Here is a question that no-one will be able to answer....
The oldest known language in Europe is Euskara, it may even pre-date all other known languages. This is the native language of the Basque (Vasco) region in Spain and a part of South West France.
The interesting thing about it is that NOBODY has ever managed to discover its origins. There are subtle hints of Viking in it, Icelandic, and a dozen other possibilities. But it stands alone as a fully self-contained language. It has a complete sentence structure unlike any other language in the world, and the words are punctuated with an inordinate amount of 'X's'.
So far it's origins have totally eluded every attempt at deciphering, the most learned scholars, etymologists, linguists, really have failed. It needs some serious lateral thinking.
Could this be the language of Atlantis?
If anyone has any theories then I would be fascinated to hear them.
Full Version: Mysterious Language
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
Oh, I'm sure Crystal Sage will have all manner of "information" from you.
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(jaylemurph @ May 18 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]1681582[/snapback]
Oh, I'm sure Crystal Sage will have all manner of "information" from you.
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
you have got to be joking?.... they lived in the most vibrant and expansive part of europe. Not only did it not "mix much" with other languages, it didnt mix at all.
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 06:32 PM) [snapback]1681611[/snapback]
you have got to be joking?.... they lived in the most vibrant and expansive part of europe. Not only did it not "mix much" with other languages, it didnt mix at all.
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
If Euskara was the progenitor for all modern languages then it would show a common root for these languages. It does not. It is linguistically similar to Aquitanian and the current theory is these are the sole remaining dialects of the Palaeolithic tongues of Europe with the rest driven to extinction with the arrival of Neolithic peoples.
Euskara (Basque Language)
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 01:32 PM) [snapback]1681611[/snapback]
you have got to be joking?.... they lived in the most vibrant and expansive part of europe. Not only did it not "mix much" with other languages, it didnt mix at all.
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
Last time I checked, the Pyrenees, that are the Basque homeland, were large, craggy mountains that remain pretty sparsely populated besides sheep. Granted, the Basques used to live in a more general area several centuries ago,
but those mountains were and are their heartland.
And of course the languages mixed and was mixed with other languages or it wouldn't have survived at all.
Leonardo provided some more information before I could get to it, but the Aquitanian link is new to me.
Looks interesting -- thanks, Leo.
--Jaylemurph
Later -- Wikipedia has an article a bit more in depth than the EMU site
I wonder if you took 100 children 1 to 2 yrs old, where a few of them might Just be learning a given common language and put them in an isolated environment for the next 30 yrs or so... what language would they have?
And if you took another same group, same base common language, same amount of time... would the languages be similar?
Would the sounds relate to gestures and phonetics of descriptive emotion?
And if you took another same group, same base common language, same amount of time... would the languages be similar?
Would the sounds relate to gestures and phonetics of descriptive emotion?
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ May 18 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]1681703[/snapback]
I wonder if you took 100 children 1 to 2 yrs old, where a few of them might Just be learning a given common language and put them in an isolated environment for the next 30 yrs or so... what language would they have?
And if you took another same group, same base common language, same amount of time... would the languages be similar?
Would the sounds relate to gestures and phonetics of descriptive emotion?
And if you took another same group, same base common language, same amount of time... would the languages be similar?
Would the sounds relate to gestures and phonetics of descriptive emotion?
There was a linguist studying Creole and Pidgin languages a few years ago who /did/ this.
It was in Discover magazine, but I don't remember much more than this.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 05:32 PM) [snapback]1681611[/snapback]
you have got to be joking?.... they lived in the most vibrant and expansive part of europe. Not only did it not "mix much" with other languages, it didnt mix at all.
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
The Atlantean gybe is at the ridiculous notion that Ireland is Atlantis.... where is the triple ringed city in Ireland? Nowhere, would be the best answer.
This is a REAL mystery that needs some serious thinking. We "Know" its old... but just how old. Was this language the progenitor of ALL languages.
Crystal Sage will need a Crystal Ball to make any sense of this... I dont believe in Crystal balls
Apparantly you don't believe in correct punctuation either.
Basques are goup of racist people near spain.
QUOTE
it may even pre-date all other known languages.
I have a question (well maybe three questions!). Do you mean all other known languages that have been written, or all other known languages that are spoken today and are you including dead languages in that statement?
QUOTE(Michaelbuble @ May 18 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]1681804[/snapback]
Apparantly you don't believe in correct punctuation either.
My punctuation is as correct as your spelling. Languages are meant to evolve, not be hidebound by some set of artificial rules.
