Off-topic discussion about ethymology of the word "vandalism"

In fact, I said:
“(a mixture of Czech and Lithuanian)”
and “a mixture of” is essential for this.
Mixing can be of a different nature.
There are many linguistic theories, but unfortunately most of them remain just theories. The same goes for Indo-European pro-language theory, which has no serious basis, just a bunch of speculation and even censorship, concealment and distortion of facts. This theory is followed only because there is no better or no desire to have a better one. Moreover, this theory exists because most people have no understanding of linguistics and are easily manipulated by authoritative figures.
Linguistic similarities arise not only from the common origin, but also from the borrowing of words and the mixing of languages.

Interesting specimens.
Their structure may correspond to Lithuanian words. If so, their root meanings are roughly as follows:
“Drag” and “meander.”

It is no more “a mixture” than any other Slavic language. All of the Slavic languages are clearly related - because words all have common roots. Latvian and Lithuanian clearly have a common ancestor, and are more closely related to Slavic languages than most other Indo European languages, but honestly you could have picked any Slavic language and made the same assertion. Your claim is nonsense. It is based on the premise that Lithuanian is the root, whereas, Lithuanian is actually just a very conservative dialect of Indo European. That is why Sanskrit looks like it is similar to Lithuanian to many scholars, because it is - the same language, just Lithuanian is what happens after a long separation. A bit like the other IE languages. Look at the languages that came out of classical Sanskrit - they are nothing like Lithuanian anymore.

Well, all of this is a bit like flat-earthism and creationism vs evolution. You can prove anything if you manipulate the facts. But there is a common body of words that appear in every European language classified as “Indo-European”, just as there is a common body of works in every language in the " Finno-Ugric" family (Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian, Sami etc.)

kéz, szemek, farkas, fej, angolna, víz, megy, fut, visz
käsi, silmät, susi, pää, ankerias, vesi, mene, juokse, kanna
käsi, silmad, hunt, pea, angerjas, vesi, mine, jookse, kanna

I mean - for me, there is a pattern and you can’t deny it. You can try to find an alternate reason that many of the languages of the world are similar, but it is just the same as everything - idiolects become dialects, which then become distinct languages as mutual intelligibility diminishes.

1 Like

Farkas means “got tail” or similar. They say it is not the real name of the animal, but an alias, which they used instead of its real name because they were afraid of it: if you call a wolf, it will come. At least thats what i heard.

I assume the “angolna” word rooted in the latin “anguilla” word.

It seems like it was borrowed early on though, because the Finnish and Estonian words are also quite similar. The “an[k/g]er-” part is easily the same (k/g are interchangeable, as are l/r), but that is just a guess.

That’s a common Shamanic practice. In Turkish t’s very common to refer to supernatural beings as “three-lettered” or “four-lettered”, likewise wolf is mentioned as “worm” (kurt), instead of its original name (börü); so that even the original name is forgotten.

What are you talking about are 19th century language comparison techniques. They can only say that one or another language is somehow related. Linguists divided languages into groups according to those similar features. That’s all this technique allows you to do. This is not enough to link the development of language with the development of the nation and known historical facts. And these last things are more interesting to me.

This is interesting. In hungarian some old people from villages calls generally every animal wich harmful for crop or domesticated animals as “worms” (féreg). Even if it got legs. But we have 150 years of history with turkish influence, so this can be the reason.

1 Like

What is the primary (verb) meaning of this word? bite? pierce?

The problem with what you are saying is that a “nation” is meaningless with regards to language. If a nation meant anything, there would be no Slavic language in east Germany, but there are two… Upper and Lower Sorbian. The UK would still be Celtic speaking. France would speak Gaulish or Frankish. Or more close to reality, English would have little Latinate or Greek loan words, it would probably be a lot more like Frisian. Swedish, Danish and Norwegian would still look and sound like Icelandic. Language change is inevitable and happens because one language takes prestige over another and in continental Europe, sprachbunds happen all the time. Lithuanian and Icelandic changed little because they were geographically isolated for a long part of their histories and were very conservative when any changes happened. Latvian is an example of what an unisolated Lithuanian might have been - given it is a lot less conservative.

Language has almost nothing to do with a nation, only the ruling classes.

1 Like

It is an English language problem where several different concepts are called by the same word.
In Lithuanian it is quite clear what a nation is and what its main features are (the common language is one of them). Lithuanian never was isolated, it is geographical and historical fact (based on historical documents and archeology… and DNA data) , despite what some claim to save their theories.

Why then isn’t French spoken in England?éreg

Phonetic hypothetical reconstruction is not an etymology of the word.
The full etymology tells how a word is made morphologically (whether it is its own word or borrowing), whether its sounds have changed, what the meanings of its components are. The initial meaning of the word (root) is given (werb meaning or ultimately imitation of a sound).

