have also to make diff-ce btw. a bug (or even a microbe) & a human being ---, bc. this means that if the action is small the subject in question may get rid of it with stronger reaction, and v.v., if the action is strong, then there is no need only to spend energetic resources in fighting such power; in a way this may be viewed as characteristic of some hidden in the organism, as black box device, of some kind of soul (even in the microbe). So it's natural, but too primitive & has to be avoided, though in many social situations it's better if we react just as a log or stone if we can't apply some real judgment, but this inequality of the reaction is so strong with us (I can't tell you where you may read more about this law bc. I have come alone to it but it has to be known & written smw.) that even our social laws are made to comply with it (I mean that if one steals one chicken he/she has to repay at least 10 chickens, but if one kills a dozen persons he can't die more then once, & nowadays we even reject the capital punishment), and we treat our next not acc. to their real deeds but acc. to this law of distorted reaction, to say ntg. about the wars where we determinedly try to exceed all reasonable proportions. So that an eye-for-eye returning is better than ten-eyes-for-an-eye, but there surely may be found a much better reaction --- although, enough moralizing. ]
But there are other ws on the West on mar- m-ing smt. bad, disgusting, or spoiled, where is difficult to judge whether they carry the main idea of marking, or of murmuring (>> mare), or of changing of the light (the mrak-idea), or even of murder, but more probable are the last 2 causes. Let us begin here with Eng. I_mar as to spoil, what has ntg. to do with your merry, but has to do smt. with Rus. maratþ |I_marat$| /zamaratþ as to make dirty, to spoil, or with Bul. mråsen-dirty, and what has (in my view) to form the bottom line of your ... I_mare as female horse --- bc. on it in turn ends your I_nightmare! For (to) mar are given: o. Eng. merran, mierran, Frisian meria, o. Ger. I_marren (to tie smb., to torment), Norw. merja (a bruise, crush), Got. marzjan (to cause a stumble), but ntg. before this; and for maratþ is said that it is o. & c. Sl. (Ukr. marati, Pol. marač as to spread over), & they go to Gr. μορυσσω (to cover with dirt) & Skr. I_upamarayati (to sink into, make it soft), but then say that this isn't much probable (in what I doubt; having in mind the ideas of Morgen -- morgatþ they can be applied also to the sinking into, or covering with dirt; and Lat. mare-sea may also have its saying in the sinking). Then for the mare almost ntg. is given (o. mearh, Gaelic marc, & some marχaz as a horse 2(what may be some neighing, like with the horse >> h.)2 ); and even if in old times people believed (I don't know, but it's poss.) that to dream a (laughing) horse means smt. bad, there, still, has to be some push from another idea hidden in the r. to justify the nightmare (for which there ntg. at all is said). But it is not only this bc. the Sl* use the Fr. w., I_cauchemar ('koshmar'), & it also ends in t.s. way & for it is given an o. maere m-ing an ... incubus (a demon, or a nightmare too). And there are other w. with sim. ideas like: the I_martyr (given from o. Gr. μαρτυσ, but there it meant a witness, what is the idea of the Markt & remarkable things, but from the Lat. onward the m-ing changes, poss. with the ideas that we disc. now), & the I_maroon colour (from Fr. marron, but it is reddish-brown & may be influenced by the ... marinating, but even in this case it hides some tormenting), & one disgusting bird, the ... marabou (from Fr. I_marabout, which has to be zamaran-dirty with smt. bc. of its looks, and, besides, this Fr. w. has to be Ar. bc. it means also a ... Muslim hermit, who, surely, was meant as dirty person --- >> fakir for analogy), & there is also the known Fr. I_marotte (a whim, what also fits with the idea of fast changing), & surely others, but let me stop now here.
Ah, there are other Gr. gods, like Pluto, Ares, Eros, Hera, Pan, etc., but they will be explained in a suitable context, so let me add here only a pair of ws about I_Apollo (Απολλων /-οσ in Gr.), who was god of the light, son of Zeus & Lethe, & who has given (rather v.v., but the important thing is the rel-n, not the direction of building of the ws) your ... I_apology, i.e. Gr. απολογια (an apologetic speech), with m-ing of smt. white, good, beautiful (like Apollo was, & απολαυω was to find a satisfaction or gain), but there might be also other ideas.
~ ~ ~
That's good but there are many other ancient gods and I want to say smt. about one very old god, before the biblical deluge, but in order to come to him I will begin with one curiously s-ing Heb. name, I_Mordokai. The piquant moment is that it sounds very I_murder|ous, or like Bul. (smt. Balkan) jargon mårda |I_ma^rda| (stressed on the end), what is a bad, disgusting guy, so that the Heb* don't use this name much now (at least within the Slavs) & prefer to use lions instead (i.e. Leonid). Naturally, here are many ws around the globe, like: Lat. mort /I_mortus, Rus. (c. Sl.) smertþ |I_smert$| (again murder, death), Ger. Mord or Fr. mort (t.s.), diff. Eng. derivs, Lat. I_morior (to die, what reminds me the sentences |I_sentences|: De mortius nil nisi bene! 2(For the dead 3(say)3 only good things!)2; and Ave Caesar, morituri te salutant! 2(Destined to die greet you, Caesar)2 ), also an Ar. /Per. I_morde (dead), and in the Skr. I may cite the name I_Amaravati m-ing undying (where the beg-ing "a" is for negation, as it's in Gr. & on the West & by the Arabs, mara is our r., and for the end >> walten). There are also assoc-d ws like: Rus. smerdetþ |I_smerdet$| (smårdi in Bul., to stink), Ger. I_moderig (decaying, bad smelling), Bul. (poss. Tur.) mårsha |I_ma^rsha| (decaying corpse), Per. I_murdar (dirty), and not to forget the known Fr. I_merde (exactly a shit). ( There is also Bul. mråvka |I_mra^vka| 2(a piece of cooked meat; the nearest sim-ly s-ing w. here is I_mravka what is ... an ant 3(not that we make this rel-n but it has arisen smh.)3, where the etym-gy is diff. --- >> I_muravej)2, but this is sim. building like you I_morsel. ) Taking into account that the murders are usually done by militaries it is appropriate to assoc. here the Lat. god I_Mars (who will be ment-d later again) & return for a while to the just disc-d I_martyr, who, I sup., is strongly rel-d to him, & if so then add also: the known Fr. I_marauder, the I_marshal, who has to be from the Marsch-march (but from Mars too, bc. only militaries like to march), Ger. morschig as marshy or crumbling (what is nearly the same as moderig & this may be bc. smo. treads on it), your & Lat. I_mortar (either as a kind of glue, or as pot for grinding, or as cannon), & poss. other ws that fit well in the context.
As far as the usual way for murdering used by carnivorous animals, & humans as the most murderous animals (only that we kill not to eat but just for the kick of it), is cutting of the throat (what, b.t.w., is also present in Ger., in the rel-n btw. their Rachen as a throat and I_Rache as a vendetta-revenge) here may be cited also Lat. mordeo (to sting, incise, cut, torment, eat), sim. Fr. I_mordre, etc. In this way we come to the physiognomy in usually jargon usage as in Rus. I_morda (a face) with interesting derivs like: mordastûj (with big & ugly face), mordoboj (a fight with hitting on the face), or I_mordulja (nearly amorous addressing; it can be put even nicer as mordashechka); this morda in Bul. has become I_mutra (surely under Tur. /Gypsy influence; our etym-sts give some It. mutria but I sup. the source for the It. w. has to be t.s.; b.t.w., there is also synonym for the mutra in Tur., I_surat, what has to be rel-d to I_zurla 2(also Tur. & Per. but zurna)2, what is a boar's snout). Smw. around these ws has to be the Tur. jargon I_muruk (again known in Bul.) for a father, which isn't much away from Ger. I_Mutter, that has given your (etc.) mother; also one interesting Bul. (but not Rus.) w., mårdam |I_ma^rdam|, may be ment-d, which means to move, but in the sense of stirring, like what all life forms do. The phonetic core here is some murmuring that may be issued by a killing animal, or by our mouth (or that of the mother or the father), or a buzzing, but it's also rel-d smh. to Sl. wisdom (>> mudrûjvka |I_mra^vka| 2(a piece of cooked meat; the nearest sim-ly s-ing w. here is I_mravka what is ... an ant 3(not that we make this rel-n but it has arisen smh.)3, where the etym-gy is diff. --- >> I_muravej)2, but this is sim. building like you I_morsel. ) Taking into account that the murders are usually done by militaries it is appropriate to assoc. here the Lat. god I_Mars (who will be ment-d later again) & return for a while to the just disc-d I_martyr, who, I sup., is strongly rel-d to him, & if so then add also: the known Fr. I_marauder, the I_marshal, who has to be from the Marsch-march (but from Mars too, bc. only militaries like to march), Ger. morschig as marshy or crumbling (what is nearly the same as moderig & this may be bc. smo. treads on it), your & Lat. I_mortar (either as a kind of glue, or as pot for grinding, or as cannon), & poss. other ws that fit well in the context.
As far as the usual way for murdering used by carnivorous animals, & humans as the most murderous animals (only that we kill not to eat but just for the kick of it), is cutting of the throat (what, b.t.w., is also present in Ger., in the rel-n btw. their Rachen as a throat and I_Rache as a vendetta-revenge) here may be cited also Lat. mordeo (to sting, incise, cut, torment, eat), sim. Fr. I_mordre, etc. In this way we come to the physiognomy in usually jargon usage as in Rus. I_morda (a face) with interesting derivs like: mordast (with big & ugly face), mordoboj (a fight with hitting on the face), or I_mordulja (nearly amorous addressing; it can be put even nicer as mordashechka); this morda in Bul. has become I_mutra (surely under Tur. /Gypsy influence; our etym-sts give some It. mutria but I sup. the source for the It. w. has to be t.s.; b.t.w., there is also synonym for the mutra in Tur., I_surat, what has to be rel-d to I_zurla 2(also Tur. & Per. but zurna)2, what is a boar's snout). Smw. around these ws has to be the Tur. jargon I_muruk (again known in Bul.) for a father, which isn't much away from Ger. I_Mutter, that has given your (etc.) mother; also one interesting Bul. (but not Rus.) w., må |I_ma^rdam|, may be ment-d, which means to move, but in the sense of stirring, like what all life forms do. The phonetic core here is some murmuring that may be issued by a killing animal, or by our mouth (or that of the mother or the father), or a buzzingods (in polytheism), then each of them has his or her functions, and they run into conflicts, what enlivens the situation. In one or another way but there has to be some immaterial power hidden in the matter which causes it to function in the needed way, or, as you have surely heard the sentence: |I_sentences| if Got does not exist, then he has to be invented! I shall dig a little in this stream of thoughts, but if you don't like such philosophizing you may skip the following several paragraphs.