The Pyrenees are certainly quite spectacular, but the majority of the Basque country is in less remotely accessible areas. I am thinking of Navarro, and la Rioja. They have several small harbours and ports which would have facilitated trade in earlier aeons, around the globe. The Basque country includes one, of only two, of the routes into France where you do not need to cross the Pyrenees (the other route being in Cataluña - which also has its own variant language, Catalan).
QUOTE(eric_13 @ May 18 2007, 10:28 PM) [snapback]1681865[/snapback]
Basques are goup of racist people near spain.
Ignorance breeds ridicule. At it's highest level only 10% of Basques advocated separatism, but as usual the uninformed only see the atrocities committed by an estimated 200 fanatics. Do not lay judgment on an entire people by the mindless thuggery of a few. Thankyou for helping this forum to find meaningful answers to a serious question
QUOTE(Themis @ May 18 2007, 10:37 PM) [snapback]1681882[/snapback]
I have a question (well maybe three questions!). Do you mean all other known languages that have been written, or all other known languages that are spoken today and are you including dead languages in that statement?
I do not refer to all written languages, hieroglyphic Egyptian being symbolic in nature does not appear to be a corollary. Basque as a written language is considerably younger than Basque as a spoken language. It is the spoken language with it's sentence structure that appears nowhere else in the world. This to me suggests great antiquity, as other languages, if they have a root in Euskara, would have had several millenia to develop their own rules. The extant languages of Latin and Ancient Greek were frozen in time by having very rigid structures. These structures had to develop from a more liberal form.
The first language was a form of clicks, which is still partially used in African tribes.
QUOTE(Themis @ May 18 2007, 04:37 PM) [snapback]1681882[/snapback]
I have a question (well maybe three questions!). Do you mean all other known languages that have been written, or all other known languages that are spoken today and are you including dead languages in that statement?
Well, not to speak for Leonardo --
Linguistically speaking, /most/, but not all, we can learn from dead languages comes from their written form. We can pick a few clues about dead languages from the way they affected other, still existing ones.
Euskara, the language of the Basques, is (perhaps) the oldest European language we know of -- dead or living, written or no. And certainly (well, probably) the oldest of living languages in Europe. In fact, if what
Leonardo and others say is true and Euskara is a Paleolithic language, it makes it unrelated to the neolithic Proto-Indo-European and practically every language from Spain to India and from The Arctic to Africa.
I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on African, Asian, or Semitic languages, but people every once in a while will try to tie Euskara to those languages.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 04:57 PM) [snapback]1681914[/snapback]
I do not refer to all written languages, hieroglyphic Egyptian being symbolic in nature does not appear to be a corollary. Basque as a written language is considerably younger than Basque as a spoken language. It is the spoken language with it's sentence structure that appears nowhere else in the world. This to me suggests great antiquity, as other languages, if they have a root in Euskara, would have had several millenia to develop their own rules. The extant languages of Latin and Ancient Greek were frozen in time by having very rigid structures. These structures had to develop from a more liberal form.
No... both "ancient" -- and by that I assume you mean Ionic and probably specifically Attic -- Greek and Latin gave rise to many, many and different languages.
One single language, Latin, gave rise to over a dozen daughter tongues testifying to its vernacular freedoms.
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE(jaylemurph @ May 18 2007, 11:02 PM) [snapback]1681928[/snapback]
Well, not to speak for Leonardo --
Linguistically speaking, /most/, but not all, we can learn from dead languages comes from their written form. We can pick a few clues about dead languages from the way they affected other, still existing ones.
Euskara, the language of the Basques, is (perhaps) the oldest European language we know of -- dead or living, written or no. And certainly (well, probably) the oldest of living languages in Europe. In fact, if what
Leonardo and others say is true and Euskara is a Paleolithic language, it makes it unrelated to the neolithic Proto-Indo-European and practically every language from Spain to India and from The Arctic to Africa.
I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on African, Asian, or Semitic languages, but people every once in a while will try to tie Euskara to those languages.
--Jaylemurph
Linguistically speaking, /most/, but not all, we can learn from dead languages comes from their written form. We can pick a few clues about dead languages from the way they affected other, still existing ones.
Euskara, the language of the Basques, is (perhaps) the oldest European language we know of -- dead or living, written or no. And certainly (well, probably) the oldest of living languages in Europe. In fact, if what
Leonardo and others say is true and Euskara is a Paleolithic language, it makes it unrelated to the neolithic Proto-Indo-European and practically every language from Spain to India and from The Arctic to Africa.
I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on African, Asian, or Semitic languages, but people every once in a while will try to tie Euskara to those languages.
