Of arias, Sanskrit and Slavs

Of arias, Sanskrit and SlavsSection 1

For those looking for the internet for information about the history of the Slavic peoples, are well aware that there is common nomadic site to site tenacious tale of similarity of Russian and Sanskrit. Tells of some Indians, which owns Sanskrit, which in one of the hotels in Moscow in Russian say in what number it a go, and he reportedly surprised overwhelmingly to the fact that he does not understand, without any translation, as if the hotel employees to deal with this Indian in his native language. Well, even though the story and some embellished, it has a large fraction of the truth. In Sanskrit there is really a lot of words that's just the sound of very similar words, taken from the Russian. So, for example, are very similar word "door" and "dvar", "fire" and "Agni", "three" and "three" …

However, this similarity is drawn away, we should not forget that, for example, the word "three" in a similar way, or similar sounds not only in Sanskrit, but in the Irish language, in Albanian, and in the same English or Dutch, and so on . That is, simply put, we see a lot of words that are similar to ours, in different languages, constitute the so-called Indo-European family. In addition to Russian, the same may well educated German cry, they say, look, this is my language is similar to Sanskrit and then lead you to any number of examples, such as "Acht" (German) and "Astana" (Sanskrit), which in Russian means "eight", "ende" (German) and "anta" (Sanskrit), ie, "the end" our way, "Andere" (German) and "Antar" (Sanskrit) would be in Russian 'other', etc. Around the same can claim and any other representative of the "Indo-European" nationality, and it will be in its own right. And how could it be otherwise, without exception, languages of the Indo-European family, which would be more correct to call the light brown-Aryan, descended from the same parent language, which, of course, was precisely the Slavic, and not otherwise, and which has some thousand or two ago, said all of Eurasia, to say the least? It is necessary to take note of one very important fact — the older the language, the more it will have similarities to the aforementioned parent language. In addition, in the settlement of the "Indo-Europeans" — light brown-Aryans there are a large number of linguistic oases, the population which until recently had very limited contact with the outside world and therefore retained in its language more features and characteristics of our common parent language.

To avoid confusion in the future and more arguments to judge the nature of the proto-language "Indo-Europeans," we need to find out who was his primary medium. Until recently, this problem seemed completely impossible. Indeed, as you can still just 10 years ago to determine who is, for example, the ancient inhabitants of India, speaking in Sanskrit? They were black Dravidians, representatives of the people Rakshasa (Semitic branch, the leader of which was Ravan, whose name apparently formed the basis of the name of the Jewish priests), from the island of Ceylon, which, according to the epic Ramayana, fought and which, in the end, won golden-Rama, exiling their polls as punishment for 400 years in the man-made Gore (Egypt) to cure hard for greed, parasitism and irrepressible passion enslave less developed Dravidians, and where they are, by the way, delayed for a longer time, or still, the ancient Indian civilize white people were Caucasian appearance? The traditional story for a long time find it difficult to answer this question, limited, at best, only obscure rumors to that effect. Moreover, despite compelling evidence of ancient primary sources, clearly stating that the civilizing of the ancient world and India in particular were arias — blond, blue-eyed people with white skin, some historians have finally lost common sense, have already begun to write treatises in which they are not completely denied Only a creative role of the Aryans, but the very existence of the Aryans in general. Like, how could undertake Caucasians in southern latitudes and even in India — so far away from Europe. Tales of all this and the whole business.