[|I_comments| So let me do this reasoning, and 1st of all: why the good God (in Christianity) doesn't seem a good decision? Well, by many reasons, converging all of them to some logical contradiction, like that God just couldn't be good to all beings, bc. our world (the best possible) is contradictory and one couldn't be good to all (you surely have had many poss-ties to observe this), so that such requirement to God is very egoistic or homo-centered. He might have made our world just for fun (to fill the unlimited time which He has to kill), but we are only one out of million species that He has created, and there are no reasons to believe that He will leave almost all other creatures to perish just to please the humans (or His beloved folk), where the other species (obviously) are more easygoing & behave how He has told them (via the genetic code or otherwise); neither are there any reasons to believe that He will lose His quiet sleep trying to better us (through punishments in Hell, or otherwise), having known in advance that we will not listen to His ws; nor will He be so eagerly interested to hear our prayers, for if He doesn't stand above such egoistic (human) desires He could have hardly been called a god; nor will He try to preserve our souls (which were proven to be bad; or even if some of them are good, but still will never be used to inhabit another body) for ever & ever (even if they are immaterial & don't take place & He has all the place He needed) after we have left the real life; and so on. He couldn't be good and omnipotent, bc. in such case He would have made a life where all the beings (bugs, humans, monkeys, worms, etc.) will be happy forever (like in the paradise), but that was not His goal (to make all living thins, or even all humans, happy); His goal was to make smoothly functioning world. I can well understand that our God has to be good for the purpose of giving us an example, but --- such a God is just too naïve.
Such a Got simply shows that we don't understand that He is not a human being. I will not insist on an exact definition of God, bc. this is very fundamental notion & cannot be exactly defined (bc. to I_define, b.t.w., means to "make it finite"; you know the saying that "to define is to delimit" 2(i.e. to set limits)2, what is sim. in Rus. --- opredelitþ |I_opredelit$|, where predel is a limit ---, and the basic idea here is that the world 2(or the matter)2 is infinite, and when we take smt. from it apart, or decompose the whole, or look at one point, we are usually losing some important characteristics of the object), but you must have some ideas of what God is. I will give here one such draft definition (a la Ben Spinosa) stating that: I_God is some substance (or entity) that is infinite & unlike any material substances, bc. it may be present equally well in all places & in all times but in one & t.s. moment, which substance is undividable (can't be divided in pieces) but exists in the smallest particles (smt. like the I_magnet, which is so called bc. of this magical property; holograms also have this property, though loosing the clarity of image when splitting), and which substance exists forever (& has existed always), it has no cause but is the cause for its (or His, or, then, Her) own existence & the existence of the material world, it really has free will & depends on ntg., and ... but poss. this is enough. From this definition would follow, in particular, that such God can't have any established form or image, or that He may be seen in whatever image He wants to show himself (& His age or sex is of no importance); and being creator of the world He will care for all the living (& not living, inorganic) things (or that He will not care for one single being, but for the life as a whole); and so on. The Christian God has little in common with this idea of God, He has ceased to exist now, the Creation was single act after which He just abides in His "country house" & behaves like a spoiled boy. Well, Christianity exists a long time, hence it can't be so bad, but that's due mainly to the simplicity of the average citizens, and for how long the situation will remain t.s. in the current age I can't say for sure. ( It's true that under the democracy all the media try desperately to turns us to morons 2(>> m.)2 but this isn't so easy now, with all the: satellites, mobiphones, home appliances, computers & robots, virtual reality, genetic engineering, etc. )
On the other hand, the idea for some universe-wide power is everlasting and, although older then the Christianity, is even more contemporary; but the idea of unity of human beings with the other life forms, built into the thesis of reincarnation of the souls, is also modern nowadays, bc. it seems more reasonable and enlivening for the believers. Preferable is also the Islamic lack of exactness in describing of God (He looks like smo. from the 4th dimension), as the uncountable incarnations of the Buddhist's gods are to be preferred, on the contrary to the dogmatic Christian "idolatry"; better is also that they miss some of our "cannibalistic" rituals; or that they set the stress not on the love (bc. people, however you twist it, rel. it to the sex) but on the peace (we shall come again to this); & poss. some other details. ( I am not very exact in the describing of this moments bc., as I have just stressed, the point isn't in the exactness but in the value of the ideas, and let me insert here one remark of Hegel in this line of thoughts, namely that: |I_sentences| the philosophy shouldn't be taken too seriously --- and when such a great philosopher says smt. like this we have to believe him, to see that the philosophy isn't an exact science; and the idea of God is no less general than that of the philosophy, hence it also shouldn't be taken too seriously 2(at least bc. the agnosticism 3(>> gnosticism)3 is often confused with the atheism, & bc. in ancient theosophy all was in one heap)2. ) So that you can see well why the eastern religions attract nowadays even more believers. The Buddhism, f.ex., says that there are 3 major characteristics of the world, namely: |I_sentences| ntg. is perfect, ntg. is constant, & ntg. is separate! Isn't this a perfect philosophy; and where is the good God Who has finished the Creation for 6 days? There is also a Buddhist thesis called I_adavaita saying literally "not to divide" but meaning that there exists just one reality including all --- God or the gods, the unlimited, the everlasting, our world, our souls, etc. --- and it can't be defined, for it can be said only what it isn't, not what it is, and we are part of it (i.e. of God). Or to ment. also that there is no good or bad, all is justified (when you look at it from diff. points)! Or take the meditation --- this medi--metha--messe idea (to be disc-ed later) is simply famous, bc. this isn't just a prayer but a way to understand yourself, then the others, then the whole world (if you succeed to reach the condition of "thought without body").
And smt. more, the Eastern people have smh. felt that our world is incidental and not strictly determined, but its incidentality is what provides for its diversity! Even in o. Greece people have liked often to toss lots or dices (leaving to the gods to decide for themselves) but the Christianity, and later on our modern sciences, state that the world is determinated --- bc. it's easier to think that by t.s. conditions there will always be t.s. effects, but ... you have heard the saying that |I_sentences| "one cannot enter twice t.s. river". Of course here is meant the time, but not only, bc. --- take the casting of coin. One may think (nowadays) that, provided one can calculate exactly the positions of all the atoms & their movements, then he will be able to say which side exactly the coin will fall. Yes but ... no, bc. on atomic level there arises the so called Brownian motion of particles which is chaotic (more precisely, it had to be formulated Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle saying that one can never know in every moment both: the position of a particle 2(its coordinates)2 and its momentum 2(the velocity as vector with 3 coordinates)2 ), so that you can calculate ntg.. Something sim. we have with the sexual fertilization (where even if 2(to put it in Ger.)2 the Spritz & the Spritzforme, are t.s., the results, when there are results, are highly diff. --- though now, with the use of genetic engineering, the scientists may be more positive & judge more determinate, but then, you know, arises the question: should they?). One may say: there isn't a big diff-ce whether one cannot calculate bc. this is very difficult (practically imposs.), or bc. smt. in the core of the things forbids us to do this. Yeah, but it is better if the arbitrariness lies in the heart of the matter, is part of the Creation, is unavoidable; or, to put it with the ws of the probabilistic theory: the necessity is incidental and the incidentality is necessary! And there are no reasons to exclude this incidentality from the Creation, even if the world was created intentionally by one or more gods (i.e. God Himself might have put the casualness in the created world, as it is said about the free will by the humans)! But an incidental world does not fit with the ideas of a good God, or even with the Lat.-Gr. Theos--two (excluding the polytheism of o. Gr* where the gods behaved as silly & naïve as the humans; and Skr. Devi where we just feel awestruck), while it fits well with some big power (indifferent to us), or an arch pendant to fall over us.
So, up to my mind, from the times of Christ many things have gone awry, and people, really, have become worse (as is the common belief in many religious circles), when they need more fables to behave better, and still don't. The creation of this monotheistic religion hasn't made people more thoughtful or less egoistic, neither more happy. So that a return to older Eastern religions (even if not always older, bc. the Islam is younger than the Christianity, & the Zen-Buddhism too, and even not polytheistic, bc. the Islam isn't, but built on an Eastern fundament, more chaotic, less illustrative to the image of God, with less dogmatic paradigms, more tolerant to other religions, not only for selected people, etc.) looks unavoidable, bc. the civilizations are moving with the Sun, from India to Persia, to Greece & Europe, to England & America (they NATO-ed the Atlantic), and then surely to Japan, China, & Tibet --- to close the circle, bc. the Earth is round. ( To put these here thoughts in a more sophisticated way, I will cite one phrase I've read that says that: the Western philosophy 2(what is true also for the religion)2 is "overly cerebral & inadequately addressing the non-rational dimensions of life" --- that's it! ) ]
And with this we shall finish our explans of diff. gods and will close this curly parentheses in order to continue further where a new God (I mean, new for you) is waiting for your attention to be introduced by me.