--Jaylemurph
I think that maybe you and Leonardo have hit the nail, so to speak. If it is a remnant palaeolithic language, then it must have developed in isolation from virtually all other languages in Europe, and all other forms of spoken language. This would suggest that the early Basques were not traders, and so the influences of external languages would not have had an impact. I wonder if this can be further extrapolated to suggest that culturally they were self-declared isolationists?
QUOTE(jaylemurph @ May 18 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]1681936[/snapback]
No... both "ancient" -- and by that I assume you mean Ionic and probably specifically Attic -- Greek and Latin gave rise to many, many and different languages.
One single language, Latin, gave rise to over a dozen daughter tongues testifying to its vernacular freedoms.
--Jaylemurph
One single language, Latin, gave rise to over a dozen daughter tongues testifying to its vernacular freedoms.
--Jaylemurph
Apologies, I was referring to Classical Latin, rather than Vulgar Latin. Vulgar latin of course has a very fluid syntactic structure, from which the Romance languages developed.
QUOTE(jaylemurph @ May, 03:13 AM) [snapback]1681582[/snapback]
Oh, I'm sure Crystal Sage will have all manner of "information" from you.
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
The most we can say about it is "it's really old" and "it didn't mix much with other local languages", which isn't surprising given where the Basques live.
But then, that's not per se mysterious. Nor a reason to suspect people from Atlantis spoke it.
--Jaylemurph
.. Just thought this was interesting!!!!http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/16465_.html
QUOTE
The existence of the prehistoric civilization in Antarctica started drawing attention of professional historians after the World War II. The hypothesis can be proved by the medieval maps and research of the Western paleogeologists and glaciologists....s a result, the maps mentioned above depict Antarctica of the period when Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations were born. Most of the historians disclaim this point of view.
However, there is a hypothesis that between the fifth and the tenth millenniums B.C. a human civilization lived on the planet. It possessed great knowledge in navigation, cartography, astronomy, thÑÆ’ level of which was not lower then of that of the 18th century.
This civilization was rather a predecessor of the ours than a product created by aliens. Its age could be several millenniums. It was probably located on the northern coast of the southernmost continent or the archipelago of large islands – that was Antarctica that had a moderate climate at that time. Later it could occupy the northeast of the African continent.
The civilization could have disappeared because of the icing up of the southern land that began not earlier than in the tenth millennium B.C. Another possible reason could be large inundations that led to long-lasting local floods, which are not disclaimed by archaeologists. Such natural disasters could destroy almost the whole material culture of the protocivilization. It can be possible that some part of it is covered with thick Antarctic ice. Another possibility is that some of the representatives of this protocivilization could have survived. In this case they could have pass their knowledge to Egyptians and Sumerians.
Humans cannot but hope that further archaeological research will solve the mysteries of the southernmost continent. There could be lots of surprises hidden here.
Vladimir Averianov
However, there is a hypothesis that between the fifth and the tenth millenniums B.C. a human civilization lived on the planet. It possessed great knowledge in navigation, cartography, astronomy, thÑÆ’ level of which was not lower then of that of the 18th century.
This civilization was rather a predecessor of the ours than a product created by aliens. Its age could be several millenniums. It was probably located on the northern coast of the southernmost continent or the archipelago of large islands – that was Antarctica that had a moderate climate at that time. Later it could occupy the northeast of the African continent.
The civilization could have disappeared because of the icing up of the southern land that began not earlier than in the tenth millennium B.C. Another possible reason could be large inundations that led to long-lasting local floods, which are not disclaimed by archaeologists. Such natural disasters could destroy almost the whole material culture of the protocivilization. It can be possible that some part of it is covered with thick Antarctic ice. Another possibility is that some of the representatives of this protocivilization could have survived. In this case they could have pass their knowledge to Egyptians and Sumerians.
Humans cannot but hope that further archaeological research will solve the mysteries of the southernmost continent. There could be lots of surprises hidden here.
Vladimir Averianov
*********8
http://www.hunmagyar.org/taj/erdely/index.html
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_post...D=7395&PN=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
http://www.lhhpaleo.religionstatistics.net...aleolithic.html
sorry dude you said that this was the oldest language ever. and im pretty sure that would be hieroglyphics from egypt instead. It wasnt symbolic they made sentences with it ect.
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]1681914[/snapback]
I do not refer to all written languages, hieroglyphic Egyptian being symbolic in nature does not appear to be a corollary. Basque as a written language is considerably younger than Basque as a spoken language. It is the spoken language with it's sentence structure that appears nowhere else in the world. This to me suggests great antiquity, as other languages, if they have a root in Euskara, would have had several millenia to develop their own rules. The extant languages of Latin and Ancient Greek were frozen in time by having very rigid structures. These structures had to develop from a more liberal form.