Unexpected blow to traditional historians, fought them on the spot, it was the sudden announcement of the results of genetic research, which, since the late 20th century, suddenly held a large number of universities around the world to find out who is who on the planet. According to these studies, among the Indian population in an unprecedented concentration present genetic Y-haplogroup R1a, which is a marker of white Caucasians. Moreover, in some of the northern regions of India the percentage of R1a is over a 70% greater than that in the majority of European nations themselves! The only place on earth where the maintenance of the population haplotype R1a comparable with India, is a geographical region, where are Belarus, North-Eastern Poland, Ukraine and the extreme North West Russia, represented mainly by the historical territory of Belarus — the Smolensk region. Given the fact that haplogroup R1a is still the dominant haplogroup Slavs first appeared in the north, which, incidentally, is directly contrary to the popular belief that "all the people came out of Africa", and only then was entered to the south, and not vice versa we can around the law to say that historically the R1a haplotype is haplotype Slavs, and not someone else. I repeat once again, that all of us will remember this forever — genetic haplogroup R1a, which is also called the Aryan, and that there is a genetic marker of White Europid is primarily haplogroup Slavs because of it Slavic population, and not any other, This haplogroup is present in the highest concentration, incomparable with anyone. In other words, the most elite Europeans are just genetically Slavs. None of the European nations can not be compared with the Slavs in the parameters content Caucasoid marker R1a. Relative "whiteness" of other Europeans is explained only by the fact that they also present Slavic marker R1a in appreciable amounts. That is, they are white because in their veins the blood of our Slavic. In other words, some Europeans are mostly Slavs are genetically too, regardless of the language in which the history decided to tell them. These people, especially the north-owned East Germans, Scandinavians and people of the Baltic countries.

Going back to ancient India, we can now say without any exaggeration that the famous aria, who brought the light of civilization in the Indian subcontinent, was none other than the Slavs, and the presence of Slavic R1a genetic marker at the current population of India — a vivid proof of that. No traditional historian, who is friends with the head, if it is, of course, priperetsya properly, can not fail to recognize that fact. After consideration of the genetic aspects of the question, each of us now it will be easier to look at and to the linguistic side of things. Having clarified, I hope, very thoroughly, that the ancient Aryans in India were Slavs, we're probably not going to be surprised and particularly why Sanskrit, which is the language of most of the Aryans, has similarities with both Russian, and other languages of the European nations, which once pulled out of the muck and it otsivilizovali Slavs.

However, if the interested reader will want to get deeper into the subject of Sanskrit affinity with our Slavic speech, I would like to recommend him the following strategy. We know that the ancient people of the Aryans, or more precisely, the Slavs-Arias, saying in Sanskrit language or its precursor, which, first of all, include the Vedic Sanskrit, which recorded the most ancient texts of the Aryans — the Rigveda, whose age is estimated at Still, as 8000 years. It is appropriate to assume that those Slavic-Aryan people of our time, which are much less then mixed with other nations, has retained much of its linguistic properties of the Slavic-Aryan Pervoyazyka. Therefore we are not surprised fact that not only Russian, but also cover those Germans who are genetically too are still just Slavs, find in their own language a lot of words that are similar or identical sounds in Sanskrit. Now let's look at the language of the people, whose population is a carrier of a genetic marker of Slavs-Aryans to a far greater extent than anyone else. First of all, I mean, Belarusians, Ukrainians, northern and eastern Poles (see above left: distribution of Slavs-Aryans in Europe). First, because these Slavic people have not lost the language of their Aryan ancestors, unlike other genetic Slavs — Scandinavians and Germans, who were powerful linguistic breaking during the so-called "Christianization", when tens of thousands of their countries began to forcibly settle "Trojan horses" of the Vatican — swarthy genetic Celts (not to be confused with the Celts linguistic, we, in fact, perceive as the Celts) to "dilute" the Slavs. And secondly, as I said, these people content Slavic-Aryan haplogroup R1a often exceeds 60%, reaching the level of 90% or more of the population of Western Belarus and eastern Poland. That is, it would not be an exaggeration if we assume that it is here — in areas of the highest concentration of Slavs-Aryans and is, above all, to look for traces of the Slavic language similarities with Sanskrit, and at the same time — what could be frank — and origins of the Slavic-Aryan proto-language, given the fact that the Aryans, as I said, came to India from the north, as well as the north-west, and not from India to the north.