}
IN THE BEGINNING {} WAS THE GOD {} CALLED URRH |I_URRHCHP|
{
He was so called bc. this is the best poss. name for a god on the whole globe --- hence, in the Solar system too, for sure. Look at the names of the other gods --- they mean smt., but they don't mean all, where Urrh is just all that ... I_urge|s the life! His name is Ger. prefix I_ur-, which means very old (like your I_ere), but also just or right, bc. the ur-things stand near to the Creation (when all was designed good but later the people spoiled this good beg-ing), & that is why I_urteilen means to make a decision, to judge, and then here is also your I_ordeal (Fr. ordalie what is medieval prosecution court). This is also the Ger. cause (I_Ursache), & Scan. Goddess of destiny I_Urdar, & your (it has to be Fr.-Lat.) I_coerce that forces us to do smt. that my Urrh has told (maybe, it can't be said for sure bc. you've forgotten now the verb "erce"). Then --- why not? --- the Rus. mountain I_Ural /Urals (ur + alt, I'll say), & there was also a place called Urr (Haldeian) in the valley of Euphrates, smw. near Babylon, what was the place of birth of the biblical Abraham (so that it is most probable, I think, that the o. Heb* didn't get right Urrh's name and decided to call him Jahve). Surely your I_early is also to be cited here, together with the I_Earl as man of early (poss. up to Urrh?) & renowned origin. ( And let me explain here that your 2(i.e. Fr. & It.)2 I_Count, used as equivalent for other nations' Earls, means that he is who ... counts, of course --- bc. you don't believe he counts, say, chickens; from here are also the county & the I_country --- as ruled by a Count 2(comp. with Graf later)2. Well, that is what the Eng* think, I sup., but in It., where it is Conte /Contessa 2(or in Fr. where they change "n" to "m")2, the main idea may be that of continuity; OK, but let me add that in It. the land-workers are called I_contadino /-a, what, if you ask me, has to be understood as serfs. )
Then we may go to Lat. (Ger., Sl., etc.) I_urna (urn in Eng., a place for the dust of burned ur-parents), or to their ... I_urina what isn't only urine but also sperm (i.e. the genes of older generations); then to Lat. I_Urania (o. Gr. Ουρανια) --- not only as the planet Uranus, this has come later, but as Muse of astronomy, i.e. this is the burning of Creation (Lat. Uranus was god of the heaven in o. Gr.), and here is also the well-known element I_uranium (bc. it has some ur-anima). Then comes the ... geological period I_Jura (Jurassic for you, the time when all had begun to grow fast, to procreate), but the r. has many variations like: Tur. ... I_yorgan (thick blanket), or Asian I_jurta (a tent made out of animal's skins), or Bul. I_jurvam se (to throw oneself fast forward) what comes from Tur. yüryüş |I_yueryuesh| (an exclam. for fast movement --- & I sup. you've been smh. influenced by this r. in the building of Eng. ... I_rush, hours or not), or take also Rus. I_ujut (a cozy place) & I_prijut (a hostel). To follow with: Fr. I_jour (a day, i.e. when the sun shines; or I_giorno 2('dzhorno')2 in It.) & I_journal (daily paper) & aujourd'hui ('ozhurdjui', today), then with Bul. I_zhuri /prezhurja (strong heat), or with the well known ... I_jury (& jurisprudence), what comes directly from Fr. I_jureur (a giver of oath, but also one who ... curses, bc. his ws make "yüryüş" when sp-ing); and then in Lat. we have juratus as a member of jury, but I_jurea as ... some food for dogs (smt. dzhurkano 2(from I_dzhurkam)2 in Bul., or smashed & stirred). In a way, it may be said that the I_Aryan|s, & I_Iran & I_Iraq, are a kind of "Urrhanians", bc. they are old folks, & hot & lively & boisterous; maybe the Teu. name I_Jurgen or Jorgen (-son) also carries some sim. idea.
~ ~ ~
But this is just the beg-ing bc. here are almost all the I_right things, namely: Gr. ορθοσ (right, upright) or Lat. I_orthogonal & orthodox, & Lat. I_ordino (to order in line, to rule or set) or ordo (a line, row, level, etc.), and here is your I_order (& Sl. I_orden in one of the m-ings of the order as sign for deserts) & also the (co-) ordinates (bc. there is an implied order on them), & so on. ( This order of numbers on the axis, b.t.w., is very important part of mathematical education in the schools, & the most difficult one --- bc. the children are taught how to do arithmetical operations but in doing so 2(especially by calculator)2 they lose the order & look at the numbers as if they are icons or pictures; this continues up to grown age for, I'd estimate, 90 % of the people, what is cleverly 2(though I wouldn't say honestly)2 used in setting the prices in the shops, where almost always they are below smt. 2(e.g.: 7.99 or 19.90 or the like)2. ) The right things, however, usually come from the East (with the Sun & the beg-ing; and the Ger* use for the Eastern countries the beautiful w. Morgenländer 2(morning countries)2 ), but in other ws this is the I_orient & the I_origin, or Lat. oriens (rising sun), or I_oriri (to rise), or orior (to begin, to soar high).
Then comes Ger. I_Ort (a place, from here is the I_Kurort-resort), then Tur. orta (a mean or center) & I_ortak (a coworker, camarad), poss. Gr. αορτη (I_aorta, as smt. out of the heart as an important Ort), then old Ar. (& so on) I_ar as a measure for land (khar in Per.) which gives Bul. (also Ger.) I_ar /hektar (in Rus. it's I_gektar) as also the arshin (archaic in Bul. bc. it's Tur. arşin |I_arshin|), or the Eng. I_acre, or Ger. I_Acker (a field, piece of land) and ackern is to work this land, to plough (& in Heb. aker means t.s.). So in this way we moved from the measures of space --- and you may look at the old eastern I_bazaar as build from some 'båzz' (<< busy) + ar --- to the digging & scratching of the earth --- &, of course, here is the I_Earth itself (I_Erde in Ger. --- made by Urrh, isn't it so?) --- and this activity is also very old, bc. there is o. Sl. I_ora (I_orati, which is old bc. it has Skr. ending -ti for verbs), known also in the Blt. langs (as: arti, art, aru, etc.), in Lat. too (I_aro, aratum, are), there was also an o. Irish airim, or Got. arjan (all this m-ing to plough, to make furrow), & here, surely, has to be your I_arable (land) too, which couldn't be explained otherwise (unless you think that it, hmm, is smt. taken from the Arabs?). Here is also Bul. I_ralo (a plough), then our rataj (land worker, archaic), etc. And surely also the known I_art, or I_ars in Lat.(but don't think about the Eng. arse at present) with all its derivs --- & allow me to tell you here one useful Lat. saying, namely: "Ars est celare artem!", m-ing that the art is in the mastery to hide it.
Ah, there is an interesting point --- b.t.w., the w. I_interest comes from Lat. I_terra with the idea of smt. hidden in or under the earth (some tasty radix, maybe), and the terra itself (which may be just another name of Urrh --- who can prove the opposite?) has to have been coined in o. Rome but rel-d (I sup.) to o. Gr. Ταρταροσ (in Lat. I_Tartarus) what is the hell (the under-terra) & from here is your (i.e. Fr.) I_terrible (corresponding with Gr. ταρταρειοσ), but also your tar & I_tarmac (& tarpaulin), bc. in Per. I_tar means black (it has other m-ings too, but mark that in old times the black colour was imagined as a mixture of many colour particles); also tor in Afghani means a fear. And smt. more, Tartarus corresponds very well with ... hmm, with the name I_Tartar (or tatari in Bul., in pl., I_tatarin in sing., or tatar in Rus.), and, I am sorry to tell this, but in Rum. exactly I_tatari is a verb m-ing ... to curse (what isn't so strange bc. in Rus. sim. joke is made with the name of the I_Arab|s where arap 2(not arab)2 is jargon for a bandit; they have also the jargon verb erepenitþsja |I_erepenit$sja| as to behave boastful, which might also be in this "Arabic" sense).
So, and the interesting point (about which I haven't forgotten, I just postponed it a little) is that many contrary notions usually sound sim. (like: mini -- micro, hyper -- hypo, big -- bit, etc.) and here I have to the I_right or righteous things (I_Ort--ordo) to add also the I_wrong or erroneous. This gives us, f.ex.: Lat. I_errare (going usually with humanum est) or I_irren in Ger. (to err for you), your ire (I_ira in Lat., a hate or anger --- you see that one or 2 "r"s are just for distinction but the r. is t.s.), also the I_iron (bc. it is hard), Lat. I_iris (there was also o. Gr. iris) what isn't iris as flower but a ... hedgehog (I_Igel in Ger., what is due to the sharp spines placed on its back, and, b.t.w., in Rus. I_igla is ... a needle; where their I_spina means a back or backbone, like your & Lat. I_spinal m-ing a vertebrae, which has hard vertices or spikes 2(left from the dinosaurs &, poss., the dragons, a?)2 ), but the flowers are here bc. the irises have sharp leaves; & the iridescence (& the iris of the ayes) is also here bc. the diff. colours in the rainbow stick out in sim. way! Here is also the irony (I_ironia in Lat., & irrisis is a derision), and the Rus erepenitþsja may carry this erroneous & sticking-out idea, and, obviously for me (though not so for the etym-sts) must be all the ... I_Irish|men (& -women) or the country Ireland --- to tell you that in Ger. der I_Ire is an Irishman, but die Irre is an error! Well, one can understand the specialists who don't want to state in the open that all Irish are, sorry, Esels (Ger. for an ass or donkey --- from the last, b.t.w., is Bul. jargon dånki |I_da^nki|, what are jeans, denims), though their behavior (as it is well known) is sim.; and so they (the etym-sts) say that the name Irish was based "hidden" on o. Irish Eriu (i.e. I_Eire) with old forms: irise, iriss, Hyrisch, etc. which had to have come from --- would you believe it? --- I_Hiberian, or Iverna, or Inverna, what is, in fact, Spain, but phonetically this were not pretty clear. OK, it surely isn't clear, but it's also not probable, and what is clear for me is that the o. Eriu is just a cry of exaltation (of seeing Urrh, maybe?), & all the irisses & Invernas are just assocs in the heads of the old Englishmen (and, again b.t.w., there are many sim. rel-ns, like e.g.: Turkey -- I_turkey 2(what is bc. of the red meat of the fowl, but, still, it doesn't sound polite)2; Ger. I_Schwabe -- Schabe 2(a cockroach)2; Rus. nemtzû |I_nemtzu^| for the Ger*, where nemoj is ... dumb --- i.e. they can't speak our Sl. langs; etc., to what we shall come again).
~ ~ ~
But let us return to the hard work (aro--ora--arable), bc. when it is done often some particles are produced and they may be the so called I_chronos|ses, i.e. parts of the time (that give us the I_chronicle|s, chronology, synchronizing |I_synchronize|, etc.), which are here bc. the time in Lat. is I_hora, in It. & Rum. is I_ora, in o. Gr. was ωρα, in Ger. I_Uhr is a clock, & here is your hour (Fr. heure, read 'jor') & the I_era, & so on. But, look here, they are just parts of smt., & in some cases they may be even stars --- as it is with the ... I_horoscope|s (Gr. ωροσκοπιον) ---, but this may also be some space --- as it is in o. Gr. χωριον |I_ho^rion| what is a village, or χωροσ |I_ho^ros| what is a space, or χωρισω what is to separate & gives the well known ... I_horizon (bc. it separates what can be seen from what can't be 2(or, rather, the sky from the sea, bc. it is to be seen good only on the sea)2 ). Still, this isn't all, bc. if in Gr. we change "ω" to "ο" then we come to some groups of people who usually play dances (when many people gather together they either sing & dance, or, else, make wars, to what we shall come after a while), as it is in: χορεια |I_horeia| (a group of people), χοροσ |I_horos| (a dance, or a ball) --- from here is Bul. national dance I_horo (stressed on the end, which turns out was horra in o. Heb. too), & even the plural for an human (in Bul.), i.e. people, is I_hora (stressed now on the 1st syl.), what is not Sl. (>> ljudi, in Rus.) ---, then χοροδραμα is ... a ballet, and then come your 2 choruses (I_chorus & I_choir), & the ... I_aria & the I_area. The fact that the time and the space are often confused may be proven also by Eng. ... I_always what doesn't mean everywhere (from "way"), but this is present in many langs bc. in Ger. always is I_immer, what has to be split in: im Meer-sea (a sea is a spatial notion), & in Bul. we say vseki påt, where påt is a way. And let me add smt. about the work, which may have diff. variants like: Ger. I_arbeiten, or Rus. rabotatþ |I_rabotat$|, or Chapek's I_robot|s, or (why not?) the I_Arab|s themselves, bc. they are "children of the desert" (acc. to some etym-gies), but there were Per. I_arabah as a cart, and Ar. I_rabb as a god, master, one who gives sustenance, & you have also heard about the Egyptian God (of the Sun) I_Rah, & about the (o.) Heb. I_rabbi (a priest); though, on the other hand, when one has to do some work he is not very pleased with that, & that is why I_rab in Rus. (Bul., etc., c. Sl.) means ... a slave.
