I agree that it's often not easy to ascertain the origin of words. Even "best guesses" may vary. I remember when I was studying linguistics, we were told of different theories as to how languages are as they are now, as a very complicated result of many factors. Even then, I could see that none of the theories could provide a complete explanation of reality, which is far more complicated (multifactorial) due to its organic nature.

"Indo-European languages" (family of languages that by 1000 BC were spoken throughout Europe and in parts of southwestern and southern Asia) is a very big umbrella term. Then again, if anyone tries to split that up any further, he runs into a lot of trouble trying to reconcile the many, many "exceptions". Anyway, the term itself suggest a strong connection among languages of this wide region. Where a particular word came from is sometimes widely agreed, and sometimes quite debatable. As George suggested, it's safer to just say that they seem to have a common origin.

Then again, In formal Mandarin, father is "fu-qin" (lit. father kin) and mother "mu-qin". The colloquial equivalents are "ba" (which is pronounce more like "par" in English, but unaspirated) and "ma". See the resemblance with their Indo-European counterpart? Resemblance is a

Etymology is among my many interests, though only when it comes up, like now.


Kumara
which btw means "sweet potato" in New Zealand

P.S.: Is Viagra from the Vedic vyaaghra (Pali: vyagga), meaning 'tiger'?


gdbedell wrote thus at 09:46 AM 24-03-09:

>Friends,
>
>I apologize for the late response, but I have been away (in India) for
>a week or so.
>
>Normally, to say that an English word (like 'curry') has an Indian origin
>(or has 'roots' in India) would mean that this word was borrowed into
>English from an Indian language, probably but not necessarily during
>the colonial period. That is no doubt the case with 'curry' and most
>of the other words listed by Yong Peng in his original post. (Of course
>it might sometimes be difficult to identify the source word or language
>precisely.)
>
>As has been pointed out, there are words on the list which do not meet
>this definition, for example 'father'. This word existed in English (with
>varying pronunciation) long before English had any contact with Indian
>languages. It is related to words in many Indian languages due to their
>common Indo-European origin, but it is simply a mistake to imagine that
>therefore 'father' has an Indian origin. Using this definition, one could
>equally well say that the Pali word 'pitu' (and hundreds or thousands of
>others) has an English origin.
>
>The list presented by Yong Peng is a good example of muddled or
>misinformed thinking about language. Apparently the problem is not
>so much with Yong Peng himself, as with the uncited sources where
>he got his list.
>
>George Bedell
>
>--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <palismith@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Gunnar, Jacques and Ardavarz,
>>
>> thanks for highlighting the words of contention. This is not exactly my area of interest, and I do recall now that we did discuss about "serpent" and Pali "sappa" many moons ago on this list.
>>
>> I believe the sources, which I refer to, include English words which have common Indo-European roots or are inherited indirectly from India. Just like what you have already discussed.
>>
>> metta,
>> Yong Peng.
>>
>>
>> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Huynen wrote:
>>
>> "serpens" probably comes, in all Indo-european languages, from a root SRP meaning "creep".
>>
>> > * father
>> > * mother
>> > These are common Indo-European stems, perhaps used already in Original Indo-European somewhere north of the Black Sea, and found in Teutonic languages long before England had any contact with India; also in Ancient Greek, in Latin (pater, mater) and in the Romance languages. I don't know about the Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, and Iranian languages.
>> >
>> > * serpent
>> > Borrowed from Latin (serpens), probably through French.