Section 2
So, it is time to draw a line under the numerous fabrications that have accumulated over the last few years all over the place, and, at the same time, and all that I have written above. To tune into subtle perception theme, I propose to examine some telling examples that would allow us to draw conclusions regarding the very degree of kinship of Sanskrit, which I will call for simplicity, and the ancestors of the language, such as, for example, the Vedic Sanskrit and Prakrit, with members of the elite in terms of archaic Slavic languages, which include, above all, it is safe to include Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish, as well as with a certain degree of caution, and Russian. If the similarity between Sanskrit and the languages there, but it certainly exists as something tangible similarity in sound and grammar. And in general, whether it is tangible, so that Sanskrit was not only to some extent intermarried with the Slavic language family, but, in fact, fit it into the list of Slavic languages. Immediately, however, think it necessary to warn the dear reader of the need to learn not to be afraid of the appearance of the "doodles", which in most cases deter us from the Sanskrit texts, clearly suggesting that Sanskrit is something quite alien and therefore unknowable. I can assure you that this is not the case, although in Sanskrit and not use the Cyrillic alphabet, because the system of written characters Devanagari, which is a kind of alphabet of the language, is no worse than the Cyrillic alphabet and is easy to read even after one or two lessons in class.

As noted at the beginning, is the most cursory look at the same numerals in Sanskrit affecting sosnanie finds similarities with Slavic equivalents. Here and "two" is read as "two" instead of "zwei" in German, here and "three" "three," and not "cpu" as in English, there is even a "four" is read as "Catur" or "Chater" in Belarus, not "Quatre", as in franzuzskom. By the way, the identical sound of the word "four" in Sanskrit and in the Slavic languages shatters the myth counterfeiters that Slavic de came from Latin. Like, Latin, pronounced the numeral "4? as "Quatre" and "wild Slavs" who "studied at the Vatican hristianizatorov literacy" is the word to utter is not sufficiently able and disfigured him in "Chatra" or "Chater" because of its lack of development articulatory apparatus. And this nonsense I heard with my own ears in a lecture at one of the North American professor, whom I took a course in Latin. When I brought it up to his nose English-Sanskrit dictionary and pointing a finger at the word "chetur" showed him that this word is pronounced the same way for thousands of years before the advent of Latin as such, and therefore could not have come from Latin as a consequence of underdevelopment nechego articulatory apparatus, Professor was very surprised. I will not say that he was Slavophobe. On the contrary. Just so it was taught. It should be noted in the course of that Latin is someone artificially and hastily set up a pseudo-language. Many words in it is the Slavic word, read from right to left. If a Slav, for example, says that he is "yes Rome", according to "latinyaninu" it would be "hell Roma." Look at the Latin Dictionary closely. There you will find it all the time. There are even more outrageous pearls. Here's a word without thinking "metenastae." Do you know what it means? It denotes a person with a sword. That is, "metenastae" our way is "platypus"! As you can see, this is not the Slavs had problems with the articulatory apparatus, and those who stole the Slavic word, crippled them and gave their own. However, the falsifiers of history, continue to this day to paint the "charm" of the Latin language and to say that from him, they say, come all Slavic languages in which harmonious "to" allegedly began to sound like the "ch" and stubbornly give examples, like, here, you have the Slavs "four", and we, advanced, and remains "Quatre", or, here you are, wild, became known as the temple of God "church," and here it is, "Kirk", " Kirche "and even" Church "! Beat them on the nose immediately and pobolnee! These idiots are unaware that the so-called "Latins" — but in a different way, "hristianizatory the Enlightenment" of the Slavic peoples, as a herd without kith or kin, just do not know how to pronounce many Slavic sounds, turning on the Slavic territories captured by deceit beautiful Slavic speech cropped church Esperanto. The only thing "hristianizatory" to "enrich" the Slavic world and Slavic languages, it's the fact that in addition to its disgusting "religion" (read the bible, this unrivaled guide to serious criminal acts, robbery, murder, rape, etc.), they wrote in the Slavic alphabets same stinking, like themselves, the letter "f". The Slavs have never had such a sound. No it in Sanskrit. In those Belarusian villages people still instead of "Fedor" says "Hvedar" instead of "philosopher" — "hvilosap", etc. Thus, we never for a moment should never forget that Latin is nothing but as an effective tool of the time, used a cunning alien enemy to displace the Slavic language and all memory of the Slavs from the southern regions of Europe, cultivated, cultured and otsivilizovannyh Slavs, to assign all the tremendous achievements of the Slavs in this vast territory and, ultimately, to enslave them. That's what the Latin language.