Belgium (Dutch/French), Holland (Dutch/Frisian), Germany(German/Low German/Upper and Lower Sorbian), France (French, Basque, Breton, Provencal), Spain (Castilian, Galician, Catalan, Basque), Switzerland (French, German, Italian, Romansh), Wales (English, Welsh), Ireland (English, Irish), Scotland (English, Scots, Gaeilic), Poland (Polish, Silesian, Kashubian, Lemko)… just off the top of my head, these all have multiple languages. The list does go on. China, despite claiming to only have one language, doesn’t even have one mutually intelligible version of Chinese across the whole country and have had to use Mandarin as a false lingua franca.

The UK doesn’t speak French because, despite the fact our ruling class used French at court for 200+ years, it didn’t really make many inroads in to the population. The Royals were very few people. But look at other parts of Europe and Latin based languages removed a lot of the older languages, as did High German and Slavic. I mean, you might as well ask why Gothic is no longer spoken in the Crimea when Romania still speaks mainly Romanian.

Like I said, English-speaking people are little confused about the meanings of the word “nation”.

I will give some definitions of the nation’s meanings in English dictionaries:


Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

  1. a country considered as a group of people with the same language, culture and history, who live in a particular area under one government

  2. all the people in a country

Merriam-Webster’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary

  1. a) large area of land that is controlled by its own government; b) the nation : the people who live in a nation

  2. a tribe of Native Americans or a group of Native American tribes that share the same history, traditions, or language

Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary

  1. a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc

  2. a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area (this meaning I talk about, it is Lithuanian word “tauta” meaning (one of))

Of course, the rulers need their own colonists and years of harsh assimilation policies and enviroment to turn the conquered nation into speak another language. Usually (as the Russification practice of Eastern Lithuania shows) three generations of people are enough for the old language to be completely forgotten.

“a group of people” does not mean “all of the people” in the given area, so yeah, the definitions all mean something very similar. This is why we, in English, generally talk about minority languages. In the UK, Welsh is a minority language, because the entire population of Wales is not fluent in Welsh, only a minority (which sounds bad, but I mean - “not the majority” before any Welsh nationalists try to hunt me down.) This is historical because the language was supressed.

The false positive you have with Polish is that Poland once ruled Lithuania, and so there were a lot of Polish speaking peoples there. They were thrown out after WW2 and ended up back in Poland. The people were dispersed, and there was a policy of moving people about. This is one of the reasons why Polish is pretty homogenous, the dialects were levelled in this process, and it’s only Kashubian (which has a lot of German in it) and Silesian (which was in the part of the country that was less desirable) and Lemko (which was next to Ukrainian border) that really survived this. I mean - this is what happened to my Wife’s family. Interestingly, she has done a DNA test and is almost 100% Polish, with a small (~2%) Baltic. I have more Northern European DNA (like ~30%, the rest is “British and Irish”) than she has Baltic, and my family has been in the UK since we have records. I guess DNA is meaningless?

Hello @damoklas

Here you can read about who might be Vandals ( A.D ).

you may use google to translate it

A little tip before

Vandals ← Vengers ← Hungars ← Hun

( Find who are vengers until now in russian or in poland language )

Compare how its history the same as Huns in Europe, and dont let yourself down due to different timescales of written history nowadays,
as those are mistakes and cheats of historians since several “reforms” of the calendars systems.
There were some parallel existed and used in ancient times. Unfortunately historians whenwrote not marked which they used so this confusion let have place on timeline fo cheating as well.

In this theme you can read the following persons.

  1. Heribert Illig (Germany ) ---->
  1. Uwe Topper (Germany ) →

1999: Erfundene Geschichte. Unsere Zeitrechnung ist falsch (Herbig, Munich)

  1. Tóth Gyula ( Hungary )

4:) Anatolij Tyimofejevics Fomenko (Russia ) →

Imposible sequence.

It’s just amazing when people make all sorts of assumptions but never turn to real historical documents. Clearly, those documents are called tales, falsifications, or simply ignored by Western “scientists”, and the vast majority of people don’t even know that such documents exist.

@damoklas you might want to read this: Linguistic Archaeology: Nyland, Edo, Hinrichs, Dr. Ove: 9781460280805: Books

If we believe him, every language in the world comes from Basque, which in turn comes from Saharan.

Sadly it appears he passed away in 2017. I guess this is also why the book is out of print. I had a long dialogue with him in the mid 200’s. He was absolutely certifiable, completely cuckoo, mad as a hatter. I wish his website was still online because it listed a lot of his theories, and showed just how crackpot they were.