One of the more interesting developments of nineteenth

It is obvious by your pseudo response that you cannot falsify my data. Science is rooted in hypothesis
testing and falsifying data. You have done neither. This is why instead of dealing with the data at hand,
you go into an ad hominem approach to argumentation because your initial thesis has been turned on
its head.
Let’s first deal with the Wiki “controversy” you keep trying to invoke because you can’t falsify my data. I
mentioned in the previous post not to assume anything, because like the proverb states, “you make an
ASS out of U and ME.” In this case, it’s just “U.” You claim that I got my Neogrammarian data from Wiki.
If you would have just asked I could have given you my source The Linguistics Student Handbook by
Laurie Bauer (2007: 155). The quote is in the chapter Laws and Principles (you know those “laws” you
swear I’m not familiar with and had to go to Wikipedia to discover). I’ll just let you read from a picture I
shot from the section so you know fully it did not come from Wiki:
Now, in typing in haste I placed the quote under the Neogrammarian Hypothesis which should have
been attributed to Jules Gillieron. This, in no way changes anything as the maxim holds true: each word
has its own history. As Campbell-Dunn notes:
One of the more interesting developments of nineteenth century language theory was
a (Schleicherian) thesis propounded vigorously by the Junggrammatiker such as Karl
Brugmann (1849-1919). This thesis stated that sound changes operated without
exception (Brugmann 1904: 41, 7) in accordance with “Lautgesetze”. With this
pronouncement comparative linguistics became an exact science.
In fact this statement is not strictly true. It is easy to document exceptions to this
rule. Hence the further statement “No exception without a rule”. There are exceptions
to this corollary also, eg in the case of loan words, words of high frequency, words
subject to linguistic taboo (Sturtevant 1947 :124 - 126, with bibl.) and so on. But in
practice best method requires us to accept the thesis of the Junggrammatiker
[Neogrammarians] as a working hypothesis and to incorporate the exceptions later.
(Campbell-Dunn, 2004: 7).
Your idea that all forms are subject to the sound rules is not in keeping with known linguistic research.
This reinforces Gillieron’s notion that all words have their own history. This is why, despite linguists
attempts to denounce Greensberg’s multi-lateral approach, they cannot dismiss the method because it
consistently provides solid results. The word God is a global term, with many forms and that has been
demonstrated (with noted common sound shifts) which you have not falsified. Here is another global
term from Africa: English FLY.
This is from Roger-Blench’s essay The Problem of Pan-African Roots. In this and later essays he notes
that you can’t use words that have global etymologies in word lists to demonstrate recent family
relations: they must be removed from the data-set. We are not comparing the word God to one
language in Africa, but dozens. All that matters is the word, not whether it can be demonstrated that
these languages can be hypothetically reconstructed to a proto-language (the purpose of the
comparative method). Explain away these forms of the f-l / p-r root in African languages for “fly” found
in Indo-European:
We won’t even discuss your idiotic assumption that I am unfamiliar with what the asterisk means. Now,
if you have a problem with the proto-forms, it is up to you to argue against my sources. Don’t argue just
against Guthrie, argue against Mukarvosky, Westermann, Meeussen, and Meinhof. All of these people
were cited in the article. If you read the source material you’ll know how they came to their protoforms. This is research 101 and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how to follow cited sources. What you
haven’t done is demonstrated these restraints on Sanskrit huta. You copied and pasted the information
from a website and didn’t bother to conduct your own research in the manner. Unbeknownst to what
you think, this isn’t the first time I’ve engaged this research question. I have chosen to engage this topic
as a researcher, not a copy and paste pseudo-scholar such as yourself who takes everything from an
online dictionary at face value. A REAL researcher doesn’t take anything at face value, especially when
the sources you are citing are claiming that they are UNSURE of the word’s etymology. The question is,
how did YOU get more sure of God’s origins than the researchers who actually did the leg work who
state the word’s origin’s is uncertain?
Sound Law
By gauging your emphasis on sound laws, you would think that you actually knew what it is. I put “laws”
in quotations because any REAL linguist would know that there is no such thing as a sound law. If you
don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Robert Lord (1966) [also cited in the original paper] in his work
Comparative Linguistics. And just in case you think you can find this on Wikipedia, here is another image
so you won’t go ASSuming once again:
Starting on page 99, in the section Laws of Sound Change, he notes:
This was written in 1966 and you in 2011 are still arguing for sound “laws.” A “law” only describes, as
the citation notes, something that has happened, in a fixed point of time. It can’t describe anything that
has happened after it. It has no predictive value. For those unfamiliar with the “Great sound shift” in the
Germanic branch of Indo-European, here is a chart from the same source:
Hopefully it comes clear on your screens. What’s important here is the Indo-European /d/ > (“shifting”)
into /t/ in the Germanic branch. An example of the “shift” can be seen in the following chart from the
same source:
If it is unclear, d > t (Lat.) decem: (Goth.) taihun; (O.E.) tien; (O.N.) tio; (O.H.G.) zehan ‘ten’. As we can
see, the /d/ sound in initial position in Latin corresponds to the /t/ sound in initial position in the Gothic
(Germanic, Teutonic) branch of Indo-European.
In terms of this word God, let’s look at the compared forms using the many sources cited in the article in
table form:1
z
Anglo-Saxon
Old English
Old High
German
German
Icelandic
Swedish, Danish
Old Norse
Gothic
Old Teutonic
Proposed IndoEuropean root:
Webster
Catholic Enc.
g[o^]d
god
gott
gu[eth], go[eth],
gud
gott
gup
gheu
Oxford
American
Heritage
god: (godu,
godo neut.,
godas masc.)
got
god, giddy
gott
got, god
gud
goð, guð
guÞ
*guđom:
*ghudho-m or
*ghutó-m.
*glheu,
*gud-iga-,
*gudam
*heu()- >
*gheu()-:*ghu-to
The insistence of a detailed sound shift analysis is unnecessary given that the proto-forms given by these
sources (and others) has /d/ in C2 position. Wiki gives a *th sound for pGmc.: *guthan. The /d/ sound is
1
Indo-European chart taken from McMahon and McMahon Language Classifications by Numbers (2005: 4). Oxford
University Press.
the most dominant, and as you know, when reconstructing proto-forms, it is the most dominant form
within the family that takes precedence: thus why most reconstructions have g-d as the root.
As stated in the article, there are so many “reconstructions” for this term because they are trying to fit
the word into an Indo-European reality which the word is older than Indo-European. As stated in the
article, the Persian and Babylonian forms Khoda, Khudu and Gawd respectively is on record thousands of
years before Germanic. In every corner we have examined, the /d/ sound in secondary position is the
most dominant. As we can see, English, in terms of God, never went through a stage where God was
pronounced GOTT. What people may not realize is that the English language did not arise from the
German language. German and English are contemporary modern languages. Both of these come from,
what linguists call, Teutonic and as we can see the Anglo-Saxon/English maintains the Teutonic form
which has both [t] and [d] for the word God in secondary position. It is the Romans who named a certain
branch of the Teutonic people “Germans.” They did not call themselves Germans.
The most dominant form of the word God derives from Proto-Indo-European word *deiuo' or *deiwo'
meaning "clear sky" or "day light or day sky" (Winn, 1995: 20-23). As noted, this form is also found in
African languages as ru/lu/du. As we saw with Maori: a-tua “god, supernatural.” This tua is related to
our African lu, ru, du roots meaning “head, top, apex” (PWN TÚI “head”; PWN TU “cloud”, THU, THUA
“river, waterplace”). This root is found in the Rarotongan language in: ai-me-tua “the elders”, ai-tu-puna
“the ancestors”, ai-tua-kana “the elder brothers”, ai-tua-ine “the elder sisters”, ai-tu-ngane “male
members of woman’s family” (used by women).
PWS lu, ( du) “head”
PWS lé,(dé, dó) “one’” (total), with dó as common reflex
PCS *d.u “head” PCS *d.u “head”
ES Dongola, Kenuzi, Mahas, Gulfan ur “head”
CS Madi oru “up”, Moru kuru “up”, Lendu ru(na) “up”
PWS lu “head” (du, ru); Yoruba o-ri, o-li “head” (one head)
PWN TÚI “head”
Sumerian dù “totality”
As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to
implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish
and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter
(jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper
names of pagan deities.
The Old Teutonic is the “Old” African du/tui dealing with “head, the sky, cloud” as ALL of the usages
attest in Indo-European. Dyeus, Zeus, Dios, Ju-Pitar, etc., are all “sky” gods. The notion of God deriving
from “that which is invoked” isn’t even convincing to European linguists. As the German linguist and
Africanist Wim M.J. van Binsbergen noted in his essay (2009: 27) "The continued relevance of Martin
Bernal’s Black Athena thesis: Yes and No" (also cited in the initial article):
Cf. Germanic god, whose etymology is unclear – both semantically and phonologically
the Bantu connection is more convincing that Old Indian huta, „the one who is invoked‟.
No obvious long-range etymology available.
In other words, he isn’t convinced of huta either and finds a Niger-Congo (Bantu) root more plausible. I
came to these conclusions years before I came across his article when I was studying Notratic Theory
and examining GJK Campbell-Dunn’s analysis on Indo-European and Niger-Congo (2004, cited in initial
article). The difference between van Binsbergen and I is that he thinks the term came from Asia into
Africa. He is of this “Borean” hypothesis that argues for a major back-migration from Asia into Africa:
bringing with them all of these “African” terms we keep finding in Indo-European languages. I’m more in
agreement with Bernal and Campbell-Dunn in that these “Nostratic” languages came out of Africa and
differentiated further in central Asia. I go where the genetics (see Dr. Spencer Wells’ Journey of Man)
and anthropology informs us and that is Africans left Africa, populated the Middle East, Asia, Europe and
the Americas. With these migrations the Africans took their languages with them. Some words have
survived, others have not.
YOU seem to be of the opinion that biological races exist; that the multi-genetic theory is true. I’m still
waiting on your scientific explanation of biological races. You seem to keep ducking and dodging that
question since you questioned my stance that biological races don’t exist. I guess I will be waiting on
Jesus’ return before I get that answer.
But moving on, the comparative method is used for establishing the relationship of language families
and reconstructing proto-languages. This is not the aim of this analysis and is one of the known
limitations of the comparative method. Other linguists have done the leg work and posited an IndoEuropean form. The question becomes, did the Indo-Europeans make up this term? Or was it inherited
from languages that existed before Proto-Indo-European. Only someone who believes in the multigenetic theory assumes the Indo-Europeans came from nowhere with a language that is not related to
other human languages.
As Allan Bomhard notes in his essay Nostrotic, Eurasiatic and Indo-European (pg 25):
Now, Eurasiatic is severa1 millennia younger than Afroasiatic, which appears to
be the oldest branch of the Nostratic macro-family. Therefore, Afroasiatic must
рlау а key role in the reconstrиction of the Proto-Nostratic vowel system, and the
Uralic-yиkaghir vowel system must be considered as а later development that
cannot possibly represent the original state of affairs.
In other words, Afro-Asiatic is the founding family of Eurasiatic which gave birth to Indo-European.
Despite the controversy, Afro-Asiatic did not start in Asia. As Bernal in his work Black Athena Vol. III: The
Linguistic Evidence (2005) demonstrates, Afro-Asiatic’s urheimat is in East Africa. The question one has
to ask is, “Is Afro-Asiatic older than Kongo-Saharan?” We know this not to be the case. Afro-Asiatic
derives from Kongo-Saharan in a far remote time period, but whose vocabulary features are still present
(as demonstrated by Diop, Obenga, Rkhty Amen and Oduyoye in terms of Niger-Congo, Egyptian and
Semitic). What is the more likely case? That Indo-European thought of God independently of the
Africans who came before them? Or that this is a global term with various pronunciations as has been
demonstrated in the work?
Now YOU posted the data claiming HUTA was the origin and that it comes from a root that means “to
invoke.” It is on you to prove that the data is correct. Can you find the word God in Hittite, the oldest
form known of Indo-European? If the earliest form can be seen in Sanskrit, give us the historical data
that demonstrates the Sanskrit writers passed this term on to the Pro-Germanics, and didn’t pass it on
to the other people they were in contact with. What made the Teutonics so special? Can you
demonstrate God outside of Germanic and Sanskrit? What were the social applications in Germanic of
God? What did they associate God with? What are God’s characteristics according to the Germanic
speakers? What texts can we verify this data?
Asar Imhotep – Sun of the Soil
www.asarimhotep.com