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]1681984[/snapback]
Apologies, I was referring to Classical Latin, rather than Vulgar Latin. Vulgar latin of course has a very fluid syntactic structure, from which the Romance languages developed.
Vulgar Latin /came/ from classical Latin; because Latin uses a case system to give syntactical meaning, its form is much more fluid than Germanic languages like English.
--Jaylemurph
Khoisan Language
Free lessons... in speaking Bushman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-bk48u6fU
http://library.thinkquest.org/C008243F/san_language.htm
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Bushman.htm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/feature6/
Free lessons... in speaking Bushmanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-bk48u6fU
http://library.thinkquest.org/C008243F/san_language.htm
http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Bushman.htm
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0102/feature6/
QUOTE
http://www.nvtc.gov/lotw/months/september/khoisan.html
Introduction
The Khoisan language family is the smallest of the languages families of Africa. The name Khoisan derives from the name of the Khoi-Khoi group of South Africa and the San (Bushmen) group of Namibia. It is used for several ethnic groups who were the original inhabitants of southern Africa before the Bantu migrations southward and later European colonization. Archaelogical evidence suggests that the Khoisan people appeared in southern Africa some 60,000 years ago. Thus, the Khoisan languages may well be among the most ancient of all human tongues.
Introduction
The Khoisan language family is the smallest of the languages families of Africa. The name Khoisan derives from the name of the Khoi-Khoi group of South Africa and the San (Bushmen) group of Namibia. It is used for several ethnic groups who were the original inhabitants of southern Africa before the Bantu migrations southward and later European colonization. Archaelogical evidence suggests that the Khoisan people appeared in southern Africa some 60,000 years ago. Thus, the Khoisan languages may well be among the most ancient of all human tongues.
QUOTE
Well, not to speak for Leonardo --
Linguistically speaking, /most/, but not all, we can learn from dead languages comes from their written form. We can pick a few clues about dead languages from the way they affected other, still existing ones.
Euskara, the language of the Basques, is (perhaps) the oldest European language we know of -- dead or living, written or no. And certainly (well, probably) the oldest of living languages in Europe. In fact, if what
Leonardo and others say is true and Euskara is a Paleolithic language, it makes it unrelated to the neolithic Proto-Indo-European and practically every language from Spain to India and from The Arctic to Africa.
I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on African, Asian, or Semitic languages, but people every once in a while will try to tie Euskara to those languages.
Linguistically speaking, /most/, but not all, we can learn from dead languages comes from their written form. We can pick a few clues about dead languages from the way they affected other, still existing ones.
Euskara, the language of the Basques, is (perhaps) the oldest European language we know of -- dead or living, written or no. And certainly (well, probably) the oldest of living languages in Europe. In fact, if what
Leonardo and others say is true and Euskara is a Paleolithic language, it makes it unrelated to the neolithic Proto-Indo-European and practically every language from Spain to India and from The Arctic to Africa.
I simply don't have the knowledge to comment on African, Asian, or Semitic languages, but people every once in a while will try to tie Euskara to those languages.
Thank you Jaylemurph - its an interesting topic
I didn't realise you could trace back language that far, but it makes sense if you think about it!QUOTE
sorry dude you said that this was the oldest language ever. and im pretty sure that would be hieroglyphics from egypt instead. It wasnt symbolic they made sentences with it ect.
The oldest known written language is sumerian cuneiform
EDIT to add known
QUOTE(jaylemurph @ May 19 2007, 04:12 AM) [snapback]1682309[/snapback]
Vulgar Latin /came/ from classical Latin; because Latin uses a case system to give syntactical meaning, its form is much more fluid than Germanic languages like English.
--Jaylemurph
--Jaylemurph
Thanks Jaylemurph, and Themis, et al. Your contributions have been very enlightening. I would still contend that Vulgar Latin, being the spoken form, would pre-date Classical Latin but I am happy to concede the point. If, returning to the main topic, anyone could suggest why the Euskara language, as it is written, contains so many "'X's", I would be fascinated to learn. Agur!
Do you know what sound the X makes in speaking this language? Could it be something to do with that?
QUOTE(Themis @ May 19 2007, 10:56 AM) [snapback]1682650[/snapback]
Do you know what sound the X makes in speaking this language? Could it be something to do with that?
The 'X' is often associated with the letter 'T', but certainly not exclusively. In the Euskara language this forms the Dipthong 'CH' eg "TXULLETON" is pronounced "CHOO-LET-TON". I have problems when there are three 'X's in a short word. It seems that the 'X' may be a phonetic modifier, but I have no expertise in phonetics.
