Something to share with the group about this wonderful and mysterious thing called - language. 

I am aware that, like any other field, linguistics has its own set of jargon and that those who have not studied linguistics in general, might become confused with some of the terminology.  Please bear with me, and understand that the most important part of all of this is the logic employed.  However, the underlying message here is very important.  It has to do with the evolution of language in general, but most importantly, our mother tongue, Classical Arabic, which has played a very important role in the evolution of many languages and institutions. 

When it comes to  European languages, the extend of this connection has not yet been recognized, but hopefully through this series you will begin to see that not only token words such as admiral, zero, magazine, etc., but the underlying foundation of very important cultural institutions passed on to Europe through culture contact during early Medieval times. 

Lastly, if anyone needs clarification of any of the subject matter and or terms used here, please don't hesitate to let me know. 
 
 

Scholars in the 19th century made the first leap back in hypothetical ancestral languages. By comparing archaic words of modern languages and analyzing internal vowel, changes and common word endings, they established the probable common root of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Germanic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. Called Indo-European, its daughter languages constitute today's most of the widely spoken linguistic family. 

Over two centuries, specialists in the field of Indo-European Linguistics, the cornerstone of Historical Linguistic Studies, have promoted the principal idea that correspondences between the vocabularies of the Ancient Indo-European family of languages illustrate the principal aspects of a common culture, particularly of material culture.  Further more, they asserted that instances of the lexical inheritances were collected from expressions for family relationships, numbers, names of animals, metals, agriculture implements, etc.  Hence, a series of authors, ranging from the nineteenth century until recent times, have devoted themselves to the compilation of such lists of common expressions to buttress their theory. 

The forms involved are specifically expressions relating to institutions.  Their aim is to analyze the so-called genesis of these expressions and terms and their connections to the study of the formation and organization of the vocabulary of the Indo-Europeans institutions. 

In so doing, their primary task is to trace and to restore a linguistic unity thought to have been dissolved by processes of evolution, bringing buried structures to light and harmonizing the divergence of technical usage. 

This methodology makes it easier for historians and sociologists to see what use they can make of analyses to advance the Indo-European theory of languages.

How this is done?  The task of the linguist is delimited in the following way.  He takes his material from the vast store of what is believed to be established correspondences of the Indo-European language family, which have been transferred, without much change, from one etymological dictionary to another. 

This material is, by its very nature, far from homogeneous.  Each separate linguistic fact comes from a different language and constitutes part of a distinct system which develops along unpredictable lines.  The main task is to demonstrate that these forms correspond to one another and they are all direct continuations of some original form found in the theoretical original Indo-European tongue. 

An attempt is then made to show how words, which at first exhibited little differentiation, progressively acquired specialized applications and evolved into semantic subfamilies that reflect a profound evolution of institutions.  Such developments within a particular language may also come to influence other languages through culture contact. 

This is the daunting path within which the historical linguist must operate. This is further complicated by a double handicap: (1) The lack of written documentation and (2) the lack of historical perspective.
 

Perhaps, for all of the reasons described above, and what I previously underlined in my introductory remarks on the subject, I reiterate this fact: The field of Historical Linguistics is far from being an exact science; and I should add, this leaves the field wide open to challenge.  The following investigation entitled "Aethel"- The Runic letter symbol expressing  Nobility and Property & Wealth in the Germanic world - will help illustrate my point. 

I have purposely zeroed in on this subject for several reasons. 