But let's get back to Sanskrit. In addition to the numerals, the similarity with Slavic equivalents detected and numerals ordinal. For example, the "first" in Sanskrit will sound like "purva", "third", as "third", "fourth" — "Chaturthi" and so on in a similar way. Numerals higher order sound is also not foreign to our ears. If the "one hundred", for example, will be in Sanskrit, "Satan", the "two hundred" — "dvisata", ie, "two hundred." The Sanskrit is used (although more accurate to say used) characteristic only of Slavic languages scheme of the adjectives. Catches your eye wide use suffix "wat" in Sanskrit adjectives. Let's look for some clarity, a simple example. Let this be a word "Bagavat." In Sanskrit it means "happy", "noble" or simply "happy", that is, the "rich". Of what is the word "Bagavat"? It consists of the word "bug" that is nedrudno guess Slav, in his language means "god" and the suffix "vat". In other words, our "rich" is very common with the Sanskrit equivalent of "Bagavat" — "Bagavat," as we would say, that is, the person, in a way similar to God Himself. Should not even doubt that the word "rich" comes in the modern Russian language in this way. Simple, is not it? The suffix "BAT" sign and everyone today Slav, because he uses the aforesaid, perhaps, a hundred times a day. For example, a resident of Russia, he is familiar with the use of words such as "strange-vat-th", "Durko-vat th", "green-watt st", etc. In Sanskrit, the construction of the adjectives commonly used and other Slavic schemes, such as, for example, the suffix "wine", the familiar Russian-speaking person in the same way, "wild-wine-tion," polo-vin-tion, "etc. The striking similarity with Slavic words have parts and attachments in Sanskrit. To see this, take the verb "party," which means the same thing as the Russian language the verb "to fall". Add to this the Sanskrit verb prefix "ut" — the equivalent of the Russian-speaking "from" and we get the verb "utpati", which in Russian is "fall" or simply "fall." If we are to the verb "party" add a Sanskrit prefix "right", we get the verb "Prapat," which, as you've probably guessed, is translated into Russian as the verb "to divide" or "to fall — fall through." But note that these Slavic languages, as the Belarusian, Polish or Ukrainian exhibit incomparably more similarities with Sanskrit than any other language. Speakers of these languages do not have to explain, say, the particles "hell" or "ut" — is the same as the "from" in the Russian language, as in the languages of these things sound so that no interpreters or additional explanations are not necessary. For example, reading the Sanskrit word "adpada" Belarusian, in contrast to many other will immediately understand that we are of a certain product, which was separated from something or just made out of something.

Now let's fast forward to the region of similarity of Sanskrit words with their Slavic equivalents and, also, try to look at the specifics of their conjugation. On the similarity of many of the words in the Indo-European language with their equivalents in the Sanskrit language, which is also Azyk Indo-European, we are somewhere in the beginning mentioned. In this case, it was not difficult to conclude, Slavic languages have to Sanskrit much more similar than any other languages of the so-called "Indo-European" family. A careful approach evident, however, in the eyes, in the territory, where there are Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, the people — native languages of these countries have kept their language in an incredible array of words that directly overlap with equivalents of these words in Sanskrit, which indicates no Only the extraordinary relationship between the Slavic languages and Sanskrit, but, perhaps, a direct blood relationship between their carriers. Coming from Belarus to the east the number of words that are similar in sound to Sanskrit dramatically reduced and begins to increase again gradually approaching the Siberian region of Russia until gaining its full potential in the northern latitudes of India. One might wonder why there was such a huge gap in the thousands of miles away? Reasons, perhaps two.

