just one insight that flashed …
(while doing some mental phonetic analysis, for a reason I give below)
Consonant; what you say.
Vowel; how you say that.
eg K is consonant, in ki, ke, ka, ko, ku K is whats fixed, because that’s “what” we say. But “how” we say it varies; u or a?
Now why this flashed? I was checking a Japanese word: “jigai” (自害) which means suicide. This word comes from two bases: “ji” 自 and “gai” 害. I remembered “ji” is life.
(from my research years ago, I had realized plenty of such Japanese words having exact same base with Indian words or at-least the single or double consonant = “what” matching, with the variation seen in only, vowel = “how”)
So “ji” is one example of exact matching. Say how? Ji is in Jivan, Jina, Jindagi which are all Indian words for life, even simply ji.
Words without exact matching but where at-least consonant matches. butsu (J) = bastu (I) = matter, and kan (J) = kendra (I) = place/center etc. There could also be more abstracted matching (where you have to vary the phonetics to realize that they are probably of same origin, till you are confident). Too much varying will neutralize everything till you get a meaning = Sun, in various ways, my pet finding of linguistic objects.
Interestingly I find more matching with an far more ancient language like Odia (than a recent language like Hindi) eg kenka (J) = khenka-khenki (O) = skirmish, fighting (with Japanese k being both k and kh) and konde (J) = khunda-khundi (O) = crowded; a reason why I often babble the word “konde natta” and laugh with hysteria because they are both the same in my native speak and in Japanese. konde natta means “became crowded” as in “my head if filled with too much”.
I will stop with examples and get back to the main discourse here.
So there are far more deeper connection with Japanese and Indian languages. (I have plenty plenty more to substantiate my claims, but I will stop with few) One advantage of Japanese is the phonetics is locked with its symbols for thousands of years, but Indian phonetics evolved arbitrarily (like hair splitting) which is why we have so many languages. SO when there is abstract matching its difficult to know (without further provocations) as to they are same origin or not. In any case the neutral attributes and the arbitrariness means same phonetics with same meaning (same word that is) can develop in different geography without any actual connection. That is they are possible randomly and they might match partially.
But my idea was to check (since I know ji is same in J and I; life, what’s gai? One caution while going from Japanese to Roman Translit eg 害 >> gai, one loses uniqueness, a attribute called as degeneracy. Because while trying to get back, gai could become 外, yet another LOCK. Such is not possible with Indian Languages. Which is why we say Vedas are verbal renderings. But Japanese is highly advanced locked system. You can’t manipulate the Japanese hair so much.
Here are examples of Indian LOCKS. माँ You can write maa, ma, maan etc because of multiplicity of transliteration rules. India does not have a transliteration rule defined like Japan’s unique HepBurn system. There is no two way. Just the hepburn way. Indians don’t like rules,, we like dogma, dictum and directions. The mantra of 3 D. But Japan is a highly disciplined country (at-least you can see signature of such discipline from 1000s of years)
Considering ma is the only translit, we can get back to माँ or मा in जीमा, but we wouldn’t know. Because these locks are alphabet locks and superficial.
Japan has such superficial locks or alphabets called as hiragana and katakana but they are created from actual locks called kanji. eg 害. This actual lock can store only very few words with strict rules defined. Hence there is no loss of actual language that existed 1000 years ago and now. But India loses its language and creates 100s of new ones, the reason of India’s glory of 1000 language is this. We did not create locks or symbols that carry meaning in a well defined way.
So I wanted to know what is this second phonetics unit “gai” in this word “jigai” meaning self-killing. Obviously its not the other gai I knew: 外 = outside. You can always define; outside of life = loss of life. But that would be manipulation, what philosophers do when they sitting on a blanket at wit’s end.
The other gai in jigai is “harm = 害 “.
Can you find a word in Indian language which would very closely match ? (eg a consonant matching ro a convincing abstract matching with phonetic variations even when consonants are not same)
If not ancient languages like Japanese really do not come out of hypothesized language like Sanskrit. And in all likelihood they do not. You will come across 99 words that do not have any matching for 1 that might match.
Its in line with my idea, that there never were any actual language from which various languages were created. Simply we evolved from wild noises, and in 1000 of different tract, across regions and times that never met and then they grew by mixing, like every other facet of human existence.