WHAT IS A RUNE AND A FUTHARK? The term Rune refers to any member of a set of symbols found in a distinctive Germanic alphabet called the " Futhark" after the sound values of the first six symbols. It was used primarily in Northern Europe .  The earliest surviving Runic inscriptions are found on durable materials , such as metal or stone, that resist decomposition reasonably well . It is very likely, however, that the Runes were originally devised to be carved in wood , as their forms suggest by their avoidance of curves and horizontal lines.  Although Germanic literary sources ascribed the Runic writing system to the Nordic god Odin , most runologist have sought a more prosaic origin, and specifically have sought a connection with the writing systems of more civilized part of Europe . While  Indo-European linguists  have sought to show a connection between the Runes and variants of the Greek alphabet: Other have argued for a Latin model , still others have maintained that the precursor should be sought in the Northern Italic alphabets used by the Etruscans.  The names of the Germanic Runes are not preserved in any early Runic inscriptions;  the later manuscript versions, however, both English and Continental, show a sufficient measure of agreement in the forms and meanings of the names to make an early common origin highly likely. The earliest manuscript futhorcs containing the names of the Anglo-Saxon runes date from the eighth or early ninth century.The tenth-century Vienna Codex 795, previously mentioned, also lists the names of the letters of the Gothicalphabet which, despite some oddities, show unmistakable amities with the Old English names.  Several manuscripts from the tenth to the twelfth century give the names of the shorter Scandinavian futhark. One useful source of both Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Rune-names is the St. John's College, Oxford, England (MS. 17), which is something of an antiquarian's paradise with its collection, among many other items of interest, of Futhorcs, Futharks and cryptic alphabets ( i.e the Irish Ogham) etc. In Arabic the names of the letters of the Alphabet (Abgadiyah,) along with many of the Afro-Asiatic group of languages were meaningful words , in Greek they functioned solely as letter names. Like the Arabic letters the Germanic Runes possessed names which formed part of the vocabulary of ordinary speech, and it was not uncommon practice to make a single rune stand for its name-word.  In nearly every case the Rune-names begin with the same sound which the Rune denoted in normal alphabetic usage.  For this reason the comparative method will be extended to the Classical Arabic . In Nordic mythology the last of the runic alphabet is called Othala.  It is a symbol of which is inherited through the generations by the whole clan in both the material and spiritual realms. It is as immovable as the land and cannot be transferred out of the clan/tribe. However, through the institution of marriage those outside the clan have access to its power through integration with it. Othala is the wise and just management of the land by the noble ones: those possessed of the spiritual power of this rune in accordance with clanic tradition and law. Othala. is the spiritual source of a magical power, which results from the virtuous deeds of past generations as runic imprints into the "genetic codes" of the descendants a powerful rune of Odhinn.  In nordic legends, The Runic stave Othala served as a  personal monogram to Odhinn the Nordic god, and it meant to represent  wealth , property and nobility.

The following is an article by the foremost Indo-Europeanist,  the late Emile Benveniste, on the origin of the term "Aethel" in the  Indo-European languages . His conclusions have been concurred by eminent  Indo-European linguists, such as  A. Walde,  H. Falk,  A. Trop,  F. Weigand and Calvert Watkins. 

Zoltan Karpathian, linguist and know- it-all, flouting 25 medals on his chest  as proof of his prowess in Linguistics, hinting at Professor Higgins about his cunning ability to detect Miss Elisa Dolittle's true identity. His convoluted logic and pompous  verbosity do not escape an amused Higgins who is enjoying the charade
 

How does one begin to argue with the supreme Gurus of the Indo-European Mount Olympus?

In all honesty, I have a confession to make.  After reading the Indo-European argument,  I felt  utterly dazzled. To present such an elaborate argument about the origin of the term Athel by taking us on a sweeping linguistic tour touching upon Hera, the Heaven's Queen, along with Phoenix, Achilles, Telemachus and Eumaeus of the Greek Mythology.  Invoking the fosterage institution among the Celtic and Scandinavian societies can be quite intimidating at first. 

In Greek mythology, Eumaeus, the swineherd,  was the child of a prosperous mainland king, whose realm was visited by Phoenician traders. His nursemaid, a Phoenician herself, had been carried off by pirates as a girl and sold into slavery.  In return for homeward passage with her countrymen, she kidnapped Eumaeus. He was bought by Odysseus' father, whose queen raised him as a member of the family.  Telemachus addresses Eumaeus by the term atta, or foster-father, in Greek.  The crucial question is, what does this have to do with nobility, wealth and property, as found in the Germanic languages?  So far, nothing!

The mention of Gortyna might give the reader the impression that the Indo-European argument is solidly backed by concrete Archeological findings. Gortyna, an ancient city in central Crete, was one of the leading cities of the island and is known to harbor many ancient Greek remains.  An inscription, dating from 450 B.C., of a code of laws of inheritance, marriage, divorce,  and other family matters was found on a wall in 1884. This archaeological find provided important insights into civil society of that time.  However, if one scrutinizes the Gortyna vocabulary of the Greek texts, No trace of Athel (referring to Nobility or designating wealth and property), or even a remotely cognate term,  is to be found.  Instead what we have is the word atitaltas, designating the Greek tropheus or foster father.

Since the central argument of the Indo-Europeans rests on the assumption that "nursling with the implication that children brought up by foster-parents could only be of noble birth." perhaps an explanation of the life at this time in history of fosterage institutions among the Celtic and Scandinavian societies is in order.

Of the various customs and peculiarities which distinguished the ancient Irish, as well as the Scoto-Irish, (all of whom are Celts) none has given rise to greater speculation than that of fosterage, which consisted of the mutual exchange by different families, of their children for the purpose of being nursed and bred in the absence of a mother. There is nothing special about this practice.  It is observed world wide, including in some species of the Animal kingdom.

Even the son of the chief was so entrusted with an inferior member of the clan.  An adequate reward was either given or accepted in every case, and the lower status, to whom the trust was committed, regarded it as an honor rather than a service. "Five hundred kyne and better", says Camden, "were sometimes given by the Irish to procure the nursing of a man's child who has just lost his biological mother ". 

The simple fact that inferior class members of the clan were equally involved in the practice, robs the Indo-European argument  from any attempt at linking it to Nobility, or for that matter to wealth and property.

A firm and indissoluble attachment always took place among foster-brothers, and it continues in consequence to be a saying among Highlanders, that "affectionate to a man is a friend, but a foster-brother is as the life-blood of his heart". Camden observes, that " no love in the world is comparable by many degrees to that of foster-brethren in Ireland." 

Similar traditions were observed to have taken place in the Gragas  (Icelandic laws) as mentioned above in Benveniste' s article.  Among Scandinavian tribes, the practice of fosterage Fostra  was created between families to promote a sense of solidarity among the families of the tribe.  Unfortunately, while it was meant to prevent feuds among the members of the clan, often had the opposite effect. Any linking or equating between nursling and/or fosterage with Nobility , wealth and property, as offered by the Indo-Europeanists, is conspicuously absent and defunct. 

Since the Arabic alphabet, like the Germanic Runes, possessed names which formed part of the vocabulary of ordinary speech, I  will now proceed  to apply the comparative method.  Using the Arabic language which is a non  Indo-European language, I will compare it to the various Germanic languages.

This investigation reveals the following astounding exact match. I will let you be the Judge.  In Old Arabic, the term Athl (from the trilateral root Alif + Tha' + lam ) refers to glory, honor, dignity, and yes, above all, nobility of long standing or ancient origin.  Surprisingly, it also means wealth and property  (for the various definitions follow Prof. Higgins in the Jpeg below ). The term is equally present  in the Qur'anic verse Saba' # 16.  and in the Islamic Jurisprudence (al-Fiqh) refering to the financial  principal or the capital,  just as it stated in the Nordic /Icelandic  Athel  in the Gragas (Icelandic laws) See Jpeg below. 

BTW the term Asl (Alif + Sad + lam) is also a dialect variation of Athl  in Arabic.

As a result of this match, we can safely assume that the greater the number of similarities in the vaious meanings of the term, the more likelihood there is that a borrowing occurred as a result of a culture contact between the Arabs and the Germans, bypassing the Latin and the Greek worlds and anything else in between.

I remember the following thought, often expressed by my archeology professor.  He stated that if a Gothic cathedral was discovered in the heart of the Australian desert, there would be no denying the fact that Europeans had been there.  Such a structure is so distinctive, and composed of so many different elements, that it would be impossible to consider its hypothetical Australian counterpart as a duplication, independently developed, of the European form.  

The same rationale applies here in the case of the various meanings in the term of Athel  (a basic vocabulary term),  which are shared  exactly by both the Arabic and the Germanic exclusively of any other languages.  I rest my case. 

Ishinan