The work, usually, is rotation |I_rotate|, so here is also Lat. I_roto (-are, to rotate), or their rota (a cyclical change), & from here is Rus. (c. Sl.) rota or Ger. I_Rotte (a group of soldiers that can be changed), but also Rus. ... I_vorota what is a door (bc. it rotates around the post!); hence also your I_door & Ger. Tür |I_Tuer| (it I_turn|s around, so count also the turning), & the I_vortex & I_vertex, etc. And other round things, bc. the name ... I_Gibraltar was old & Ar. (I_Jebeltar, with 'dzh') m-ing "a rocky door", & the full m-ing of the r. tor- /tir- /tar- includes: rotation, tension or I_torsion, some high pole, or a hole (from the pole, or, better, the dual image of the pole), then crushing, pressing, & other ideas. So, f.ex.: in o. Gr. θυρα was a door, in Lat. I_torus was a highland or a blowing, but also a marriage & marriage ring (Sacra tori), then the torus is a known mathematical figure (like the saving ring), or take your I_tor as a rock, and sim. Rus. I_toros (big ice block), or their torchatÞ (to stick out or up, what is stårcha |I_sta^rcha| in Bul.), or then your I_torch, or Fr. I_torchere, & so on. Then in Ger. I_Tor, when it's "it" is a door or a goal, but when it's "he" is ... a fool (with an opened mouth, as sign for foolishness); to continue with some additional hints about your ... Tories |I_Tory| like closed, conserved, or Tors in Ger. m-ing (though officially they come from some Irish name). Then there is your I_tire (= tyre, also as a verb) coming poss. directly from Fr. tirer as to pull out or shoot (where from in Rus. I_tir is a booth for shooting with guns 2(the mission being the goal, or the hole)2, also from here is Bul. tire as a hyphen), then come: the I_torsion or torture, the torrent or I_tornado, Lat. I_torso (as "tortured" sculpture!), the ... Heb. I_Tora (as smt. written on a rolled papyrus), the Sp. I_toreador (or torero --- bc. he tortures the poor animals, but also bc. toro in Sp. is a torus and a bull --- confused bc. of the I_Taurus --- << T.), & many others. Ah, but I've almost forgotten about the ... I_tart|s (Torte in Ger., but in many other langs too, even in Fr., where their I_gateau 2('gato')2 is highly mutilated, but, still, has some 'to' left); here are also Sp. I_tortillas, and in Bul. exists the w. I_tor as a ... fertilizer but this may as well be some cow dung (ah, sorry), or be rel-d to turjam (to put into, in Bul., but it sounds like Tur.) --- the etym-sts say it comes from the Scan. God I_Thorr (of the farming), what I personally don't believe, though this God is on the right place here bc. he, surely, is some incarnation of my Urrh!
Then let me say smt. also about the I_car|s (I_carry|ing, etc.), which are known in Bul. (I_karam is to drive, carry, & I_karutza is a cart or I_chariot, though it's not so in Rus.), also the Ger* have the verb I_kehren (to make a turn, or to sweep), where from is their road movement (I_Verkehr), but there was an o. Gr. κορμοσ (a rudder), and Heb.: ker (a turn), I_kereven (to drive), & I_kerme (a rudder, what in Bul. is kormilo, & in Rus. I_korma is the rear part of a ship, i.e. where the rudder is placed). Then may be cited Per. karvan-serai (in Bul. we say karavan-saraj) or karam-serai (a guest-house), and if this might be unknown to some of you there is smt. well known --- the Gr. ... Ικαριοσ (I_Ikarius in Lat., Icarus for you), who has tried to reach the Sun using wings made out of bird's feathers glued with wax but the wax melted & he fell down; let me add also that there is a Tur. kâr |I_kar| ('kjar') m-ing a gain, acquisition (smt. that one has grasped & turned to oneself).
Well, I don't know how you, my dear reader (or my dear readeress --- I have almost forgotten about you), but this karvan-, karam- (karme-) serai brings me to one very important thing --- to the eating --- what is well represented in Rus. I_korm (food for animals) or kormitþ (to feed, usually a baby), or Bul. kråchma |I_kra^chma| (in Rus. it is korchma, a pub), but this is Tur. I_karmak (to feed) or kirma (read 'kårma', food); the etym-sts add also an o. Irish coirm = cuirm (this time a beer), & Lat. cremor (thick sauce, maybe like your I_cream). OK, and how is then to be explained this rel-n btw. the turning & the feeding? Surely this must be some sticking of the throat (or maybe guzzle will be more suitable here?) with many & diff. things, and mark the diff-ce, bc. in Tur. I_karma means mixed, diff. --- but this is the well known Skr. karma what is a Buddhist's principle that all human beings are mixtures of diff. (good & bad) features given to them by the gods; I may add also that in Skr. there was the w. I_sharman m-ing blessed (in "Pantchatantra" is spoken about a personage called Devasharman, whose name meant "from the gods blessed"). But then this is a very big idea, bc., in a way, the karma is all; here is Rus. I_karman (a pocket --- to put diff. things there), what is Tur. karman-korman or karaşik |I_karashik| (mixed), then here is some Lat. I_crumena (also crumin, a moneybag), then their I_carmen (a verse, song, saga or telling, an oath, etc.) or your I_charisma (in pl. charismata, what 2(& the reading with 'ka-')2 tells us that the w. is Gr. --- χαρισμα), or take also Fr. I_charme ('sharm', = to Rus. I_char) & charmant, also an obsolete Rus sharmanka (mechanical music box, laterna in Lat), or Ger. I_Schar (group of people or birds), the ... I_character itself (Gr. χαρακτηρ), Gr. χαρισω, what is to give smt. for ntg. (I_harizvam in Bul.), or their χαιρι what means t.s. as Tur.-Ar. I_hayir (a wellbeing or gain). Ah well, let's break it for a while, to take a breath.
~ ~ ~
OK, now let us continue, bc. in this sense (of χαιρι /hayir-gain-or-pleasure) is Bul. I_haresvam (I like it) coming from Gr. αρεσω (t.s.), & here is also Rus. I_horosho (good, well, usually written on the West as kharasho bc. you are afraid you may drop the beg-ing "h" in Fr. manner 2(what in this case wouldn't be smt. improper)2 ), & their jargon harja (a physiognomy, like your use of the w. mug), which may be traced directly to Gr. χαρη or χαρισ |I_haris| (a charm, beauty), & in o. Gr. this was closely rel-d (in my view) to the ... god of wars Αρησ, who later, in Lat., became I_Mars --- by the mutation I_Ares -- "Mares"! But this is also o. Gr. greeting χαιρε, or Skr. I_hare, usually Krishna (or Am. hi, or Cz. I_ahoi, or Ger. I_heil, etc., but the West has lost the most important sound "r"), and here is the known Tur. ... I_harem (bc. it's kharasho to have a harem, with a Schar of beautiful women's haris there, isn't it?). Still, we have not finished with the r. 'har-' bc. here are Tur.-Ar. I_harami|s (haramii in Bul.), who are a kind of bandits but they are followers of Ares, also one Bul. dialect (from Tur.), harman (a place for gathering of the crop, trashing-floor --- what reminds me about your ... harvest, where the beg-ing is t.s. 2(&, as far as you live on the West 3(as I sup.)3, it may as well end on -vest, am I right?)2 ); then comes the well known Lat.-Gr. I_harmonia (a harmony) coming from o. Gr. χαρμονη (a happiness, state of bliss; but who can forbid me to split it in: (H)Urrh + mono?), or also χαρμη what is --- & that is an important point --- a battle, war, winning (having given your I_harm; poss. also your I_harass, what is btw. haresvam as inverted 2(or perverted)2 love & the harm, unless you confuse it with the harness, but this is still around this r.). And the bliss or harmony is rel-d to the wars from ancient times bc. women just like military men (& men like battles), and, mark, that acc. to the Gr. mythology Harmonia was daughter of Mars-Ares & Venus (Venice), i.e. of the war & the beauty!
And there are also Tur. I_armagans (presents), o. Gr. αρμαγια (a provision with food etc., but we shall return to the food), Tur.-Ar. harç |I_harch| as expences (meant for things that we haresvame-like), together with Bul. I_harcha as to spend, & Rus. (from their South) ... mutton-soup I_harcho (stressed on the end), then the I_cherubs (Heruvimes), I_hormones, the hermetization |I_hermetize|, the Gr. God I_Hermes (Ερμησ), who was son of Zeus (& by the Rom* became Mercurius) & ruled over almost everything --- business, trade, travelers (for he was that who carried the souls through the river Letha in the realm of dead), he was also god of the thieves & bandits, of magic & astrology (we have spoken about Mercurius). The rel-n of the food to the expenses for it, b.t.w., exists not only in the just ment-d harç -- harcho, but also in Rus. I_trata as an expense (or tratitþ as to spend, or terjatþ |I_terjat$| as to lose, with I_poterja as a loss), which is also Ukr. I_tratiti (to spend, lose, give out) or Cz. tratiti, etc. (o. & c. Sl.), though also Ger. archaic Tratte, given from It. I_tratte m-ing an overdue voucher, this for one thing, & for another thing (the eating) is the known It. I_trattoria as a pub or inn (or trattore as an inn-keeper). Here the rubbing (tårkam |I_ta^rkam|, stårzha in Bul., teretþ |I_teret$| in Rus., etc.) or I_trot|ting, grinding (like also in one Blt. I_trnotas = trnots as a whetstone) is obvious (an imit. r.), so that it might be meant that in the pubs we grind our teeth (& the ment-d voucher is then overdue as if being weather-beaten or threadbare), but it might be meant also as an entering (I_treten in Ger.) or stepping there (in Ger. I_Tritt is a step, manner of walking, or even a kick in the ass, figuratively said), what is given from Got. trudan (with o. Icelandic troda, & Eng. I_tread /trod, & I_thread, etc. 2(I may add also the Rus. jargon trahnutþ |I_trahnut$| as to hit 3(even trahatþ as to ... screw in the "other" m-ing)3 )2 ); or one may look in the Lat. where I_traho (tractum, tractere) means to carry, pull, spend, giving the I_tract & the I_track & the I_trace (from the feet of the animal) etc. Here is the Eng. I_treat & Fr. I_traiter too, giving easily (to) I_maltraiter-maltreat, bc. there is your I_threat /threaten (i.e. one is afraid to be trodden upon).