The first of these is the fact that the carriers of the ancient proto-language, which gave life not only Sanskrit and modern Slavic languages, but the language of the "Indo-European" family, and that in itself is undoubtedly the language is Slavic, and not some More were Slavs-Arias, whose official history calls just arias and then with caution. Why Aria — the Slavs? Because genetic Y-haplogroup of the Aryans is a genetic Y-haplogroup R1a, and not some other. It is this same genetic Y-haplogroup R1a is the root Y-haplogroup of the Slavs, and not someone else. Since the content of this haplogroup reaches the highest value of the Belarusians, Poles and Ukrainians, it becomes clear why it is language Belarusians, Ukrainians and Poles reveal more similarities with Sanskrit than any other language. With the advance to the east of Belarus, the percentage sovderzhanie Slavic-Aryan genetic gaplogrruppy R1a population starts to decline rapidly by mixing with other genetic gaplotipomi among which begins to dominate the Finno-Ugric Y-haplotype N. It is appropriate to assume that the mixture of Slavic blood to blood Finno-Finns in the vast expanses between Smolensk in Russia and the Altai and led to linguistic confusion. This fact explains some loss of the territory of a harmonious lingvoskhemy Slavic world.
The second reason yavlyaetskya forced eradication Slavic-Aryan language of the vast expanses of Russia by planting the artificial Slavic dialect which is now called the "Russian" language of the Romanov dynasty, which in this way tried to erase all memory of the people of its glorious past doromanovskom (already described by me in article "Who are the Slavs", available on the same blog). This explains the fact why the Russian people as opposed to other Slavs did not understand any of the Slavic language other than their own. How could it be any different if, for example, the word "roar" on one side of Russia in India in Sanskrit is "Raut", and on the other — in Belarus — also "bashes"? Or take the Russian word "sing." In Sanskrit it is "gayati", and in the south of Belarus and in Ukraine … — also "gayati"! Such examples exist big set. The Russian language is also absent from the letter-brief, and in Sanskrit and, say, the Belarusian language it is. No sound in Sanskrit and "f". In Belarus, the sound was introduced relatively recently, "russifiers" that for the sake of their idols by crook tried to stifle the most ancient of the Slavic languages. However, the letter did not take. Indigenous peoples, as I noted above, still continues to say "hvilosap" instead of "philosopher", refer to "Fedora", saying "Hvedar" and even a word such as "football" Many prefer to pronounce as "hvutbol." That is, you can see how stores genetic memory of man that it laid ancestors.

However, the desire to destroy the enemies of the Slavs unique Slavic language just did not stop. Extensive efforts have been made to destroy the very framework of the Belarusian language, which is ancient and universal breathing radiated pristine perfection. I mean, first of all, mobility, language, its situatsionalnuyu flexibility, the ability to express any of your thoughts or feelings, as well as the features of the Belarusian language, which clearly point to the fact that not even Sanskrit, namely the Old Belarusian language is the father of the "Indo -European "family of languages. Sanskrit is, in itself, is nothing more than a frozen at a certain historical stage of the ancient dialect of the language, richly overgrown, in addition, clusters of words from the Dravidian vocabulary, and no more. I think that this circumstance was the primary motivation for the many attempts to destroy the Ukrainian as well, especially, and Belarusian. Someone wanted to, figuratively speaking, to burn the last bridge and, thus, destroy the last proof that Famous Arias, otsivilizovavshie entire ancient world and Slavs — are one and the same! In his turn, and he was subjected to Sanskrit, and, unfortunately, under intense "modifitsatsii." If we compare the patterns of Sanskrit, on which the ancient texts of the Rig Veda with the texts later period related to the beginning of our era, we find that the language is completely lost a lot of their most perfect features, which include, for example, include the subjunctive. That is, there is a degeneration of the language. Moreover, the vocabulary is replaced by pristine Proto Sanskrit into local language equivalents of Negroids. And, we should note, this is done intentionally. To confirm his words, I would like to give an example from personal experience. Several years ago I had a chance to take a course in Sanskrit one of North American universities. Knowing that there are a group of people who own the Slavic language, the professor has made every effort to Sanskrit words instead of pristine sandbar use jargon of the Dravidian dialects. That is, the teacher simply distorted Sanskrit indifferent in the face of the audience to hide from me and my kind of Sanskrit obvious similarity with Slavic languages. Once, when he was "fire" called something like the word "hutabudzh," I told him, he says, listen, why do not you use the word "Agni" or "Vagn." Professor, casting a look at me angry arrows silently replied that wrote on the board suggested me the word.