During the last ice age, most humans in Europe either died or migrated south and east to milder climes. The one area in which people persisted throughout is what is now the Basque Region. After the ice age, some of these people migrated to Britain. But most of Europe was re-colonised from the Caucusus region, ie from outside of Europe. By completely new tribes speaking completely different languages that evolved seperately over tens of thousands of years.
ie the Basque language is likely to derive from the pre-ice age language of Europe, which died out elsewhere and was replaced by the Indo-European language after the ice age.
Athough Britons are genetically linked to the ice age survivors in the Basque region, we have adopted successive languages from other people, hence the lack of any similarity today.
ie the Basque language is likely to derive from the pre-ice age language of Europe, which died out elsewhere and was replaced by the Indo-European language after the ice age.
Athough Britons are genetically linked to the ice age survivors in the Basque region, we have adopted successive languages from other people, hence the lack of any similarity today.
QUOTE(Essan @ May 19 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]1682711[/snapback]
During the last ice age, most humans in Europe either died or migrated south and east to milder climes. The one area in which people persisted throughout is what is now the Basque Region. After the ice age, some of these people migrated to Britain. But most of Europe was re-colonised from the Caucusus region, ie from outside of Europe. By completely new tribes speaking completely different languages that evolved seperately over tens of thousands of years.
ie the Basque language is likely to derive from the pre-ice age language of Europe, which died out elsewhere and was replaced by the Indo-European language after the ice age.
Athough Britons are genetically linked to the ice age survivors in the Basque region, we have adopted successive languages from other people, hence the lack of any similarity today.
ie the Basque language is likely to derive from the pre-ice age language of Europe, which died out elsewhere and was replaced by the Indo-European language after the ice age.
Athough Britons are genetically linked to the ice age survivors in the Basque region, we have adopted successive languages from other people, hence the lack of any similarity today.
Fascinating stuff! and exactly the kind of lateral thinking that I was hoping for. The last ice age finishing 10 - 15000 years ago would fit nicely with the idea that it is a palaeolithic language. Thanks, I need to do some more research!
Why oh why does everything have to be related to Atlantis?
QUOTE(keithisco @ May 18 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]1681506[/snapback]
Here is a question that no-one will be able to answer....
The oldest known language in Europe is Euskara, it may even pre-date all other known languages. This is the native language of the Basque (Vasco) region in Spain and a part of South West France.
The interesting thing about it is that NOBODY has ever managed to discover its origins.
If anyone has any theories then I would be fascinated to hear them.
The oldest known language in Europe is Euskara, it may even pre-date all other known languages. This is the native language of the Basque (Vasco) region in Spain and a part of South West France.
The interesting thing about it is that NOBODY has ever managed to discover its origins.
If anyone has any theories then I would be fascinated to hear them.
It's not only the ancient language that seems peculiar to that group of people, but the Basque people of Spain and France have the highest percentage of RH negative blood.
In the article "Blood of the Gods" taken from "Official UFOs Ancient Astronaut Magazine" it states
"If all Mankind evolved from the same ancestor, their blood would be compatible...Haemolytic disease is the allergic reaction occurs when an RH negative mother is carrying an RH positive child. Her blood builds up antibodies to destroy an "alien" substance thereby destroying the infant. Why would a mother's body reject her own offspring? Nowhere else in nature does this occur naturally. This same problem does occur in mules -a cross between a horse and donkey. This fact alone points to the distinct possibility of a cross-breeding between two similar but genetically different species."
"My research has shown that the majority of those with psychic powers also have RH negative blood. Most psychic and faith healers also have this blood. Strangely enough, many of those doing research into the ancient astronaut theory and other phenomena also have RH negative blood."
I have read too that there is an overwhelming percentage of alien abductees who also have RH negative blood.
So I agree with the author that, when I put two and two together, RH negative blood did not evolve on earth in the natural course of events. I believe it may have come from ancient astronauts, who may have also taught the Basque people their language which would also explain why noone has been able to discover it's origins.
http://www.geocities.com/ask_lady_lee/rhneg.html
QUOTE(crystal sage @ May 19 2007, 06:07 AM) [snapback]1682044[/snapback]
.. Just thought this was interesting!!!!http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/378/16465_.html
*********8
http://www.hunmagyar.org/taj/erdely/index.html
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_post...D=7395&PN=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
http://www.lhhpaleo.religionstatistics.net...aleolithic.html
the sage has spoken! the sage has spoken! everything will be alright soon.
Rh negative is just a blood type.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.