Hello, /his/. So, I stumbled upon an article written by Zaidan Jassem linking Indo-European languages to Arabic. And the content of his article kind of bothers me because he goes against everything we know of linguistics and the history of languages.
He takes words from English and looks at their etymology. In his abstract, the author explains that, according to him, there's a link between Arabic, French, English, German, Greek and Latin to such an extend that we could say that those are dialects of the same language.
Example:
Braid: via Old English bregdan 'weave, knit, join together; move quickly; vary', Old High German brettan, from Arabic rabaT 'to tie, fold' via reordering and passing /T/ into /d/.
Source Article: https://www.academia.edu/25589342/_2016c_The_Arabic_Origins_of_English_and_Indo-European_Fashion_and_Modeling_Terms_A_Radical_Linguistic_Theory_Approach
Is it just me or is his theory just retarded? I checked his resume, he's been to Cambridge between 1989 and 1991 and Durham, where he got a PhD in Linguistics. The rest of his resume comes from the Arab World (mainly Syria and Saudi Arabia).
What are your thoughts on that?
In my opinion, this is ridiculous. In his article, he looks at 130 words which are, generally, relatively new, and he often uses "reordering" to explain why the words look completely different. Reordering seems to be the perfect way out when things don't go the way he expects them to go...
But, more importantly, there seems to be a problem in methodology. To establish that link, shouldn't he be looking at ancient languages from Europe and compare them with ancient forms of Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew?
>>1243032
I saw a post on Whisper, this anonymous phone app that lets you post things to people in your community, and it was talking about how "Malaysian, Arabic, German, and French are all varieties of English".
I'm pretty sure that particular guy was actually somebody trying to make a point on how everyone isn't all that different or some bullshit, but after reading the article I like to imagine that is was actually Jassem soapboxing his theory on a confessional turned hook up app for college students.
>>1243061
Wouldn't surprise me.
This is the kind of pseudo-science that would allow Islam to seem like a good option. I think it's another attempt at tricking people into thinking Arabic is the ultimate language, which it isn't. But I've seen Muslims push that very far. That comes from the claim that the Qur'an is supposedly the eternal and perfect word of God.
>>1243061
Another example of how retarded it can get:
Cat Walk Show consists of (i) Old English
catt , German Katze, from Latin cattus, catta, Byzantine Greek katta, direct from Arabic qiTT(at) 'cat', changing /q & T/ into /k & t/ (Jassem 2013g); (ii) Old English wealcan 'to toss, roll, move round', from Arabic walaq 'walk' where /q/ became /k/ (Jassem 2013n); and (iii) Old English scewaian 'to look at, see', Old Saxon skauwon, Old High German scouwon , from Proto-Germanic root *skau- 'look at', from PIE *skou-, skeue- 'to perceive', from Arabic qasha3 (spoken sha33a) 'to see' via /q & sh/-merger and /3/-loss; or shaaf 'see', turning /f/ into /w/ (Jassem 2012o).
it makes sense that all languages spoken by caucasian peoples are related to each other in some way. germans, indians and arabs are all caucasian, arabs are caucasians that are slightly closer geographically to germans than indians, and are slightly closer in skin tone, but you find it unbelievable that semitic languages might be related to germanic languages, while at the same time you have no problem accepting that germanic and indian languages are related?
>>1243328
Yes, I have a hard time believing that because the comparison of basic cognates (like numbers) shows a huge difference between Semitic and Indo-European languages. The author of the study mentionned above doesn't do that.
>>1243335
The main problem being that there's no correspondance between these basic cognates. And the few cases that we see suggest at best exchanges (which are attested), not a tight parentage as the article seems to suggest.
>>1243328
As for your point in physical resemblance, it doesn't make sense when you look at Finnish or Hungarian. Those languages are spoken by people who seem to share a genetic heritage with the people living around them, yet they speak very different languages from the rest of the people around them. The Scandinavians speak Germanic languages and the Finnish speak a Finno-Ugaric language, yet the only discernable difference in appearence lies in the structure of their skulls (to some extent).
>>1243335
>basic cognates (like numbers)
some arabic numbers sound pretty indo-european to me. 1,6 and 7 almost sound english even.
>>1243032
if it bothers you, it just can't be true.
>>1243406
What are the arabic numbers?
>>1243406
>>1243413
wa7ed, ithnan, thalatha, arba3, khamsa, sita, sab3a, thamaniyya, jadiid...
wa7ed, against /won/, /un/ /eins/...
Sita against six, Sex, sei...
Sab3a against Seven (that would be okay), sept, sette...
The others have nothing to do with European languages.
>>1243407
No, that's not my point. It bothers me, so I brought it to your attention for you to tell me if it's just me or if there's something strange about it.
>>1243413
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiGbvZUkFSc
>>1243442
Shit, I got 9 wrong. It's tis3a. Still, nothing to do with nine, neuf, nove, neun...
It is absolutely bullshit in the way given as an example.
IE and Afro-Asiatic might be related, but if they are, their relatedness is so far back in time that it can't be proven or denied by the comparative method.
>>1243860
That's my opinion as well. It seems like he's using every Arabic word which seems to have a vague resemblance in meaning or form and makes everything around it up (as in qasha3 (spoken sha33a))...
To establish such a link would require a diachronic study and comparison of the languages to be analysed, which means looking at the different stages of said languages. We would also need to account for loanwords (like cotton, Admiral, etc.) and establish a clear etymology of all words to be analysed before just jumping to conclusions as the author does.
