Use of "A or AA" in indo european languages

[maddhan1979]

"A or AA" is used as prefix for negation in language.

[ayushkadyan]

"A or AA" is used as prefix for negation in language.

This is called Puzzle

[DrRajpalSingh]

"A or AA" is used as prefix for negation in language.

At least share something, how......... ?

[DrRajpalSingh]

"A or AA" is used as prefix for negation in language.

The thread may better be taken up in general discussion sub forum so that all could be beneficiaries of this new research !!!

[ashe]

i dont know about negation or anything else..


But i don't like when our family doctor spells my name as Aasha.. it is Asha.. :D :P

[vikasJAT]

The thread may better be taken up in general discussion sub forum so that all could be beneficiaries of this new research !!!

Sir ji isme research kaha dikh rahi hai..... haklon ki problem b to ho sakti h ye.......

[maddhan1979]

There are various words which depict use of "A" or "AA" as negation in IndoEuropean languages.

This thread explores different aspects of this use.

[maddhan1979]

here is a word : Nath and Aanath,,,,which is aa+nath.

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.

[maddhan1979]

here is a word : Nath and Aanath,,,,which is aa+nath.

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.[/QUOTE]


One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history. While religion has had strong roots since ancient times. In any culture religion has always used words and knowledge from other cultures and scientific discovery to superimpose religious identity. Lot of identites and words are borrowed or used by local religion from foreign cultures or migrating tribes.

Hunnic tribes were not very literate tribes and were nomadic tribes this has been archaeologically and scientifically proved. Therefore their words, names, etc. would have been used by local religion whatever country or place they went. Therefore lot of words of Hunnic origin that local religion use could very well be of Hunnic origin and not of religion origin.

[maddhan1979]

here is a word : Nath and Aanath,,,,which is aa+nath.

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.

Religion relies on loan words and scientific discoveries from other sources. To create new identities religion often uses these words for its own use. Lot of words might have loan words but the origins of these words might be from different sources.

[maddhan1979]

Two very similar but different words which might be from different origins:

Nat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_caste

Nath: A person having parents: opposite of Aa+ nath

[maddhan1979]

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.

One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history. While religion has had strong roots since ancient times. In any culture religion has always used words and knowledge from other cultures and scientific discovery to superimpose religious identity. Lot of identites and words are borrowed or used by local religion from foreign cultures or migrating tribes.

Hunnic tribes were not very literate tribes and were nomadic tribes this has been archaeologically and scientifically proved. Therefore their words, names, etc. would have been used by local religion whatever country or place they went. Therefore lot of words of Hunnic origin that local religion use could very well be of Hunnic origin and not of religion origin.[/QUOTE]

"One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history."

Correct version is:
"One must remember migration of north western tribes into india especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history.

[maddhan1979]

Two very similar but different words which might be from different origins:

Nat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_caste

Nath: A person having parents: opposite of Aa+ nath

While "Nat" is related with occupation. Any person could have started this occupation. Words like :"Nath", seem to be coming from practical use of language in daily life.

[lrburdak]

use of aa for long a is not used in literature or any international system. International standard is to use ā for long a.

For kind information of Jatlanders we have all language tools at the top in the Jatland Wiki edit box when you are editing some thing. Kindly use this resource tool of Special Characters.

It is advised never use aa आ

[maddhan1979]

Now the interesting point is how did these words emerge. While Aanath basically means a child or children without parents. So, most probably "Nath" is someone with parents. Why, will these words be coined or used? The answer might be present in old feudal life style and numerous kingdoms present in ancient India.

Wars as in present times were no different from ancient wars. Which straightaway means human casualty. Young men and women of good health are the direct casualties of wars, old people and children are the leftovers of any war.
So, it is probable that to distinguish children with parents and without parents after war, words like "Aanath and nath were" started. Warriors who fought wars always faced casualties, what remained were mostly children and old people. Managing so many children orphaned by wars in ancient times would have been a difficult task for diverse societies at large , so, the very start of managing such children would be done by separating children who had parents and could be taken care off from those who whose parents died in the wars or were taken prisoners or those who were lost from their parents.

One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history. While religion has had strong roots since ancient times. In any culture religion has always used words and knowledge from other cultures and scientific discovery to superimpose religious identity. Lot of identites and words are borrowed or used by local religion from foreign cultures or migrating tribes.

Hunnic tribes were not very literate tribes and were nomadic tribes this has been archaeologically and scientifically proved. Therefore their words, names, etc. would have been used by local religion whatever country or place they went. Therefore lot of words of Hunnic origin that local religion use could very well be of Hunnic origin and not of religion origin.[/QUOTE]


In ancient times most aa+nath would have been from communities and clans which were riding horses, camels, etc. mostly people of migration origin. Wars in ancient times were fought on horses, elephants, camels, and other animals. While Nath would have been people of non warrior origins, who were not using horses, camels, etc. i.e.. One must remember horses are non native to Indian subcontinent, Horses came into Indian subcontinent with migrating tribes from out of India subcontinent and this has been archaeologically and scientifically verified.

[maddhan1979]

One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history. While religion has had strong roots since ancient times. In any culture religion has always used words and knowledge from other cultures and scientific discovery to superimpose religious identity. Lot of identites and words are borrowed or used by local religion from foreign cultures or migrating tribes.

Hunnic tribes were not very literate tribes and were nomadic tribes this has been archaeologically and scientifically proved. Therefore their words, names, etc. would have been used by local religion whatever country or place they went. Therefore lot of words of Hunnic origin that local religion use could very well be of Hunnic origin and not of religion origin.

"One must remember migration of north western tribes and especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history."

Correct version is:
"One must remember migration of north western tribes into india especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history.[/QUOTE]

"One must remember migration of north western tribes into india especially hunnic tribes is very late in Indian history": The biggest migration into India took place around 4th century AD, in form of Scythian migration.

Other small scale migrations have been happening throughout time scale in different forms and due to different reasons as discussed earlier.