[|I_suggestions| And here I will beg you to allow me to place some more thoughts about the cult to the wars, which is present not only in the "harmonizing battles", there was also a Lat. I_bellum, which obviously is some I_belle thing, but it is given equal to (& derived from) their I_duellum, what (also obviously) is a duel. Or you may take your w. I_military which, surely, is smt. ... very dear to us (>> milûj |I_milu^j|-dear, mild, milk). This is very symptomatic, bc. it is clear that until we stop liking the battles we shall kill ourselves en gross. And if some mills, or even pair of cents, before this might have been observed as a kind of natural selection for bettering of the folks it isn't so nowadays, bc. our strength & power have risen very much. Not only the wars, but also the mass-I_terrorism (rel-d to the Terra--Tartarus), will never cease while we cultivate liking of battles, & we, really, cultivate this --- in all the media of the world every minute goes some action, & not with masked, but with explicit terror in it ---, not just allow the people to have their preferred shows. Of course "money makes the world go round", but you have seen what a "beautiful" beg-ing of the 21st cent. the Am* have had in the autumn of 2001; and, as much as I am displeased to tell it, but the terror attacks won't stop soon! They will not stop bc. people like to fight, bc. the terrorism is an easier war, & bc., on the other hand, nobody tries to fight with the core of the terrorism. What our governments do is to fight with the consequences of the terrorism, not with the causes for it. There are regions of instability where civil wars, or wars btw. neighbouring folks, were fought for cents & mills, but almost noting has been done to solve the cases acc. to the desires of both parts. Or take the initiative not to posses nuclear or bacteriological weapons: it is a very good initiative, but it has to be applied to all countries, not just to the weaker ones. I repeat, many years ago this might have been normal (& the gladiators in ancient Rome have cried in exaltation their "Morituri te salutant!"), but nowadays all "men of the world" have to be ashamed to join the army, & all women have to cease to like macho men (what they, I'm glad to see this, begin to do, though out of other reasons rel-d with the emancipation) --- not that there should not be armies at all, no, they surely have to exist for many more cents, but people have to accept this as some needed but shameful work (like, say, sweeping of streets, clearing of garbage cans, prostitution, or, hmm, going into politics). This might seem an utopia (& it is very like it), but otherwise we will become one police, not state, but world, where everyone will be followed everywhere by cameras (also at home, in the toilets, etc.), & finger prints (& full genetic information) will be taken for all the people (not only for the criminals), & we won't like this much. You have maybe heard that in the 1st years of the production of cars there wasn't compulsive car registration, but later on, when it became obvious that these speeding "beasts" may cause heavy casualties, proper lows were introduced. So that the situation now is sim., and the choice is ours. ]
OK, sp-ing about armagans & haramis I may remind you that there was a ... Great Armada, and may come in this way to the I_arm, where you know that the latter means (in Eng.) a hand &/or a weapon, and I may continue then with other ws like: the armory or I_armour (Lat. arma), armistice, armament, I_armature, etc.; but, on the other hand, this may mean also smt. poor, what is exactly the m-ing of Ger. arm (as an adj., with the idea, probably, of our naked hands; where as noun the hand is der I_Arm). Still this isn't all bc. in Ar. (acc. to the Koran) I_amr (& arm- or amr- is t.s. r.) was a goal, intention, order, work, deed, or will, and this is a widely spread r. (namely I/E. ar(å)-) with m-ing of: to build, make, stick in, put, & other things, what is traced upto Skr. I_irma(h) or Avs. aråma as a hand. From here o. Gr. αρθρον (a joint or phalanx) has arisen, which has given: the I_arthritis, your ment-d art (i.e. Ger. I_Art & Lat. ars), the I_article|s, I_artist|s, etc. (poss. the ... I_theater 2(théâtre in Fr.)2 is: Theos + some ars-art). But there was also an o. Gr. αρμα as a chariot, and αρμενοσ as: decent, well-done, suitable, so that it is highly poss. for the name of ... I_Armenia to be of that r. too, bc. it was known in Ancient Gr. & coming from Per. Armaniya. In the Sl. langs the hand (not the weapon) is slightly modified (in Rus. it is I_ruka) but in Bul. we say I_ramo for the upper part of the arm, & there was Arm. I_armuku as a hand-ankle, & you surely have heard about the God I_Rahma (an incarnation of Vishnu, who was the doer), who must have been very deft with his arms, especially taking into account that Hindu gods have usually 4 arms.
But let me return to the shar- /kar- r. where is Rus. I_shar what is a ball (but it runs, turns, looks diff., like the Earth), then the ... painting in Bul. is I_sharja (now a bit obsolete), and it comes from old times, from some Sumerian shar, and if you may not believe this then you surely have heard about the country I_Shri Lanka (obviously a beautiful country), where Shri in Skr. was the name of the wife of Vishnu (& her synonym name was Lakshmi what leads us to Ger. I_lachen or Eng. laugh, but that is another matter). I may add also the so called I_Sharia law that is used in some Muslim countries and, though we may not like it, it is clear that for the Muslims it means smt. Shri (i.e. beautiful). The Rus* have also the verb sharitþ |I_sharit$| though this is not to paint but to I_search, what is the m-ing of the known Fr. I_chercher (|I_phrases| Cherchez la femme!), but this must be smh. rel-d to the shars-balls (bc. the Rus* use the phrase: hotþ sharom pokati, m-ing that there is ntg. to find, even if you sweep very carefully, but it's sup-d that they throw-katatþ some balls 2(though I can't tell you why --- maybe here lies hidden the naïve idea that if you've lost, say, a coin, you have to throw another one & it will lead you to the 1st)2 ); it is also rel-d to the scratching that accompanied the painting, bc. there is the international w. ... I_charlatan (in Fr., or ciarlatano 2('cha...')2 in It., or sharlatan in Rus., etc.) m-ing --- well, smt. what all the politician are, bc. they usually "paint" the things (synonym to this is Fr. masquerade, what is from another r.); there are also Rus. sharadû |I_sharadu^|, what are pictures or riddles for guessing. And then, why not to cite your I_chart (or Ger. I_Karte), or Rus. chertitþ |I_chertit$| (to paint or draw), and so on? This is rel-d to the Skr. shri & the I_karma bc. the usual way to paint is to use only one colour, but do you know which is the best colour? Well, if you don't know (& don't know ancient langs) then just ask the Rus*, who say krasnûj |I_krasnu^j| for red, & have their Read Square (Krasnaja Ploshchadþ) in Moscow, what is nearly t.s. as their krasivûj |I_krasivu^j| (nice, beautiful), where from krasavitza (shorten in o. times to krasà) means a beauty! But this is a very good colour (bright, as if crying out loud --- bc. of the rel-n to your I_cry) also for the Ger* (I_scharlach) & the Fr* (I_carmine), & the Tur* (<< Turkey), & so on; in Bul. we also say krasiv (for beautiful), but have hubav too, what, b.t.w., is Ger. hübsch |I_huebsch|, what goes back to some o. Asian c. root).
~ ~ ~
Still, for to chart or paint one must also scratch or cut, and I have begun to speak about the food & not finished, hence here comes the special Eng. w. ... (to) I_carve, what is not just a knife (or to cut) but such one designed for cutting especially of meat, and this meat is (what is poss. known to some of the readers) the Skr. I_kravis (raw meat)! But coming from the Skr. and being raw (or crude, in a way) this gives the blood & the cow & the knife in many langs. Such ws are, e.g.: Bul. I_krava (I_korova in Rus.) what is a I_cow (your w. may also be counted here but you have, again, missed the important scratching sound "r"), then Rus. krovþ |I_krov$| (a blood, kråv in Bul., krv in Srb., etc.), then Avs. I_hru (a piece of raw meat), and o. Gr. χραω (to want, need --- here m-ing to eat, I sup.) & is said that from here Bul. I_hrana (any food) might have come. ( On the other hand I sup. our hrana may be traced also to Fr. I_rente, or Eng. I_rend /rent 2(as smt. torn)2, or Sp. I_rancho-ranch, and this, b.t.w., is the 2nd part of the ... I_restaurant 2(or take the It. variant ristorante as more suitable for splitting in 2 ws)2, what is a place for both rest & feeding; as to the 1st part of the restaurant there are: Ger. I_Rast as rest, state of doing ntg., your restoration & Lat. I_restauro, also the rest as smt. left, i.e. restored 2(<< also Christ)2, but these both rs 2(resting & feeding)2 sound sim. & the m-ings are rel-d, so that they may be smm. confused, like in Sl. where 2(though of diff. r.)2 I_gostinitza in Rus. is a hotel but gostilnitza in Bul. is a tavern or pub. ) If we return to the carving (what isn't only Eng., there were o. Ger. karven & Dan. kerven), then this gives also one Bul. w., I_karfitza (a pin), also the ... I_graphic|s, which comes from o. Gr. γραφω (as to scratch, write, or carve), then the I_carcass (which may be jointed with the ... car too), then Fr. chirurgie or Lat. I_chirurgia (you have modified chirurgus to chirurgian & then to I_surgeon), which latter ws have to come from o. Gr. χαρασσω (to cut, carve, sharpen), & this (besides reminding us about the haramis as cutthroats) is in the same heap with the Japanese ... I_hara-kiri (which w. has synonym, I_seppuku, what I dare to translate as "to split myself" --- bc. of Bul. imit. w. pukam as to burst, split 2(but >> pukatþ later for piquant details)2 ).
But this, still, isn't all, bc. Western meat isn't only from this r., there is also Lat. I_caro (a meat) or Fr. I_carne (t.s.), or Bul. I_karnache (a kind of sausage for roasting filled with raw farce), and Lat. I_carnalia (meat shop) or carnalis (= I_carnal), also your carnage (what is Fr.), & the I_carrion (unless you think this is smt. that has to be carried out & thrown away 2(but then the m-ings are rel-d)2 ), and the sim. Bul. I_karantija (tripe & other intestines), then the ... I_carnation (bc. it usually is crimson like blood), the I_carpenter, if you want (bc. he carves the wood), etc. Here is also the known carnival (It. I_carnevale), which comes from late Lat. carnelevarium m-ing: to I_levo (Lat. for to diminish --- from here, b.t.w., you may reach to your ... I_left, or Ger. I_links, or Rus. levûj |I_levu^j|, etc.) the carne-meat! But there is even more to this bc. the r. contains the curve (of the horns of the cow, we've spoken about this) & here are also, e.g.: Ger. Kürbis |I_Kuerbis| (a ... pumpkin), o. Prussian kurvis (a bull), o. Gr. χαραοσ (= κεραοσ |I_keraos|, smt. with horns), Lat. cervus (an elk or deer) & the sim. I_cervix (a neck or throat --- smt. twisted & carved), Lat. I_carnivorus (not bc. these animals have horns, but bc. they eat the carne of other animals 2(usually horned --- bc. if you are a lion you don't need horns but if you eat grass you need smt. to defend yourself)2 ), & even in the Skr. I_carvati meant to chew (where the chewing is like the carving); if you like you may count here also Ger. I_Kurve as a curve, but also in the m-ing of a "bad" woman, prostitute (bc. she has gone awry).
Poss. it wouldn't be bad to shed here a bit more light over the curved Kürbis |I_Kuerbis|, bc. there is Ger. I_Korb as a basket (& if you find time to make a basket & begin to twist the twigs, you'll see that it would become curved of itself. or izkoruben as Bul. dialect), but it has a brother by the Sl* & on the East, namely I_torba (as Rus. southern dialect, Bul., Pol., etc., coming from Tur., Tar., Azr., etc.; the stressing may vary), what is smt. sim., a bag or sack; there was even an o. Rus. torbasû as boots made out of elk's skin (from Yakutian 2(around Kamchatka)2 ätärbäs). And as to the I_Korb there are given: Lat. corbis (= corbem, t.s.), Heb. korb (t.s., from here korbn was ... a prey --- bc. it's sup-d to be put in the bag or basket), an I/G. r. (s)kerb- (to turn, twist, bend, grind), also Lat. (but coming from Heb.) I_corban as a present, which, surely, is the known Tur. (Muslim) I_kurban (religious festivity). ( To the Korb is added 2(by the etym-sts)2 that Ger. phrase:|I_phrases| jemandem einen Korb geben, m-ing to cheat smb., to leave him with empty hands, has arisen from the tradition for young girls or ladies in old times to lower on a rope down the window of a house or castle a basket & to heave up their lover it the basket 2(what brave girls, ah?)2, but when he wasn't wanted they lowered him an old basket without bottom. ) On the other hand this I/G. r. reminds me Sl. skorbþ |I_skorb$| (in Rus., or skråb in Bul.), what is a sorrow (smt. that I_scratch|es us from inside, or twists us like a Korb); then comes (why not?) the I_orbit (in all langs, surely of circular form), together with the heard Lat. I_urbis (a town, city 2(to ment. the phrase|I_phrases|: urbi at orbi, m-ing "to the town & the orbit-world")2, from here is the urbanization); then here is ment-d the ... I_harp (I_arfa in Sl., o. Gr. αρπη), bc. to play it one has to curve his/her fingers like hooks, what can be seen in Lat. harpe (a knife, or curved sword) or harpes (a bird of prey, or a sickle).
In fact, there are other curved & scratching ws on '(å)rk-', like: Rus. I_arkan (a big hook, from here zaarkanitþ is to catch 2(zakacha in Bul.)2, given from o. Gr. αρπαγη as an oar 2(your latter w. might also be from here but it's too short for one to be sure in this)2, or a hook; << also I_arc), Bul. sårp (or I_serp in Rus., a sickle 2(we also may insert smm. parasitic 's' in the beg-ing, like in your surgeon)2, given from o. Gr. κρωπιον m-ing t.s.), or the Malayan I_cris (curved like a sickle knife), or Lat. I_carpo (to pluck, gather, pinch --- to ment. the Lat. phrase:|I_phrases| carpe diem or "catch the day 2(i.e., the happy moment)2" ), rel-d to new Gr. καρποσ (a fruit, smt. to be plucked) and (in my view) to Ger. I_Karpfen (a carp, so in Rus. 2(karp)2, Cz., Fr., etc. --- with the idea that one "plucks" it out of the rivers), and poss. rel-d also to Ger. I_karg (poor, insufficient). ( The Rus. etym-sts I have used give for the carp some Gr. καπροσ as a fish, but I have found it with diff. m-ing, then cite its name in Lat. as Cyprinus carpio, and their Ger. colleagues say it was from an unknown lang. around the Alps or Danube, but a fish or a sea-"fruit" isn't much diff. & we shall come to the Cyprus on other place. ) Then (as s-ing harp-like) come: the I_harpoon (given from Hol. harpön, but they have to have heard it from smw. bc. there were in o. Gr. those mythical harpies |I_harpy| 2(birds with women's heads, &, hmm, as bad as only women can be)2 ), your I_sharp (i.e. Ger. I_scharf, but we may return to this some time later), & the I_scarf (though it usually covers us & isn't really sharp but thin), then the I_shark too (bc. of its teeth), & the Sl. ... itching, forcing us to scratch ourselves (sårbi |I_sa^rbi| in Bul. /serbit in Rus., what leads us to the ... I_Serb|s, but we shall disc. this later again). Or I may cite also Lat. I_acerbo (to spoil, ferment, what may be intensified to exacerbo m-ing to become full of hatred or malice, what gives your I_exacerbate), or (assoc-ly rel-d bc. of its sharp taste) It. I_aceto (& Bul. I_otzet) what is a vinegar (but only Ger. I_Essig or Rus. I_uksus 2(which as if comes from their ukus-bite)2 are, if not very near to this w., then at least sound disgusting).
Then there's also Bul. I_cherpja as to give smt. (a drink or toast) to smb., as a host to the guests, or there is Rus. cherpatþ as to take with a ladle (& the ladle in Bul. is I_cherpak; there's also a town in Bul., Chirpan, christened so bc. it is placed in a deep natural kettle), so that this is c. & o. Sl. (I_tzrpem in Srb., cherpati in Cz., o. Bul. chråpja, etc.). This giving in small portions is rel-d to the I_serp /sårp-sickle (Rus. /Bul.), also to Bul. kårpja |I_ka^rpja| (to stitch or botch, to repair a torn place --- the opposite action of tearing), then to Bul. kårpa |I_ka^rpa| (a piece of cloth, it might be a hand-I_kerchief 2(hence also this w.)2, head-scarf, or a towel; it isn't Rus., though >> I_kirpich), but the r. is old bc. in Skr. I_krpanas was a sword (or krpani was a dagger); going around 'kr-' as I_grind|ing (you use here 'gr-' instead) are Rus.: kroshitþ (to tear in pieces, usually bread, like your to I_crush) & I_kroshka (a bread crumb, but also a small child), as also okropitþ |I_okropit$| (obsolete for to sprinkle, usually with holy water), & others. ( From cherpja as pouring of smt. & sharitþ as to cherchez-to-search 2(or cercare, 'cher...', in It.)2 one may go to one imit-al root for flowing --- bc. the water turns the pebles like balls --- but to this we shall come on shurtja. )
~ ~ ~
Ah, but there is more to be said about ws on 'år-', bc. the Ger*, as you maybe know, have the very important pronoun I_er m-ing "he", and even a heap of ws for professions in masc. ending on t.s. -er (like: Lehrer-teacher, Bauer-land-worker, Schüler-student, Maler-painter, etc.) --- and if this isn't the name of Urrh, then I don't know what is! Bc. er is a man and he has some organ that is very often (well, as often as poss.) used for urging & for many erotic things, so that we come to the Gr. god Εροσ |I_Eros| (= Ερωσ) & to your I_erection --- ah, maybe not exactly yours, bc., smm., it might be the other people's erection that we are interested in, as is the case with the ... eLection, bc. that's how it is: the folk makes the I_election and the politicians get the erection! [|I_comments| This eager wish, b.t.w., to give pleasure to other people, not to oneself, seems to me mainly feminine trait, but it is welcomed under the democracy, so that one may reasonably ask the question: why the women were for so long (until less than a cent.) exempted from their voting rights, when they would have liked it, and this would be just what the politicians usually want --- to have more voters? Really, it seems a bit silly for the ancient politicians not to have thought this matter through, but then ... then the democracy was meant as a way for finding of reasonable solutions, not just as populist humbug (if you'd excuse my spiteful remarks against it, but, on the other hand, you have to become used to such comments bc. they will happen in other places too). ]
But to return to the erotic things where in o. Gr. were e.g.: ερρω |I_erro^| as to move slowly, with shaking from side to side (maybe with this image in our heads we in Bul. use the verb klatja 2(to shake)2 instead of your skrewing, you know in what m-ing), ερευγομαι as to I_erupt, ερευθοσ as redness (bc., you know, there is no sex without smt. to become I_red, or I_rot in Ger., & this is another rel-n to that colour; so that one may even say that I_Eros is: Eh + rot; or er + rot), or ερωθικα was a holiday dedicated to Eros, or ερωτιασ was (my) beloved, & others. In the Lat. you have heard about the particle I_ergo m-ing "hence", but without Urrh, sorry, Eros (just one more incarnation of Urrh) one could hardly have guessed where from this implication comes (& in the Gr. exists a noun εργον as: a deed, work, battle, etc.); then there is the unit I_erg for measuring of energy (of the erection, maybe?); there is the I_ergonomic|s as a science for environmental & working conditions (as results of some ergon-deeds; or how to make it to be ergo better); there is the I_orgasm, together with the I_organ|s for the purpose (in o. Gr. οργανον was an instrument, but it may be of every poss. kind, not only musical), then may be added the organism (Lat. I_organismus) & the orgies (Lat. I_orgia) & the organization, & so on. But sim. (in many cases) to the prefix I_er- is I_re- (for repeated actions), say: resurrection, recursion, etc., and the Ger* use the w. I_Rektion in grammatical sense (of how to join properly the ws in a sentence) what isn't exactly erection but one may as well imagine that this is like threading of the ws on some stick or needle (not to say prick). This can be connected with the right things, via the w. I_direct (what reminds me also the w. I_correct, meant as raised upward), but there are many old ws, like: Tur. (& Bul.) I_ergen (not married man), their I_hergile (a group, or flock of horses), also I_direk (what in Tur. & Per. is a pole).
Still, we are not done, bc. in Ger. very near to the pronoun I_er (or take the building of comparative form of adjs with the suffix -er, what you have also accepted, & what might be viewed as making of the described value more Urrh-like) stays the w. I_Herr (a man, Mister), & in Lat. also exists heres as a I_heir, & in o. Gr. χηρα was a widow, & then comes your I_heredity. In o. Gr. was also the Goddess I_Hera (Χρα = Χρη) & she was a very important one, wife of Zeus (& daughter of Kronos & Rea), but we must not stick to the women here bc. the point isn't in the gender but in the power & productivity, and Gr. χειρ or χειροσ |I_heiros| (in plural χερασ) is smt. m.o.l. equal to the Lat. manus, i.e. an arm, glove, direction, power, etc. The Rus* have their I_her too, though for them this is exactly ... a phallus (& they surely make some fun with the Ger. Herr, whom they call then I_ger by euphemistic purposes, I sup.). I may cite here also the particle "here" (Ger. I_hier; but also her what is movement to me 2(as if I am the Herr, as it usually is understood)2 ), and now we are moving to diff. cries like: your I_cry, It. I_crescendo, Bul. krjasåk |I_krjasa^k|, Ger. kreischen, etc. In this case here is also Lat. I_oro (orare) what is to speak, to plead, what gives the I_orator; then in Ger. I_Rat is the local governmental body (your rat, b.t.w., just scratches the earth), & in Rus. oratþ |I_orat$| is to cry loud (& orava is a group of children, bc. they often orut-cry). But in Bul., Rus., etc., exists one special cry, I_ura ('uraa', I_hurrah for you), that may be heard mostly on parades &/or wars --- & that is what your I_war, in fact, is ---, here is also Lat. I_ursa (a bear, known from the constellations Ursa Major or Minor; in Fr. it becomes ours, read 'ur'), & Tur. (& Tar.) I_aslan = arslan (a lion), & the Turks say also I_ursus what is to be angry, with wrath (ärgerlich in Ger., so that you may as well count Ger. Ärger |I_Aerger| = to Eng. I_anger, too), & in o. Gr. ορνυσ |I_ornys| meant a bird (giving the I_ornithology), & all this is rel-d to some guttural growling (what is the core of the name Urrh). Well, that's also where from the I_orangutan|s have come, & the guerrillas & I_gorilla|s, & Fr. I_guerre ('ger', a war --- to remind you the phrase:|I_phrases| A la guerre --- comme a la guerre, or "In the war it's like in the war"), & Ger. I_Heer (an army), & the I_hero|es (I_geroj in Rus. /Sl.; and in order not to forget about the god Eros let me tell you that in It. heroism is eroismo and heroic is I_eroico), & Ger. I_Herold (herald for you), etc. Even in an isolated (at least in Central Europe) lang. like the Hun. (but maybe they are more familiar with my Urrh?) I_ural means to govern, rule, uram is Sirs (pl.), & the short I_ur is exactly a Herr, master!
But where the Herrs & the Heers are there are also the hordes --- Ger. I_Horde, Sl. I_orda (the "h" isn't important & has emerged on the West around 15th cent.), Tur. orda or Gr. ορδη, & so on, m-ing a nomadic tribe, which in search of pasture often makes armed strokes & pillages ---, the r. coming from Per. Urdu (such tribe abiding in Hindustani, also their camp), & in Tur. I_urdu means an army. This hordes give us the horrors (horrendos in Lat., I_horreur 2('horjo')2 in Fr., etc.), of course, & poss. have given also Ger. Behörde |I_Behoerde| what is an institution but usually warlike one; though it may be said that this w. comes from Ger. hören |I_hoeren| (to hear), where is your I_hear -- ear (or Ger. I_Ohr what is an ear) & Fr. I_oreille (to hear), what leads us back to Skr. I_karna (an ear), but all this is indirectly rel-d to the wars & cries (& the blood etc., bc.: just comp. karna with karma). The idea of the act of hören-hearing & its s-ing, together with the crowding of many people or particles, gives the sim. I_chord what is not only in mathematical sense but primarily as a string (what is a line of "crowded" particles) and this also is worldwide spread --- Lat. chorda or Gr. χορδη, etc., giving also the I_accord, accordance (accord + dance, a harmony), the accordion, etc. But sp-ing about I_crowd|s we have to see that this w. also sounds Urrh- (or Herr- or war-) like, and here is the place for Ger. I_Kraut what isn't exactly a crowd, it's a cabbage or some weed (Unkraut), but I hope you've got the hidden idea, which is present also in Fr. I_croit ('krua', a procreation --- we have spoken about the creation) or croitre (to grow). Besides, you surely remember the country I_Croatia (called Hrvatsko in Srb., what sounds even more warlike 2(rather, throat-cutting-like)2 )? Well, I don't state that all people there are one big crowd, but you know that they have fought (& they have to like it) and this is just the hidden idea behind their name. Here are also all the crashes --- I_Krach in Ger. & the Sl. langs (krushitþ in Rus.) & so on, then Ger. I_Kram (broken things), then I_krank (ailing person), etc. (I have ment-d that there is no creation without some destruction), but let us not dig deeper here. Still, I may add Rus. kudrû |I_kudru^| what is a hair (bc. it is curled), or kudrjavûj, equal to Bul. kådrav |I_ka^drav| or Cz. kudra (o. Sl.) m-ing I_curly, & your w. too ( bc. 'krd-' or 'krl-' is m.o.l. t.s.); there are other Blt. & Scan. ws, but there are also ... the I_curds here, not only in your m-ing of spoiled milk but as name of a tribe (they should be Kürden |I_Kuerden| in Ger., Kurds for you). And if some of you have observed that kürd- is near to your ... I_curse then he/she may be right, bc. this sounds sim. to the war cries, but then you may as well add also the I_cur, for that's the idea of the cursing.
~ ~ ~
Well, I might have finished here with the name of Urrh, but as far as I have already put smm. 'k' or 'g' in front of it, and the book is thick enough, I may continue for a while with the r.(-s) gor- /ger-, but let it be ment-d in advance that there are many ideas in play here, such like: warlike cries, grasping of smt., scratching or grinding of smt. to dust, & in doing this either greatness or grimness may be implied, or also burning of a fire (there are other rs for this but everything on its proper place) & rising of the smoke up, etc. Let me begin here with Rus. gordostþ |I_gordost$|, what is a I_pride (where your w. also sounds sim., but for it better >> Praline), and this might be bc. one thinks that he/she is I_great (hence, add the last w., too), but, better, bc. the proud person heaves his nose or looks up, what is I_gore /nagore in Bul.; or take Rus. I_gora, what is a mountain, & together with this the burning of the fire still remains hidden smw., bc. I_gorja in Bul, (or gorit /goretþ in Rus.) is to burn. In all cases gore is c. Sl., but its m-ing varies &, f.ex., in Pol. gora is a mountain (like in Rus. & most of the Sl. langs) or also a mansard (top flour) or a movement to above (ah, your w. I_above poss. has to say that when you put one thing above some other then it says 'båf' or puff), but in Bul. gore is up/above & gora is a forest & it burns, though not always grows on mountains (poss. it is meant that a tree is smt. high, looked from below), but is rel-d to the burning also via Rus. garþ |I_gar$| or Bul. I_zhar (glowing coals). ( B.t.w., your I_forest, which is also Fr. forêt, is from Teu. origin bc. in Ger. Forst is a kept forest, & Förster is your forester, & has to be rel-d with the burning through the r. of the fire. ) The w. gora isn't smt. unique for the Sl* only, bc. there was an o. Teu. (Prussic) garian m-ing a tree, then even Skr. I_giris (& Avs. gairi, I_gar, or gir) m-ing a mountain; & I shall go also to the o. Greece where, some of you must have heard, was their αγορα (in Lat. also I_agora) what was: their Parliament, or a meeting, or stock of wares (i.e. heap of smt.), in today's lang. it is just smt. bought (but it, still, is not clear whether the point is in the heaping it, or in some crying or in both, bc. αγειρω is to summon, or I_acquire 2(what in turn isn't away from the Gr. w., come to think of it)2 ); there was also an o. Gr. οροσ |I_oros|, what was a forest but also ... curd, & a furrow, & other (shrunken) things.
You may feel that now we as if returned to the orators, but also to some ... boiling or eruption, what allows me to ment. here also Ger. gären |I_gaeren|, what is to brew or boil, but at t.s. time die Gäre is fertilized, rich soil, Garküche |I_Garkueche| is a cheap pub, the short I_gar is cooked or ready or enough (usually used in negative --- gar nicht is "not at all"), and this process of fermenting (in my view) is what rel-s the burning & rising & the guttural s-ing of the root. In Fr. also exist some gar- things, like their well known I_gare (a station, literally used in Bul. too), which was so called bc. this is also a cry to keep off the way (in Bul. we say I_varda, poss. of Tur. origin 2(though there is also It. I_badare as to watch, take care, i.e. to drive away the unwanted; and mark the changing of 'v' to 'b')2, with t.s. purpose), so that here the m-ing of gare has to be of a place where the coach cries smt. to stop; from here the widely used Fr.-Ger. I_garage has arisen; and poss. their garçon |I_garcon| is also in this sense (he waits for smb. to call him with some "gare"-cry; or he is rel-d to Ger. Göre --- >> G.). And then I made one hazardous jump to one Bul. dialect, I_geran, what is a water-well, supposing that this is a place where the water brews, and rising up or falling down is m.o.l. t.s. (thought I), but here I must confess that this turned out not to be the case.
Still, it is interesting to be ment-d, bc. here the crying plays the major role, but this time not of men but of ... birds! What I mean is that in Gr. γερανοσ is what in Bul. is I_zherav (in Rus. it's zhuravlþ) or in Ger. is I_Kranich or in Eng. is I_crane, and you know, that this is both: a T-formed crane (kran in the Sl. & Teu. langs), used also for bringing of water to the surface (Bul. I_geran, though we usually mean the hole, not the shacking stick above it), & the bird that cries so loud (like the Fr. gare & garçon); there is also the known Lat. I_cranium (used literally in Eng.) m-ing a temple, surely (after all these explans) bc. it's sup-d to be the upper-most part of our body. The idea of a bird that in pecking of its food bends down & heaves up its head is so powerful that the Sl* use it in another w., lebedka, what is a heaving mechanism with spools, where lebedþ |I_lebed$| is a swan. ( This lebedþ-swan, for its part, is o. & c. Sl. 2(labod, labud, etc., pre-Sl. olbodå)2 and is given from an o. high-Ger. albiz, then from o. Gr. αλφοσ |I_alphos| 2(a kind of white lichen)2, i.e. as smt. white 2(>> albino; & the 2nd part of the alphos reminds me 3(just reminds, to ment. the next w.)3 about the ... I_phosphor, what means "white light")2, but I don't exclude entirely some pricking 2(<< bodatþ)2 or bending down 2(low, for the 1st syl.)2 of the head, like with the crane. ) Going around imits of cries we come also to your I_crow, which is, besides the main m-ing of one species of birds, also t.s. heaving mechanism, which in Bul. is called skripetz, bc. in Rus. skripetþ |I_skripet$| is to I_screech.
So, and now let us look again to Russia, where exists also the w. I_grozà, what is a thunder, and here Rus. Tsar Ivan (but please, don't say 'Ajvån') Groznûj has to be ment-d, where this alias name (The Terrible in Eng,) was given bc. of his cruelty (he was like groza), though the Bul* think that he was bad-looking man, bc. this is what I_grozen in Bul. means. Well, whether it is a thunder or a deformity of the face isn't a thing to be much chewed, but here may be added also Ger. I_Grauen (a fear or horror), synonymous with their I_Greuel ('grojel'), & sim. with their grau (I_grey or gray for your); and going back to o. Gr. we may find there the w. γοργοσ (fearful, ominous), where your I_gorgeous, surely (in spite of the m-ing, or, better, just bc. of the contrary diff. m-ing) also falls, together with Sl. gretþ |I_gret$| /greet /greja (to shine, warm, heat). In this sense (I mean in the bad sense, not in the gorgeous one) are the mythical Lat.-Gr. Gorgonas, mainly one of them, Medusa I_Gorgona (a demoness or she-vampire, with hawk's beak --- Γοργεον in o. Gr. meant looking like Gorgona); here are also the I_griff|s (mythical monsters with hawk's head & wings, but with body of lioness); & in this (now good) sense is the ... Saint I_George (in Bul. he is a patron of the military men, celebrated with eating baked young lambs in the beg-ing of May); &, then, here has to be ment-d also ... the country I_Georgia (I_Gruzia in Rus.), bc. the Georgians are known all around the world for their bravery & high speed in horse-riding (the so called jigits, >> them later).
So you have seen that this gar- /gra- r. may express some horror of grinding (or, resp., an approval of it), and this is important bc. in Rus. I_gore is exactly a sorrow, what neither grows high (>> grow), nor is smt. I_great (or Ger. & Fr. I_gross), nor burns (well, it might happen smm.), but we still may cry in such cases. In this sense (of Ger. Greuel) is our Sl. grjah (in Bul., or I_greh in Rus.), what is a sin (we shall disc. your w. further on), which is closely rel-d to the Sl. error, I_greshka (in Bul.; the Rus* say I_oshibka instead, from: "oh 2(no)2", or 'ah' 2( or "ach" if given in Ger, which exclam. has given your I_ache; or smt. like your ouch)2, though some Gr. influence might also have been present here bc. οχι |I_ohi| means there "no" --- but the Rus* know well the disc-d r. bc. they say greshitþ, for to sin). In the case of this sin the fire of the hell may also play certain role, but it is not so in: I_grind|ing, or the I_ground (Ger. I_Grund), or I_grasp|ing (or gripping, where, b.t.w., comes the illness I_grippe, known all over the world --- from Teu. griff- or I_greifen, & this in its turn comes from o. Gr. griffs), or the I_grim /grime, what is Teu. (Hol. grimm, Sw. grym, etc., but also Sl., where I_grom /gremit is like the groza-thunder, I_pogrom 2(what is Ger., Eng., Heb., etc.)2 is a destructive invasion, grim is a ... make-up in Bul., etc.). But here is also the well known ... gram (or Gramm or I_gramme), what is traced to o. Gr. where γραμμα (-τοσ) was: a small line, scratch, figure, let., musical note, & other small things, & then here come also many -gram things (like the: anagram, epigram, monogram, etc.), &, of course the ... I_grammar (& that is why I, personally, don't like it much, where the ws are smt. else, they have been invented or accepted by the common people, not by grammaticuses).
As variations of the gram with m-ing of smt. small may be observed also the I_grade|s or I_degree|s. The etym-sts cite here an I/E. r. ghrem- m-ing to kill, or I_threaten to smash (& threaten in Rus. is grozitþ), & that is where from the w. I_crime has arisen, too. To the grasping I may add also Bul. I_grabja (to I_rob, what, b.t.w., is rel-d to the robe in a sense of taking even the last robe), but here deserves to be ment-d also Ger. ... I_Graf (an Earl), bc. he grasps all for himself or holds his people in a fist; then fem. from the latter is die Gräfin (also Grafine), but exactly I_grafin in Rus is a ... I_carafe for water (bc. it holds the water). In this on gr- imit. cluster has to be also c. & o. Sl. walnut, which is I_oreh in Rus. /Bul., gorih in Ukr., orech in Cz., orzech ('orzheh') in Pol., etc., even in Alb. it is arrë (& I would add also Gr. αραχισ |I_arahis| as a sort of nuts), but it's said there wasn't good etym-gy for it, though in o. Gr. αρασσω meant to hit, smash, break; well, if so I may add also your I_grain, & Sl. peas which is I_goroh in Rus. (grah in Bul.), & many other ws.
Still, there are other important things around here which I may initiate with another Sl. w., grad or I_gorod, what is a town (about your w. on some other place), or, if you prefer otherwise, then with your I_girder (bc. in old times all houses were wooden) --- but it is I_greda also in Bul. The r. is old (in Tur. the girder is I_kereste, but we shall speak about this further on ... carrot), and c. Sl. & Teu. & Baltic and has given many ws, like: Rus. I_ogorod (a garden), then your garden (i.e. Ger. I_Garten), Ger. I_Grat (a sharp corner or a mountain ridge) or their Gräte (a fish bone, bc. it both gradi 2(Bul. for to build, here holds)2 the body of the fish & looks like 2 slanting "girders"), Alb. garth-dhi (a fence), also Teu. gards (a house) or gerda (a belt) or your old gyrdan (which has given your gird), what reminds me about Bul. (but not Rus.) I_gerdan (a necklace), then comes one Skr. I_grhas (a house --- where from, eliminating the beg-ing "snarling", you may come to your house, but there is a long way to it & we shall ment. it again), & Avs. gårådo (a cave), etc. But did you get, why a garden has to be fenced or girded? Well, bc. in this way it's clear that this place belongs to smb., sim. as with the towns though they have also to be defended. So that there is more to be added, bc. just fencing is not enough, the fenced thing has also to be watched & guarded, what allows me to ment. also: Ger. I_warten (to I_wait or I_watch) or their Wärter (a guard), or Fr. I_gardien (a I_guard) or garde (to guard, but this was o. w., garde = to-guard, also It. guardare & late Lat. wardare as t.s.; & then count your bodyguard too), or the ment-d Bul. I_varda (or vardja as to guard) together with Srb. ... river Vardar, and others but let me stop for a bit. Bc. the rel-n guard -- I_regard in Eng. just pushes itself out, but that was so also in the Fr. (in o. Fr. was regard /regarder as a look /to l., though there's ntg. in the Lat., so that this is relatively new w.) --- i.e., smt. returns (re-) from our environment to us that guards us (our prestige), or else we return smt. towards what or whom we honour (sending our regards to smb.).
So, and then we may continue with Ger.-Fr. I_Gardine (a I_curtain, where for your w. is said that it has come through Hol. gardijn from o. Fr. courtine, where we come to the ... I_court|s, and the courtesy, etc.), what reminds me about Bul. perde (which has to be Gr., t.s. curtain), or the I_corset used in old times, or the widely spread Fr. (Ger. & Sl.) I_garderobe (your wardrobe --- so that you see that gard- or ward- is the same here), & so on. And not to forget that all human beings (as well as the animals) have to guard above all their hearts and here is Rus. grudþ |I_grud$| (a breast), what is c. Sl. (gårdi in Bul., I_hrud in Cz., gredzi in Pol., etc.), what etym-ly is given as rel-d to Lat. I_grandis (a grand, eminent person) or grandio (to enlarge) where from Fr. grande (& grandeur & grandomanie) comes. You may put here also Rus. (c. Sl.) ogromnûj |I_ogromnu^j| m-ing very big (the beg-ing 'o' is an exclam. & then it is like the Lat grandis), together with your & Fr. I_ogre (or Sp. ogro) as man-eating monster; then the I_grenade|s (Granaten etc.), with the ment-d fruit I_granatum in Lat. (granat in Rus., Granatapfel in Ger., pomegranate for you --- bc. it is like a grenade), etc.
~ ~ ~
And now I shall return for a while to the I_Herr and ment. smt. that looks slightly funny --- Cz. I_herna, for which one may guess that it is like your "john" but only for men, and he would be more wrong than right, bc. this is a place for playing games, what is usually only men's habit. But what I want to tell you with this w. is not that in Cz. a man is called also Herr, for it isn't so (>> muzhik), but to come to the r. gra- /hra- in a sense of a I_game, what is not like the dances, where women also take part (men go to dances too, bc. they do this mainly to find women there). [|I_suggestions| Ah, playing games (for which >> further on game) is solely men's "job", starting from young boys up to a very old age, and if women do this smm., then it is mostly when they have left their ... climacteric period behind. In the games the point is not in acquiring smt., not in the gain (and normally it's even a loss, at least bc. some fee has to be paid to enter or look at the players), but just to win the game, to be above, on top of the other(s), and out of pure speculative or creative view point; to play "game for the game's sake" (& that's why you & the Ger* & the Rus* & other nations, but without the Bul*, use one & t.s. w. for playing musical instrument and playing, say, football or bridge or some other game). This isn't for women, who are more practical beings & do almost ntg. if they will not gain smt. out of this. We shall come to this again in the course of narration but my remark here is meant in order to clear the connection of the games with the men. ] Anyway, in Cz. I_hrach is a player, hrachka is a plaything (what sounds very funny in Bul. where exactly I_hrachka is a ... spit phlegm), & the short hra is a play. We started from today's Cz., bc. here the r. of the Sl. play is to be found clearer, where in some other Sl. langs there is a preceding vowel, like: Rus. & Bul. I_igra, Ukr. gra = igra (& grati is to play), o. Cz. jhre /jhrati, Pol. gra /grach, o. & pre-Sl. jþgra, going (etym-cally) to a Skr. ejati = ijati (to move). The beg-ing 'ej' or the like symbolizes the euphoria of the dances, but it was lost later in many langs and only some ger--Herr (leading us to the guerres) has remained.
So, and now I hope you are convinced that Urrh is everywhere & in everything, and not bc. smo. wishes to believe in Him, but bc. the quintessence of His name is fixed in many 1000s of ws all around the world.
}
... And here is where the scissors begin to work, and to the end of the book.
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 nothing of the bulk,
Hence, their debt can be paid in some fifty years, so you see, that their life 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 Bulgarian way.
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 wait their time 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 not 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 thousand 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 die 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
|