Despite degeneration in many directions, Sanskrit, however, inadvertently saved a number of benefits that we have lost. For example, the future is still in Sanskrit is expressed without the auxiliary verb "to be." That is, in Sanskrit there is no "I'm going to do," but instead used one, not two verbs. And this is not the time to sveshennom such as "I do", "you do", etc., namely the equivalent form of "I'm going to do," which is not in Russian. What about this in other Slavic languages? Already the most superficial acquaintance with the same Belarusian language will allow us to find out that in spite of all attempts of Russification, in Belarus there are so many places where people in the construction of the proposals we outline some action in the future, still do without the verb "to be." Particularly rich in such places Pripyat Polesie region in which the very name "Pripyat" in Sanskrit means "heritage in many places."
Let's take a typical Belarusian verb as "bavitstsa" which is the Russian equivalent would mean "forward time", "to be." Let's conjugate it in the future tense. So,

I bavitsmusya (I will forward the time — not a form of "PROPROVEDU" repeat and "going forward, there")
You bavitsmeshsya (You will transmit)
Ian bavitsmetstsa (It will transmit, etc.)
We bavitsmemsya
You bavitsmetsesya
Jana bavitsmutstsa

Now let's conjugate future Sanskrit equivalent of the verb "bavitstsa", which is "bavati" and which is the same as the verb "bavitstsa" in Belarusian.

Bavisyami
Bavisyasi
Bavisyatsi
Bavisyama
Bavisyata
Bavisyantsi

As we can see, in both languages, conjugation of the verb "to exist" is no auxiliary verb "shall", in which, as vyyasnyaetsy unnecessary.

Section 3

As you probably have noticed the example just given me above, Sanskrit verbs tend to be conjugated without pronouns, because the forms themselves conjugate verbs are so flexible that involve appropriate pronouns even if not physically present. We must assume that the Slavic languages are not particularly require pronouns when conjugating verbs, but for some reason, and we used to write. Judge for yourself — if we instead I do — you do — he / she is doing, and so you will just have to do — does — does not, then in this case, everyone will be very clear which persons corresponding to the conjugated form of the verb. Unfortunately, modern set of rules of many Slavic languages, including Russian language, because of endless reforms made over the centuries since the adoption of the so-called Christianity, did not keep any mention of the unique structure of the primeval Slavic conjugations, exposing and unnecessary pronouns. Why was this done? First of all, because to make a mess in the harmonious unity of the Slavic world by making linguistic differences in some of its diaspora in order to embroil then severed parts of the once united people together. Second, hristianizatory used to introduce a new language to hristianiziruemoy territory in order to erase from the minds of people all memory of their former pre-Christian system of values (Above left: the pattern of a typical urban Slavs-Aryans in India, where construction is cut out quickly into the rock by an unknown technology. Magarashtra, 1000 BC. E.). For example, the territory east of the present-day Russia, Smolensk region, which for centuries was called the Tata Aria, and which ruled over many millennia Slavic Aryans who spoke an archaic Old Slavonic language as close to Sanskrit, and the Belarusian language, about 300 years ago, was forcibly introduced artificially created version of the language, which was a mixture of light brown-Slavic (Novgorod, some regions of Poland and Belarus), the Balkans (especially Bulgaria) and Church Slavonic forms, peppered liberally borrowing from Latin and Greek, which he later called "the Russian language ". In some cases, the language was so awkward and alien to residents hristianiziruemoy Russia, that in order to understand the "subtleties" in the sentence is added additional parts, explaining the meaning of words spoken or written. To better understand what was going on, I suggest that all conjugate, for example, the verb "to be" in Sanskrit, some historically Slavic language — let this be the Polish language and in Russian. Thus, the Sanskrit version of the verb "to be" would look like this — as you may remember, is without Sancrea conjugation and pronouns that you focused on what the person in question, I point to ease Russian pronoun in brackets:

(I) Astana
(You) astayasi
(He) astayati
(We) astayamag (deaf "g" as in Belarusian)
(You) astayata
(They) astayanti

Polish conjugation also occurs without the pronoun, since each person has a specific verb form that is peculiar only to that person. However, I once again, for your convenience, put a number in parenthesis Russian equivalents of pronouns. We get the following picture:

(I) estem
(You) estesh
(He) is eating
(We) esteshmy
(You) esteshche
(They) catfish

You should not be, as they say, rocket scientist to see that both the Sanskrit verb, and Polish — are one and the same. Just Goals and thousands of kilometers of distance between the places where it was said (say) in these languages have made some changes. Well, as they say, it could be worse. Well, as the bridge between these two poles, whose role would be to speak Russian? Let's conjugate the verb "to be" in Russian:

I AM
You Are
He is
We're
You ARE
They are

So much for! Now just try to mentally remove the pronoun of this conjugation, and you will immediately understand why these pronouns must be present, not absent, as is the case in Sanskrit, and Polish. As you can see, the expected "bridge" long someone burned, and in its place erected irresistible concrete wall, which completely isolates the modern Russians, not only by the realization that Sanskrit — this is definitely the language of Slavic, but also on understanding each and every their current Slavic neighbors. Not to recall the famous phrase-biliberda of "Ivan Vasilievich": I am. Not "I am the" but simply "am", which is already "I am the" without "al." The word "am" is like from the Old Slavonic "MMA", which means "I am who am." Also, the word sounds in Sanskrit and in the same sense. Underdeveloped English can also give a lot of pleasure — conjugate, for example, the verb "to put» — «to put»:

I PUT
You PUT
He PUTs
We PUT
You PUT
They PUT

That's the whole alphabet. And if you remove the pronouns? Dozhilis, is not it?
In this light, the attempts of the Russian media, government and religious authorities to choke on the root development of the use of the Slavic language in the CIS looks very blasphemous. How much mud splash Russian media to the beautiful ancient Slavic languages! There's the "mov" and "svidomye" and "independence" and a whole bunch of various filth emitted in order to crush and humiliate and trample in the mud all the Slavic soul who dares to utter a word in their own language, not to mention the desire of every Slav restore the truth of his great historical past. And how could it be otherwise, when hristanskaya church, to establish for 1000 in Russia at the cost of tens of millions of lives and rivers Slavic Slavic blood knows that Slav return to its spiritual roots — it is her death. How can the current powers that be in Russia to let such a tidbit of Eurasia, in which major share of the world's resources, again went to the worldview of their Slavic ancestors and dropped suddenly from their greedy claws, throwing it in the trash precious Judeo-Christianity, which has been and is nothing more than a reliable straitjacket for Slav (Above left: another example of the amazing ability of Slavs-Aryans in India — a complex carved directly into the basalt rock unknown to us the way. Mount Kailash, about 2000 years ago)? It is natural that this should never be allowed. Hence such hatred in Russia today to all Slavic — the past, the culture, the language. And, of course, with regard to some of Sanskrit, then this question can not be. God forbid, the current Russian accidentally visit that only some few hundred years ago, his ancestors spoke on this, or very similar language. Therefore, Sanskrit can not be taught in Russia. Hebrew — please, Latin — the same Greek — no problem! But Sanskrit, which is a Slavic language — not! We can not let you know that human civilization created the Slavs, and not someone else. Pride of place on civilize mankind has long been culled. And you do not indignant foreign enemy gently tell you exactly what you Slavs otsivilizovalo "Christianity", and — "Cyril and Mifody." At the same time, some Russian-speaking people without any difficulty, perhaps, be able to understand some of the phrases and in Sanskrit. After all, they spoke a similar language relatively recently. I specifically mention here the phrase, do not translate it. I predict that the reader will understand its meaning without any dictionary. So, try to "guess" that it could mean: Kata Matsi tvaya bratra?

