@ Amathyst
I see. Yes you are right. Although I think Scandinavian or German influences are easier to bear with since these languages are in a pretty closer connection with English already. But French and totally Romance (Latin, Spanish, French, etc) borrowings take English a little bit far from its original spot. If I am not mistaken the first fella who attempted to purify English suggested the below sentence instead of the very well-known "to be or not to be, this is the question":
To be or not to be, this is the ask-thing
Anyways English is already an all cool language. :)
That's because one and the same tribe settled down in these regions in the past, and ofcourse their language evolved over time. I guess that's what I mean with real similarities and coincedental similarities.
I know. Well yes for sure Germanic languages share more similarities with each other than what would they do with Romance or Slavic or Iranian languages. The same thing happens for Slavic languages too. But as a linguistically confirmed fact, Iranian and Slavic languages share some unique similarities which bring them into a particular connection, not attested amongst other groups. For example P.I.E "k" changes into "s" in both Iranian and Slavic languages and in Germanic it becomes "h", whilst Romance languages keep it unchanged and Armenian retains it as "sh". You can see the above fact if you take a brief look at the word "dog" in the mentioned languages:
P.I.E : kwon*
Iranian and Slavic "k > s"
Iranian: spe (Kurdish) < spaka < svaka* < sva(n)ak* < kwon
Slavic: suka (Polish) < swaka* < svaka* < sva(n)ak* < kwon
Germanic "k > h"
Germanic: Hund (German) < khund* < khwan* < kwon
Romance "k > c"
Romance: canis (Latin) < kwan-is* < kwon*
Armenian "k > sh"
Armenian: shun < chun* < kun* < kwon*
May be Polish "suka" and Kurdish "spe" / "spek" would not appear very similar in an ordinary guys eyes but for someone with an eye for Linguistics they are pretty similar.
Well, I think a lot of your examples seemed to be coincedental similarities. Some aren't though!
I am sorry that I have to express so, but in this case what you or me think do not matter ever. The above given examples (An Etymological Similitude) are resulted from the immense labor of linguists throughout history and are scientifically proved. They all do share the same root and are by no means to be speculated of any coincidental likeness at all. Brother, I am not making up my lists you can personally go after the Polish words and hunt up their Proto Indo European roots one by one.
I can do magic (wordplay.) with words if I really want to. I love language. (I used to write funny punchlines and poetry a lot, but somehow I've lost my inspiration.)
I see. Yea I do love to immerse myself into a sea of words too. However the inspiration of mine comes to me sporadically and I do compose some really amateur poems in Kurdish and Persian once in a blue moon.
Look at the world map. Slavic territory. Turkish territory. Slavic languages share a lot of similarities, and some Slavic tribes encountered the Ottomans. (There are probably better examples, but I can't help but to think of Vlad the impaler!)
Yes I am aware the confrontation of Slavic and Turkic tribes in the history. But if you told me Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, or even Ukrainian and Russian got Turkish loans, I wouldn’t get astonished becuz these nations have been in close contact with Turks as well as they have gone thru a period of Turkish rule somehow. But to my little knowledge Polish people never ever been under any Turkish rule and it was really amazing to hear of Turkish loans in Polish. Maybe they are military terms or I don’t know maybe you have got them via other Slavic languages. Anyways I have the vaguest idea about it.
@ Asik
Well revered "Asik", thanks for your remarks. But I aint gonna respond your comments on "An Etymological Similitude" one by one, since they are merely your personal views and utterly against the scientifically proven linguistic facts, and therefore they are of no authenticity and importance.
Here my point is to stress on the "unique" and "scientific" similarities between Kurdish (as an Iranian) and Polish (as a Slavic language).
One little example I would prefer to make, you wrote:
"wiz : wiaz : wingʰ* (elm) - nothing here! wiąz doesn't look or sound like wiz"
Regardless of the fact that even a 10 year old kid could recognize the apparent similarity between "wiz" and "wiąz"; the worthy of mention linguistic point is that both Kurdish (Iranian) and Polish (Slavic) languages develop original "g" into "z". Whilst no other linguistic group, outside of either Iranian or Slavic, represents such a shift at all.
You also stated: "but we all are connected with the rest of the earth's population, simply because we are humans and as humans we all are able to speak !"
I didn’t deny our global connection neither I claimed we are not humans nor I talked a single word about our ability to speak! I just simply tried to say we, somehow, speak alike. I don’t know what ever for but some people over here seem really spoiling for causeless infuriation and starting off prejudice, unfortunately.
I am not here to claim any thing but simply linguistic facts. And my mentioned similarities are not and could not be demeaning you or your national entity or any thing like that once in a thousand years! Nonetheless people around our round world often welcome such topics specially when they, the topics, are impartially accurate and sincere.
