On a tip from the reader Kostaber Kolosova came out on an interesting old book. It is called “Pantography; containing exact copies of all known alphabets in the world; together with an English explanation of the specific action or influence of each letter: to which are added samples of all authentic spoken languages."
This book was written by Edmund Fry (1754-1835), the founder of the English type-founder and published in London in 1799.
Pantography is the art of copying drawings using a pantograph. This is how it looks:
The book contains over two hundred alphabets. At the very beginning of the book, Edmond Free lists the sources he uses. There are a lot of them. How he himself qualifies the languages known in his time:
A native of Taiwan in traditional costume. The period of Japanese rule, until 1946
It turns out that back in the 18th century, there were also languages on the planet that are no longer there. And now there are those that did not exist in the 18th century. And it seems that the Indians lived not only in America and confused the Indians with the Indians for a reason. But there is still not enough information to draw any conclusions. As a blueprint for the future. He does not mention Sanskrit at all. Perhaps in the 18th century they did not yet know that it was he who was the only Proto-language? Or the language from which Sanskrit was formed. In any case, this is how modern linguists represent the linguistic scheme:
Genealogical classification of Indo-European languages.
The author of the book cites two varieties of the Indian language available at that time (with 32 varieties of Greek and 18 varieties of Aramaic):
Indian language 1.
I don't know why it is called Indian. The explanation says that this is the Nubian language (Africa, Nile Valley):
Indian language 2.
In modern India, 447 different languages are spoken, 2 thousand dialects. But two are official: Hindi and English. This is what Hindi looks like:
The same spelling of letters is used in Sanskrit:
Since I am not a linguist myself, I will refer to the opinion of experts:
The author of the book mentions only 2 Indian languages instead of 447, which are known in our time, and these two languages are in no way similar to the one in which India speaks and writes today. What conclusions can be drawn from this, I do not yet know. For the rest, we conclude that the author of the book, as a European, was closer to European languages, despite the abundance of literature he studied. Further in alphabetical order. Armenian language:
Armenian language 1.
Armenian language 2.
But Lapidary writing was used to describe any inscriptions found on stones and other solid materials from which monuments are erected.
Kerch Lapidarium.
Armenian language 3.
The modern Armenian alphabet.
Zlatoust was born on the territory of Turkey, but at a time when, by all indications, the Slavs still lived there. It is unlikely that he began to invent something different from the language in which they wrote and spoke. Although this alphabet is not at all similar to the Slavic one. Is the Glagolitic alphabet similar? After all, until recently, the Slavs used it, but now I personally look at this verb as a complete sheep. I'm used to the Cyrillic alphabet. Although it is very possible that the Russians, and not only the Scythians, did not write Tartars in Cyrillic at all? Here it is, an 18th century Slavic Glagolitic alphabet:
Bulgarian language.
The Illyrians were the vast groups of related Indo-European peoples who in ancient times inhabited the northwest of the Balkan Peninsula and partly the southeast of the Apennine Peninsula. Why so confuse? Why not say frankly that these were Slavic peoples?
Illyrian language 1.
What Christ, or rather what Methodius, does he mean? It is now believed that Cyril and Methodius, the creators of the Slavic alphabet, lived in the 9th century. According to the results of Fomenko and Nosovsky, Jesus Christ lived in 1152-1185 AD. Those. is it likely that the author of these very Cyril and Methodius had in mind? Or there were two pairs: one lived in the 9th century, the other 900 years earlier. Currently, the Illyrian language belongs to the Paleo-Balkan language group and the following scheme of its distribution is given:
Paleo-Balkan languages in Eastern Europe in the V - I centuries BC eh..
This Illyrian alphabet of the Indo-European people of the Paleo-Balkan language group in our time is also called the Glagolitic (recognized by Cyril and Methodius):
Another example of the Illyrian alphabet, but already more reminiscent of the Cyrillic alphabet or a mixture of Cyrillic and Latin:
Illyrian language 2.
The next Slavic language presented in the book is Russian:
Russian language.
The description of the Russian language is taken from the book of Peter Simon Pallas. It has already been mentioned in the article "On the ancient ruins of Siberia." This is a German scientist-encyclopedist, who is in the Russian service (1767-1810). In addition to research in the field of biology, geography, ethnography, geology and philology, he also compiled "Comparative dictionaries of all languages and dialects collected by the right hand of the Most High Personality of Empress Catherine II." Which came out first in 2 volumes (St. Petersburg, 1787-1789), and then in 4 volumes under the title "Comparative dictionary of all languages and dialects, located in alphabetical order" in 1790-1791). The author of the book referred to in this article refers to the 1786 edition, i.e. previously published in St. Petersburg. The entire preface of the Comparative Dictionary is written in Latin, although the further test is in Russian. It provides a translation of common Russian words into 200 other languages. Of these, 12 are Slavic, 36 are European, then Caucasian, Asian, and about a hundred others are peoples of Siberia, the Far East and the Far North. Who cares, you can see for yourself. The book is freely available.
In the book considered here, there is only ONE sample of the Russian language taken from a book written by a GERMAN … … I don't even know what conclusions to draw here. I have only one thing that suggests itself - this Russian alphabet was not yet very common in the 18th century, and perhaps it was used for writing some other?