Thus, after considering a number of specific examples, we see firsthand that not only dictionary of Sanskrit of distinctly Slavic sounding, but the grammar of Sanskrit — the grammar is the Slavic language, and not the French, English, or any else. Osyazaya growing trend of people understand how to be in the history, forgers go to more and more new tricks to hide the truth from us. So, for example, being no longer able to deny a direct connection is Sanskrit with Slavic languages, as well as the fact that carriers of Sanskrit were people whose genetic Y-haplogroup haplotype is R1a, haplotype is the elite of the Slavs, they begin to try every possible way to diminish the role of Slavs, as civilize, in particular, of ancient India. Say it is not true that Sanskrit predates Latin. Well, as they say, insanity grows stronger. If the ancient Slavs-Aryans, who brought culture to the same India could neither write nor read, how they managed to carry through the Millennium tens of thousands of volumes of the Vedas, works of art and texts informative? They that have computers to store billions of gigabytes of data? Perhaps our ancestors had a phenomenal memory, passing from mouth to mouth for eternity whole gigantic library? Even if we assume that each of the ancient Slavs-Arias has been doing that repeating that, they say, do not forget, every minute aloud 10 pages of fine print, talking, say, about the device aircraft — Wyman, then, it appears that our ancestors were not plowed and did not sow, and just do that, to fall into insanity, climbed in single file through the lush jungles of India vied taldychite anyone incomprehensible phrases (Above left: not as a sample of ancient Slavic-Aryan architecture, scattered over the Himalayas, served as the prototype for the Christian priests of the churches? Slavic-Aryan stupas in Ladakh looks as old as the Himalayan Mountains behind it). And who then melted famous Aryan iron, erected Mohenjo Daro created vysokotechnologichnye structures in the Indus valley and built the famous giant bridge between Indo and the island of Ceylon, the remnants of which still can be seen today at the bottom of the strait? Something is not fit with common sense.

If we, dear reader, come to listen to the screams and howls of our enemies, and look at the facts and the results of research scientists druzhaschih with logic, then we will see that the Slavic-Aryan literature pertaining to the region of the Indian subcontinent at least as 8000 years. It is to this period is the oldest writing known today science texts of Vedic hymns Rigveda. It is this view is held by Indian scientists, who, in contrast to the Euro-American imposters stumbling on the first Sanskrit word, not in captivity stereotypes, and use the information first hand. Perhaps, the only European who can be trusted, is unsurpassed Sanskrit XIX century Colonel Ralph Griffith, who spent all his life in India studying Sanskrit texts. There is no temple or sanctuary, which he had not visited. This man has translated into English all the major Vedic works, so that, in fact, people of Christian culture and aware of their existence. According to the authoritative opinion of this researcher excellence, Aryan, ie Slavic writing not one, not two, but many tens of thousands of years. Let's make this fact the object of our pride and the subject of the public domain.

Author: GERMANICVS

Comment: With few exceptions (such as "There's the" mov "and" svidomye "and" independence, ""), it seems to me that this article serves as a good basis for understanding the role of the Slavic tribes in the history of mankind. Those who do not believe in conspiracy theories let them try to explain the conversion of the Slavs and the Rus in mankurts supposedly naturally. China, the Celts and other peoples remember their history, and the Slavs not? Can someone explain to me why this happened in the story? Why Russes, Slavs deprived historical roots? Who is a threat to our memory of existence? Who hates the Slavs?

Like this post? Please share to your friends: