Steamboats and language We rise to Pushkinskaya. On the right is the complex of buildings of the Black Sea Shipping Company (ChMP). It occupies almost the entire block. Entrances to its yards are from two streets: Deribasovskaya and Lanzheronovskaya parallel to it (in Soviet time- Lastochkin street according to the party

LANGUAGE The new heroes of Nevsky Prospekt brought with them new language. The slang of the swindlers had a pronounced thieves' accent. They did not speak hair dryer, but they liked to use “dangerous” vocabulary appropriately: “gimp”, “empty”, “red-feathered”. In ordinary situations, speech

§ 5. The language of "speaking" monkeys and the language of man 1. Representation of the habitat in chimpanzees. There is every reason to doubt that the chimpanzee has a systemic representation of its environment, similar to the human one. It can be assumed that the developed system level

The language of love The ABC of feelings At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, love adventures of both sexes in the empire were forbidden, but proceeded in secret with the help of a whole set of signs and movements that real language love. In those days, it was impossible for men and women to be together

The language of thought and the language of life in Fonvizin's comedies Denis Fonvizin has been living on the Russian stage in his comedies for two centuries. And there are no signs that he will have to completely go to the department of literary historians, that is, where the venerable, but already

Around 4000 BC, an amazing people, the Sumerians, came to Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (modern Iraq). The invention of agriculture and the wheel is attributed to them. In addition, they invented writing, made a discovery that completely changed the entire course of human history, the Internet is one of the many consequences of this discovery of the Sumerians.

The fact that they came from somewhere far away is evident from their language, it reflects the mountainous nature of their ancestral home, in Sumerian “country” is called the word “kur” (“mountain”), the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, where there are no mountains, built mountains themselves , ziggurats, on which they erected their temples.

The Sumerians called their language "eme-gir", "eme" means "language", "gir" (some believe that the sign reads "ku") means "noble" (in the Sumerian definitions were placed after the defined). In addition to the local dialects that naturally existed in every city-state of the Sumerians, their language had another important division: in addition to ordinary language"eme-gir", there was also a second variant of the language, "eme-sal". Sumerologists are still actively arguing about the translation of this name, the most likely translation of the word "sal" can be considered "thin". Some religious texts were recorded on "eme-sal", which probably had to be performed by a female choir. Often in sacred texts, the gods speak with some gods on "eme-gir", and with others - on "eme-sal". These two variants of Sumerian differed mainly phonetically, there were also morphological and lexical differences, but they were much smaller. The main theory about the nature of "eme-sal" now is that it was a female language, a phenomenon found in many languages ​​around the world.

Sumerian ceased to be spoken around 2000 BC. e. But then for at least 1000 years this language was studied in the schools of Babylon and Assyria. All our knowledge of the Sumerian language is based on dictionaries that the Babylonians created to facilitate the study of Sumerian in their schools. In these dictionaries, in addition to the translation of words, there was also their transcription, so now in general terms one can quite accurately imagine how the Sumerian language sounded. I write "in general terms" and "fairly accurate" because this transcription was written in Assyrian cuneiform, a script that was not very suitable for transmitting foreign words, it could not designate all sounds.

In the illustration, the Sumerian text of Ur-Nammu, king of the city of Ur, 2112 - 2094 BC. e. The following is written there:
"For Inanna, his mistress, Ur-Nammu, mighty man, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad, he built her temple." Inanna, the daughter of Nanna, was one of the main Sumerian goddesses, the mistress of love, fertility, the morning and evening star.

The only book about Sumerian in Russian, grammar:
(the book is not very good, written in a dry official language, without love for the subject)

The only Sumerian textbook in the world, in English, it is Tom, the cat of my friends from Hamburg, who sleeps on it. The book is chic, masterpiece, on Amazon from $ 100 price.
John L. Hayes, A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts, Malibu, UNDENA, 1990
For this book, I made a list of cuneiform characters found in the first ten lessons, such a mini-dictionary, .

Type: syllabo-ideographic

language family: not installed

Localization: Northern Mesopotamia

Propagation time:3300 BC e. - 100 AD e.

The homeland of all mankind, the Sumerians called the island of Dilmui, identified with modern Bahrain in the Persian Gulf.

The earliest is presented on texts found in the Sumerian cities of Uruk and Jemdet-Nasra, dated 3300 BC.

The Sumerian language still continues to be a mystery to us, since even now it has not been possible to establish its relationship with any of the known language families. Archaeological materials suggest that the Sumerians created the Ubaid culture in the south of Mesopotamia at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 4th millennium BC. e. Thanks to the emergence of hieroglyphic writing, the Sumerians left many monuments of their culture, imprinting them on clay tablets.

The cuneiform script itself was a syllabic script, consisting of several hundred characters, of which about 300 were the most common; they included more than 50 ideograms, about 100 signs for simple syllables and 130 for complex ones; there were signs for numbers in the sixdecimal and decimal systems.

Sumerian writing evolved over 2200 years

Most of the signs have two or more readings (polyphonism), since they often acquired a Semitic meaning next to the Sumerian. Sometimes they depicted related concepts (for example, "sun" - bar and "shine" - lah).

The very invention of Sumerian writing was undoubtedly one of the largest and most significant achievements of the Sumerian civilization. Sumerian writing, which has gone from hieroglyphic, figurative signs-symbols to signs that began to write the simplest syllables, turned out to be an extremely progressive system. It was borrowed and used by many peoples who spoke other languages.

At the turn of IV-III millennia BC. e. we have indisputable evidence that the population - Lower Mesopotamia was Sumerian. Wide famous story about the Great Flood is first found in the Sumerian historical and mythological texts.

Although Sumerian writing was invented exclusively for economic needs, the first written literary monuments appeared among the Sumerians very early: among the records dating back to the 26th century. BC e., there are already examples of genres of folk wisdom, cult texts and hymns.

Due to this circumstance, the cultural influence of the Sumerians in the Ancient Near East was enormous and outlived their own civilization for many centuries.

Subsequently, writing loses its pictorial character and transforms into cuneiform.

Cuneiform writing was used in Mesopotamia for almost three thousand years. However, she was later forgotten. For decades, cuneiform kept its secret, until in 1835 an unusually energetic Englishman, Henry Rawlinson, an English officer and lover of antiquities, deciphered it. Once he was informed that an inscription was preserved on a sheer cliff in Behistun (near the city of Hamadan in Iran). It turned out to be one and the same inscription made in three ancient languages, including Old Persian. Rawlinson first read the inscription in this language he knew, and then managed to understand another inscription, identifying and deciphering more than 200 cuneiform characters.

In mathematics, the Sumerians knew how to count in tens. But the numbers 12 (a dozen) and 60 (five dozen) were especially revered. We still use the legacy of the Sumerians when we divide an hour into 60 minutes, a minute into 60 seconds, a year into 12 months, and a circle into 360 degrees.

In the figure you can see how, over 500 years, the hieroglyphic images of numerals turned into cuneiform ones.

Modification of Sumerian numerals from hieroglyphs to cuneiform

Judging by the linguistic and toponymic data, the Sumerians were not the autochthons of Sumer. This circumstance, the fact that the Sumerians belong to the Caucasoid race, as well as all the data obtained by us above, speak in favor of their possible origin from the territories of Russia (Russian Plain). Since other places of a possible outcome of the Caucasoids of the Sumerians in the 7th - 5th millennium BC. simply did not exist, and a whole nation cannot suddenly flare up as a wonderful civilization - flare up out of nowhere.

Skeptics, of course, may have some doubts, citing as arguments the possibility of the birth of geniuses among earlier uncivilized people, which, supposedly, these geniuses lead to the heights of civilization.

Let's take a special example for this.
Hosted on ref.rf
Imagine: a monkey is sitting on a tree. She had never seen anything more advanced than a banana in her life and did nothing more advanced than poking around with a stick in an anthill. You look at her and talk on a mobile phone. After a minute of distraction and putting the phone aside, you notice on your return that the same monkey is sitting on the same tree and holding a mobile phone in its paws. Every normal person understands that there is no place for miracles, and the origin of the mobile phone in the hands of a monkey is clearly defined.

So, returning to Sumer, we must clearly understand that the Sumerians came to the uninhabited regions of Sumer from another country and not only brought Caucasoid racial characteristics, but also knowledge, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ in the areas of their exodus was collected bit by bit over many dozens thousand years. This, in particular, also applies to mythology and language. Or another example.
Hosted on ref.rf
China has the world's only fastest train. But the Germans developed and made it. If the Chinese destroy the designers and documentation, does this mean that they will be considered the inventors and manufacturers of this train?

Of course not! And in this regard, we recall again that the density of archaeological sites of the time of appearance modern man(50 - 40 thousand BC; see paragraph 6. Chapter IV), and the spread of worldview cults, in particular, the cult of the Slavic Makosh (starting from 42 thousand BC, Kostenki , Russia; see Map of the distribution of the cult of the Slavic goddess Makoshi), and in terms of population in 50-40-20 thousand BC. (see paragraph 5. ch. IV), and according to the distribution of language families (see Languages ​​​​of the world), we will not find another center of the Caucasoid Proto-Slavic civilization anywhere except Rus' - Russia, located on the ancient Russian platform.

Meanwhile, in a number of linguistic studies, the Sumerian language is defined as ʼʼgenetically isolatedʼʼ. Politics, or more precisely, historical politics, in this case interferes with the conduct of scientific thought. And it intervenes for the reason that the modern democratic world community (see ʼʼDemocracy leads to the death of an egregorʼʼ) is mostly built on the basis of the thesis of the biblical origin of civilization. Even that declared OTHER position academic science about the adherence to the last Darwinian theory by its other wing, it still refers the now Darwinian origin of man to places of exclusively biblical events. What is worth at least the adoption by the scientific community of the name of the language family according to the character of the Bible: Sim - Semitic languages: imagine, the Slavs will give names to languages ​​\u200b\u200bon the Book of Veles - Velesov languages, Svarogov languages, Makoshin languages, Yaril languages, Rusal languages, etc. d. Or another term - praadamites, which defines people who lived before the biblical Adam. Imagine, we will call them praquetzalcoatl - the descendants of the Indian Quetzalcoatl. This, in turn, imposes a rigid framework on historical popularization, semitically pre-establishing that, supposedly:

• firstly, the ancestors of all peoples are Semites,
• secondly, the ancestor of all languages ​​is the Semitic language.

As you know, neither one nor the other is far from historical reality. As is also known, and as we have shown in Chap. XI, the so-called Semitic community was created by reconstruction (artificially), starting only from the 18th century AD. Two other false (ʼʼhypotheticalʼʼ') families of languages, named after two of the three sons of the biblical Noah, Ham and Japhet, have already died in non-existence - Hamitic and Japhetic. Semitic still clings to life, although it never finds a place on the maps of languages. Unless by direct renaming of existing installed languages ​​and language families.

Despite the data of science, publicly following the strained concept of interethnic tolerance, numerous scientists actually serve the process of long-term historical occupation (see paragraph 8. Chapter IV) of new lands by Semitic-Caucasian settlers who consistently destroyed all known civilizations (with the exception so far only one - Russian). As you know, the book of the Bible ʼʼApocalypseʼʼ speaks of the massacre that the Jewish messiah / Mashiach / Christ will inflict, destroying the ALL population of the Earth and leaving only 144,000 Jews from the 12 tribes of Israel. It is precisely for this that such scientists, to the detriment of the truth, preach precisely the Semitic (Jewish-Biblical) origin of civilization. Although, we repeat, this, of course, is from the field of mythology and has nothing to do with science.

For this reason, the claimed ʼʼgenetic isolationʼʼ of the Sumerian language actually implies the following: the Sumerians have neither ancestors nor brothers among the known languages ​​of the world. Which, in turn, says only one of two things:

• either the Sumerians were silent (didn’t have a language at all) before they came to Sumer,
• either the Sumerians came to Sumer from another planet.

Because in all other cases, the Sumerians must have linguistic relatives. In this case, the situation is not unique. She repeats exactly the situation with the Etruscan language, the origin of which is also allegedly not established.

The interestingness of these two situations lies in fact in the fact that both cultures - both Sumerian and Etruscan (from Pelasgian) - were the most developed in their regions in their historical time and had an enlightening effect on subsequent cultures and peoples. Both of these cultures were formed by proto-Russian settlers. And since, we repeat, the modern presentation of history in many respects goes exclusively for the sake of the Semitic one-man command, it is unacceptable that at least some other community was historically more advanced than the Semites themselves. And in this regard, this clear setting is also clearly worked out by the relevant researchers - the Sumerian and Etruscan (from Pelasgian) languages ​​\u200b\u200bdo not have (read: they cannot and should not have) their genetic ancestor.

For this reason, the Sumerian language of the early period (pre-Semitic) is not actively studied, and the Pelasgian language is not studied at all - because, if such studies were carried out, the results of these studies would put huge question marks on the works of numerous "researchers" euʼʼ, stating the above-mentioned difficulties in classifying these languages.

At the same time, since pseudo-scientific propaganda has nothing to do with the one that has already taken place real story, we are quite capable of finding the ancestors of the Sumerian language (as we did above, finding the ancestor of the Pelasgian language - see paragraph 7.1.2.1. Chapter IV).

The formation of the Sumerian language is attributed to the culture of Uruk (4th millennium BC), which replaced the El-Obeid culture (in the center of the city of Uruk, both the ʼʼRed Buildingʼʼ and the ʼʼWhite Templeʼʼ were excavated).

The accepted periodization of the Sumerian language itself is as follows:

• 2900 - 2500 gᴦ. BC. – archaic period: many ideograms in writing, not all grammatical formants and sounds are recorded; educational and economic texts, building inscriptions, legal documents.
• 2500 - 2300 gᴦ. BC. - the old period: economic texts, building, legal and historical inscriptions.

Further periods of the language of the peoples of the Sumerian territories speak of the Semitic-Caucasoid occupation and the complete destruction of the Caucasoid population of Sumer by the new Semites:

• 2300 - 2200 gᴦ. BC. - transitional period: a small number of written monuments, which is explained by the Sumerian-Akkadian bilingualism.
• 2200 - 2000. BC. – new period: many building inscriptions, long poems, religious texts, archives.
• 2000 - 1800. BC. - late period: epic songs, hymns; a clear influence of the Akkadian language (a Semitic group of the Afroasian language family).
• From 1800 ᴦ. BC. - the post-Sumerian period, when the language ceased to be alive and remained only one of the official ones; from that time bilinguals remained.

The early stage of the Sumerian language, as we noted above, does not seem to correlate with any of the known languages, and the later one correlates with the languages ​​of the Sino-Caucasian family. It was during this period that the Semitic-Caucasian occupation of Sumer took place. Sources speak of this as a process of assimilation of one culture by another, forgetting, however, that the culture of the Sumerians was completely destroyed by the assimilants, reworked by them and later issued as their own (for example, the Chaldean-Arameans ʼʼ inheritedʼʼ astrology from the Sumerians, ʼʼ the ancient Jewsʼʼ ʼʼ inheritedʼʼ from the Sumerians letter, etc., etc.). This is exactly the same as how the conquistadors "inherited" the lands of both Americas from the Indians: many cities and states bear the names of Indian tribes, and the Indians themselves became an excellent fertilizer for the barren prairies of the West.

The first monuments of Sumerian writing date back to 3200 BC. The Sumerian language was spoken in the 4th - 3rd millennium BC. among the bearers of the El-Obeid culture. But since it was historically built on the Hassun culture of the 6th millennium BC, and the similarity of the religious cult of worship of the Slavic Makosh (identical female figurines, ornament, etc., see above) is obvious, we can assume that the language the Sumerians were inherited precisely from this time.

The source, based on the data of linguistics, convincingly shows that at the time of the beginning of the existence of Sumer (5th millennium BC), in general, only six family languages ​​\u200b\u200bexisted on Earth:

1. Austrian - the east of Eurasia,

2. Elamo-Dravidian - east of Sumer,

3. Sino-Caucasian - northwest of Sumer,

4. Russian (general Indo-European) - to the west and north of Sumer,

5. Ural - northeast of Sumer,

6. Afroasian - in northeast Africa,

7. Negroid - in South Africa.

Rice. 4.7.1.3.1.1. Tree of Languages. Fragment 10 - 2 thousand BC

This list is final. Additions to it are not possible. During the period under consideration, the language space is ʼʼplowedʼʼ up and down, so that finding any additional family of languages ​​that was not previously known will not only be impossible, but impossible at all.

Analyzing the above list, we find that the Sumerians (early stage, before the 5th millennium BC) had no contact with the Austrian, Afrasian, Uralic and Negroid language families - the delimitation took place by territorial remoteness. In addition, racially, the Sumerians, who belong to the Caucasoid race, could not speak the languages ​​​​of the Mongoloids (Austrian and Uralic families) or Negroids (Afrasian and Negroid families). Also, due to racial discrepancy, the Sumerians could not be the speakers of the Elamo-Dravidian language of the native Negroid population of Elam and India. Borrowings and possible reworking of the latter are also out of the question, since even at present the Caucasoid-Indians have not mixed their Indo-European language with the Dravidian language of the local Dravidian Negroid population of India - India still has two ʼʼlanguagesʼʼ (two streams of languages).

Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, of the seven named families of languages, the Sumerians could only speak:

• either in Sino-Caucasian (Semitic),
• or in Proto-Russian (general Indo-European) languages.

Numerous studies clearly show that the Sumerian language does not belong to the Sino-Caucasian (Semitic) family. Moreover, it was after the Semitic-Caucasian ʼʼstateʼʼ of Akkad, located northwest of Sumer, was created, strengthened and attacked Sumer, that both the Sumerian language and the Sumerian people ceased to exist.

At the same time, this process of forced assimilation took place only from the 2nd millennium BC, which is reflected in the periodization of the Sumerian language given by us above. The conclusions about the belonging of the Sumerian language to the proto-Russian (Indo-European) family are beyond doubt. Although, to clarify our positions, let us turn to the analysis of the language itself.

The structure of the Sumerian language as two basic typological dominants contained:

• agglutinative nature of the organization of morphemes in a word,
• ergative nature of actant-predicate relations.

These two traits have a number of dependent tendencies in the structure of the language. The first of them determines that all morphemes in the Sumerian word have boundaries - they carry one grammatical meaning. Agglutination consists in the fact that derivative words are formed by attaching affixes that have a certain meaning to the root or base. At the same time, affixes follow each other, do not merge with either roots or other affixes, and their boundaries are distinct. For example, pomorka, where: by - a prefix indicating the location; pest - the root that establishes the meaning of the basis; k - a suffix indicating females formed from the root; a - an ending indicating feminine, singular. The Sumerian language is synharmonism(within a disyllabic stem, only one vowel is possible, for example, milk, parade, good, etc.) and ergative structure (the verb-predicate always closes the sentence, and the actant with the meaning of active action always comes first, for example, I love you, you look at the sky, etc.).

Agglutination as a structural dominant ͵ in terms of opinions suggests that the language should be polysynthetic, especially in the structure of the verb. In the Sumerian language, this is confirmed by the fact that almost all types of actants have agreement in the structure of the verb, and the morphological and syntactic expression of the ergative structure of the language are almost completely correlated.

Moreover, today, according to some linguists, polysynthesism is characteristic only for the languages ​​of America, New Guinea, Oceania, and northern Australia. In Eurasia, polysynthetic languages ​​are distributed only in Far East, the only geographical exception is the Abkhazian language in western Transcaucasia. For Africa, polysyntheticism is also uncharacteristic. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, we see that polysynthesism is a phenomenon mainly of Mongoloid languages. The Sumerians, as we have shown above, were Caucasoids.

For this reason, to consider the situation around Sumerian polysyntheism, let's give an encyclopedic example: ʼʼPolysyntheism is not an absolute, but a relative characteristic of the language, one of the poles of the continuum ʼʼanalytism - synthetism - polysynthetismʼʼ. Consider English sentence(1) ʼʼI am trying to sleepʼʼ and its translations into Russian (2) – ʼʼI try to sleepʼʼ and into the Central Yupik language (Eskimo family, Alaska) (3) – ʼʼqavangcaartuaʼʼ (example by M. Mitun). The meaning of all three sentences is the same, and the number of morphemes / semantic elements is approximately the same: in each of the three sentences there are about six of them. Wherein English language expresses this meaning in five words, of which two, three or even four are auxiliary. English is mostly analytic, and the only productive grammatical affix in sentence (1) is the ϶ᴛᴏ suffix -ing. The Russian language is moderately synthetic. The English particle to in (2) corresponds to the infinitive suffix -т, and the main predicate I try to be expressed in one word (synthetically), and not in an analytical combination with an auxiliary verb, as in English. Central Yupik is a highly synthetic or polysynthetic language: all grammatical meanings in sentence (3) are conveyed by affixes of the verb ʼʼsleepʼʼ, which is semantically central. A morpheme denoting ʼʼяʼʼ also acts as an affix, and even the meaning of ʼʼtryʼʼ, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ in English and Russian should rather be considered lexical. All degrees of synthetism are possible, intermediate between Russian and Yupik, and also exceeding Yupik's polysyntheism ʼʼ .

Note that the English language belongs to the degrading languages ​​- languages ​​that lose some of their previous achievements. This is the reflection of analytics. Moreover, the English language comes from the Proto-Russian-Common Indo-European, and its degradation is caused by the significant removal of England from the territories of the initial formation of the Proto-Russian-Common Indo-European language, as well as by mixing with the languages ​​of other, less developed language families.

From the Russian language, we will give such examples of polysyntheism and its translations into analyticism (actant + auxiliary words + verb indefinite form): ʼʼI will work.ʼʼ - ʼʼI will not work for a whileʼʼ; I bite. ʼʼYou will jump over.ʼʼ - ʼʼyou can jump to the other sideʼʼ, etc.

For a Russian person who is fluent in his native language, one verb - I'll work, bite, jump - is enough to describe the concept that corresponds to it. For this reason, sentences consisting of one such word are frequent in Russian. Especially in conversation.

It is in connection with this that the idea of ​​the degree of polysynthesism of a given language fundamentally depends on the criteria for distinguishing the boundary of a word. Such boundaries (universal) do not exist in linguistics today. As a result, when ideas about the boundary of a word change, the qualification of the language on the scale ʼʼanalytism - synthesistism - polysyntheticismʼʼ can change radically. For this reason, any little-studied language presents to linguists, first of all, the riddle of its division into words. Polysynthetic languages ​​usually have the ability to convey one or another meaning expressed by means of a verbal affix (for example, ʼʼbite-Yuʼʼ), also using single word(for example, ʼʼI biteʼʼ).

Note that in the word ʼʼI biteʼʼ previously the prefix ʼʼpo-ʼʼ was a separate preposition, but now it has merged with the next word. And even duplicate constructions have developed, for example: ʼʼalong-ʼʼ + [ʼʼalong the topʼʼ + ʼʼostʼʼ (is) = ʼʼsurfaceʼʼ] = ʼʼalong the surfaceʼʼ.

For this reason, most linguists, regarding the polysynthetic nature of a particular language, share the formula ʼʼ, it is obvious that this is not a binary sign like ʼʼyes / noʼʼʼʼ. Because when ideas about the boundary of a word change, the qualification of a language on the scale ʼʼanalytism - synthesistism - polysyntheticismʼʼ can change radically. Here is another eloquent encyclopedic example: ʼʼ French traditionally perceived as one of the most analytical Western European languages. Meanwhile, such a description is imposed only by the habit of perceiving French in its orthographic form. A more objective approach to living spoken French shows that this language has already gone through the next stage of evolution - from analytic it has turned into polysynthetic(K. Lambrecht). Sentence (5) Il me l’a donne ʼʼhe gave it to meʼʼ, ĸᴏᴛᴏᴩᴏᴇ we habitually perceive as consisting of five words, actually represents one phonetic word, and if we were describing this language as some little-studied language of New Guinea or Amazonia, it is likely that such an interpretation of ʼʼ could be proposed.

The same applies to the ergativity of the Sumerian language. The structure of ergativity in Sumerian is integral, ᴛ.ᴇ. manifests itself both in the verbal system (personal affixes) and in the nominal (ergative case, expressed by the postfix -e). In our example, you can translate one word ʼʼI biteʼʼ into an ergative sentence, for example, ʼʼI biteʼʼ. Here we get an agreement between the actant ʼʼяʼʼ and the affix ʼʼ-уʼʼ, although from our point of view this is just a common duplication. It was precisely because of ergativity that the Sumerian language was ranked among the Sino-Caucasian languages: both Abkhaz-Adyghe or Nakh-Dagestan, and Kartvelian. At the same time, they have the nominative nature of the syntax, which is inherent in Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, etc.
Hosted on ref.rf
languages. And ergativity is declared as qualitatively different in relation to nominative languages ​​such as Slavic or Turkic.

From all that has been said above, it becomes clear why attempts by a simple comparison of certain features of the Sumerian language to fit it into any family turned out to be unsuccessful. It is precisely in this connection that it was not possible to prove that the Sumerian language belongs to the Sino-Caucasian family: not one of the structural or lexical elements found in Sumerian and at the same time finding a parallel in any other Sino-Caucasian should be declared a genetic parallel, since it can turn out to be an ancient borrowing.

From our point of view, based on the analysis of the spatio-temporal classification of languages ​​set forth in, the Sumerian language cannot be related to the Sino-Caucasian languages, since most of the latter in the era of the developed Sumerian language (5 thousand BC) simply did not existed in history. The only Sino-Caucasian language of the 5th millennium BC. is Proto-Kartvelian. At the same time, it was obtained by calculation, that is, the probability of its existence can be either 100% or 0%. Moreover, the Sino-Caucasian archaeological cultures of this time have not yet been found. All cultures of the 5th millennium BC regions of Mesopotamia are Proto-Russian Proto-Slavic (see paragraph 7.1.3. Ch. IV). The obvious complete impossibility of using the language of another race (Caucasian) by the Sumerians, moreover, we repeat, it was after the genocide organized in Sumer by the Semites-Akkadians that Sumer itself, and the Sumerians, and the Sumerian language ceased to exist.

On the other hand, the Proto-Russian - Proto-Slavic - language in the 5th millennium BC. actually attested by the works of Gornung, Rybakov, and others.
Hosted on ref.rf
Moreover, it is attested both archaeologically, and linguistically, and territorially - along the northeastern, northern, northwestern, western and southwestern borders of the Black Sea. From the southwestern border to the southern border there are only a few hundred kilometers (about 200 km), which, of course, does not present an obstacle for speakers of any language.

Based on the foregoing, we have the right to count on a fairly high percentage of the coincidence of Sumerian and Russian words (yes, despite the difference in age).

Table 4.7.1.3.1.1. Comparison of Sumerian, Russian and other Indo-European words.

Consider some more features of the Sumerian language. For example, in the Sumerian language, plurality is formed by repetition - Sumer.
Hosted on ref.rf
udu-udu, all meaning sheep. In the Russian language, ele-ele, we go-go, quietly-quietly, etc. have been preserved. Sumer.
Hosted on ref.rf
udu-xa, rams of various kinds (through the affix -xa, Russian - ksa) in Russian also has an analogue for designating ʼʼof various kindsʼʼ: sky - heaven-sa, miracle - miracle-sa, body - tele-sa, etc. .d.

The Sumerians themselves called themselves ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ. This is usually translated as ʼʼblackheadsʼʼ from sang, head, ngi(g), blacken. A very controversial statement, since they were not blacks, but white Caucasians. And this means that, unlike the Negroid natives who were present next to them, the Sumerians were by no means black-headed, but rather ʼʼʼʼʼʼʼ.

For this reason, in our opinion, it is possible:

• either the term ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ was used by the Sumerians to refer to the autochthonous Negroid population;
• or this phrase should be deciphered differently.

Let's consider several options. Based on the fact that the Sumerian language by its nature has ergative a structure in which the verb-predicate always closes the sentence, and the actant with the meaning of the active action always comes first, we get ʼʼ head + black (schey, shcha)ʼʼ. That is, active actor here sang, head, and ngi(g) is the verb ʼʼblackʼʼ, -a is the suffix of forming a name, as well as forming participles from verbs (ngig, blacken - ngiga, blackening). Compounding in the Sumerian name system consisted of a simple addition of roots. Some Difficult words go back to the typical Sumerian language group ʼʼdefinable - definitionʼʼ, and the definition must be expressed by an adjective, application or name in genitive case. That is, ʼʼsang-ngigaʼʼ can be translated like this - ʼʼ blackening head“Near or killing?). But sang can denote not only the head, but also a verb of a similar meaning - as, for example, shu denotes both the hand and the verbs ʼʼtookʼʼ, ʼʼtouchedʼʼ. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, sang can mean Russian. verb ʼʼgolovatʼʼ, ʼʼgolovanʼʼ, chop head = ʼʼhead something (thread, prostrate)ʼʼ. Just like the Russian colloquial ʼʼshtonitʼʼ = ʼʼsomethingʼʼ. If we remake the construction for the Sumerian type (rearranging the function word-morpheme ʼʼthread-somethingʼʼ from the end of the word to its beginning), we get ʼʼnheadʼʼ - ʼʼdecapitateʼʼ, and the self-name of the Sumerians - ʼʼ beheadingʼʼ. We find confirmation of this in French - sang, blood.

There is a second translation option. With the Sumerian spelling sang-(i)gi-g(al)-a, head-eyes-large we get - ʼʼ big-eyedʼʼ in the sense of ʼʼbeautifulʼʼ.

Third option. Sumerian sang-n-gigas is comparable to: French. sang - genus, origin; san - ʼʼnoble bornʼʼ; Greek gigas, pl. gigantes is the name of mythical creatures of enormous stature and superhuman strength. Then we have a translation - ʼʼ giants, noblesʼʼ.

Another option: san-g (i) n (a) - (i) gi-ga (l) - ʼʼ sons of the big-eyed giants who came ʼʼ.

In our opinion, the variants of translations of the self-name of the Sumerians given by us - ʼʼdecapitatingʼʼ, ʼʼbig-eyedʼʼ, ʼʼgiants, noble by birthʼʼ - reflect the essence of the Sumerian people more than the old term ʼʼblack-headedʼʼ, which is not attached to anything. Moreover, the deciphering of ʼʼsons of the big-eyed giants who cameʼʼ perfectly shows both the historical appearance of the Sumerians in the lands of Sumer, and their difference from the local native Negroid-Dravidian population.

At the end of our discussion of the Sumerian language, we present one more interesting parallel. The Sumerian self-name sang-ngiga or in one word - sangngiga - is very consonant with the Russian name of the ancient Paleolithic site Sungir - in Latin transcription - sungir.

conclusions

Analyzing the given Sumerian words, their translation, Russian analogues and their transliteration, as well as extensive vocabulary nests of other Slavic-Indo-European languages, we can make following conclusions:

1. The coincidence of the Russian and Sumerian languages ​​is almost complete. This is provided that the time difference between the words of these two languages ​​used for comparison is more than 5 thousand years. The data obtained are in full agreement with what is stated in the work ʼʼLanguages ​​of the worldʼʼ, where it is shown that in the period from the 6th to 3.5 thousand BC. the Sumerian language was a departed branch of Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian. Since the departure of the Sumerian language from Russian (6th millennium BC), the Russian language has not been subjected to any significant influences of other (non-Indo-European) families, and therefore, it has retained its vocabulary arsenal. Naturally, time influenced the Russian language in certain linguistic stages, but the roots, as we have shown, have remained largely unchanged.

2. An extremely high degree of similarity of the Sumerian language with almost all other languages ​​​​of the Indo-European family, common in Europe, was found. This is also in excellent agreement with the data presented in , where it is shown that European languages in the period from the 6th to 3.7 thousand BC. were the second branch that departed from the Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian language. Almost all the Indo-European languages ​​of Europe, like Russian, have not been significantly influenced by non-Indo-European families of languages.

3. Comparison showed a high degree similarities of the Sumerian language with the ancient Indian and Avestan languages. Both of these languages ​​departed from Russian in the period from 3.5 to the 2nd millennium BC. . At the initial stage of this period, from 3.5 thousand BC, the Sumerian, ancient Indian and Avestan languages ​​coexisted in parallel.

4. The analysis revealed an extremely low degree of coincidence of the Sumerian language with Greek. This is explained by the fact that the Sumerian language of the period under consideration (5 - 2 thousand BC), having broken away from the Proto-Slavic-Proto-Russian, was still to a large extent a common Indo-European-Proto-Russian language and did not experience the impact of another, unrelated language family . Greek language - on the contrary is not independent language, but a mixture (Koine) from the languages ​​of two unrelated language families - Pelasgian-Common Indo-European-Proto-Russian and Achaean-