Other Slavic languages are also presented in the book, but not in the form of alphabets, but in the form of the texts "Our Father", written, however, not in the original language, but in Latin. But even so, it is clear that they sound in Russian or almost in Russian, as in the case of the Lusatian language:
Luzhitsky language.
Moldavian language.
The language of the inhabitants of Novaya Zemlya.
Polish language.
Slavonian (Croatian?)
Serbian language.
Vandal language.
From the texts given here, we can conclude that even in the 18th century, the Slavic languages were closer to Russian in sound than now. Even in the Polish language I do not see many differences from Russian: “kingdom” instead of “kingdom”, “everyday” instead of “daily”, “wine” instead of “debt”, etc. But these differences relate to the content of the text of the prayer, not the words themselves. It turns out that the Slavs lived on the territory of present-day Moldova. Or at least its inhabitants spoke Russian. The Ukrainian language is not mentioned in the book, but Vandal is mentioned. Instead of him or not? I will not dare to draw a conclusion. The Vandals are considered an ancient Germanic tribe, close to the Goths who lived in the 5th century A. D., the Luzhitsy lived on the territory of modern Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Belarus and Western Ukraine, however, for a very long time - in the 7-4th centuries BC,spoke the languages of the Celto-Italic group and were the ancestors of the Illyrians, who were already considered above. There is such a scheme for the spread of Huns, Goths and Vandals throughout Western Europe:
Directions of tribal invasions into the territory of the Roman Empire. In particular, the gray color shows the direction of the movement of the vandals from Germany through Dacia, Gaul, Iberia to North Africa and the subsequent sack of Rome in 455 AD. e.
There is such a nuance: the Roman Empire, which was plundered by the Slavs, is located on the territory previously occupied by the Etruscans, who were also Slavs. So who captured and plundered whom remains a big question. This book contains three examples of the Etruscan alphabet:
Etruscan language 1.
Pelasgi is a people who inhabited ancient Greece, before the Greeks arrived there. The Etruscans lived in Italy before the arrival of the Romans, and the Pelasgians lived in Greece before the arrival of the Greeks, and the language of the Etruscans and Pelasgians had a common origin, because both were Slavs. I wonder how they could identify Etruscan letters in the 18th century, if in the 20th they said that Etruscan could not be read?
Etruscan language 2.
Etruscan language 3.
The language of the Huns.
If this is the language of the Huns. Huns are another name for the Slavs:
Or the Scythians, who are also Slavs:
As well as the Alans:
The language of the Huns is the language of the Scythians. And it looks like the Etruscan language. I do not know if the identification of the Etruscan and Hunnic alphabets was taken from the ceiling, or in the 18th century, Etruscan was quite a READABLE language. The Prussian language is mentioned in the book, but the appearance of its alphabet for some reason is not given (perhaps the reason is that it, like Lusatian, is Slavic?) Only three different readings of the "Our Father" written in Latin letters (but I don’t know in what language, definitely not German):
Prayer * Our Father * in Prussian.
Here is what Mavro Orbini writes about the Prusians:
Slavs lived in Europe (like Turkey) in the recent past. The "Romans" and "Greeks" came to these territories later, displacing the Slavs from them, and attributing their stay in this territory to ancient times. Turning the facts inside out: the conquerors were declared defenders, and the defenders were conquerors. However, this is not the only case, but rather a widespread phenomenon in our "history".
Several variants of the Tartar language are presented in the book:
Tartar language 1.
The Arabic language was quite used in Tartary. Many sources speak about this. But this does not mean at all that the tartars were Arabs. Samples of the Tartar language 2-4 are the texts of the prayer "Our Father" written in Latin letters: a literary prayer reading, a prayer in the Ostyak Tartar language and in the Chinese style - Tartar Chinese? I don't know Chinese, and I'm not a linguist at all, so it's hard for me to judge the content:
* Our Father * in Chinese style.
But it doesn't sound Chinese at all. Although, perhaps, the reason is that in the 18th century Europe did not yet know what language the Chinese spoke? The Chinese alphabet is also not shown in the book. Don't want to conclude that both the Chinese language and the Chinese alphabet were invented later?
Tartar language 5.
Tartar language 6.
Tartar language 7.
The Great Mughals are geographically linked to India. Another proof in the piggy bank that the language of Tartar, like the Scythians, and possibly all Slavs before Cyril and Methodius, was Sanskrit. Similar?
More about Tartar, Scythian and Sanskrit in the article "Petroglyphs and ancient writing of Siberia." It turned out that the Georgian language is also related to the Tartar language.
Georgian language 1.
Georgian language 2.
In my opinion, has something in common with the verb?
Modern Georgian language:
Another language, in my opinion, which has similarities with Slavic:
Welsh language 1.
Welsh language 2.
In my opinion, it is very similar to the Slavic runes:
My opinion: British runes are nothing more than Slavic runes. And this means that before the arrival of the British in Britain, the Slavs also lived there. And they suffered the same fate as the Etruscans in Italy, the Illyrians in Greece, the Prussians in Germany, the Huns in Hungary, and the Slavs in Moldavia. Or did all these Englishmen, Germans, Italians and Greeks forget that they are Slavs? But genetic studies show that they still belong to a different branch, albeit a related one: R1b, not R1a.
This article is based on the image of the inscription on the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
Author: i_mar_a