Basil Chulev • o @ o •

Od Sanskrit do Makedonskrit

(from Sanskrit to Macedonskrit)

The identical words corpus of Sanskrit and Macedonie languages. Sanskritist Durga Prassad Shastri: ‘You are speaking here some corrupted form of Sanskrit!’

Skopje, Macedonia 2015

Contents:

Preamble-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

Glossary of the identical words in Sanskrit and Macedonie-------------------------25

References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------50

From Sanskrit to Macedonskrit - Preamble

In certain ways, all languages have similarities, but some similarities are more striking and fascinating than others. The Comparative Linguistic Method seeks to explain why some languages have systematic similarities too regular and too numerous to be merely by chance. It also tries to reconstruct the primordial Proto-Language. There’s again the enlarged-deductive method, which surclassed the Indo-European linguists by long shot -the linguistic model called "Nashinski" (lat. Nostratic) that gave the birth of the language Super-families (Dravidian, Indo-European, Kartvelian, Semitic, Uralic, etc.), and which tries to open new horizons by reconstructing the prehistoric Proto-Language through these Super-families.

One of the oldest known written languages, Sanskrit, was an ancient Indic language of India, in which the Pre-Hindi scriptures and classical Indian epic poems are written and from which many northern Indian languages are derived. As one of the Indo-European (IE) languages it is known that Sanskrit was spoken in India roughly 1200-400 BCE, but its antiquity may stretch back thousands of years from that date. It still continues to be in use as a language of religion and scholarship. It is used as the language of the liturgy, the holy texts - the Vedas, all the mantras that are repeated during yoga exercises are spoken in Sanskrit. The ancient writings were written from right to left, but in the Devanagari script it is written from left to right. As noted by linguists who are familiar with Sanskrit, this language is an ideal, perfect language, capable of expressing any shades of meaning, even the most subtle. For this reason it is called the language of consciousness, or the language of Nature. This most ancient language is considered to be the primordial lingua franca of all the languages from Indo-European group. But it is not unique.

At the beginning of the 60’s of the 20^th century famous Indian sanskritist Durga Prassad Shastri was in visit to Russia. After two weeks he told to the translator: “Stop translating, I understand what you are saying. You are speaking here some corrupted form of the Sanskrit!” This conclusive revelation of its common origin with Macedonic languages was a major breakthrough in the development of historical linguistics. When later Durga Prasad Shastri came back home to India he made a scientific announcement of his findings in an article about the close relation between Sanskrit and Macedonic languages.

One of the most striking evidences Durgha Prashadh Shastri came out with, was the simple number of the Moscow hotel room, were he was residing: “When I was in Moscow, in the resort they gave me the key of the room 234, and told me: ‘dwesta tridesyat chetiri’... In disbelief I stood there incredulous to my own ears - Was I in front of a young lady in Moscow, or in Benares or Ujjain some 2500 years ago?” This same number on Sanskrit is pronounced ‘dwishata tridasha chatwari’. How could this self-evident uniformity be possible? How could’ve these two languages preserved their common ancient pronouncement to such a degree until today?

Here is another easily comprehensive and simple example brought by Durga Prasad Shastri: ‘Toy vas dom, etoy nas dom’ (Cyrillic: Toj Bam goM, eToj Ham goM); - on Sanskrit: ‘Tat vas dham, etat nas dham’ (English: This is your home, that’s our home). The comparing equivalence is clear as day. Younger Indo-European languages, like English, French or Hindi, must use the verb /is/, without which the sentences given above cannot exist in any one of these languages. But Sanskrit and Macedonic languages can comply without the auxiliary verb /is/, while remaining completely correct, both grammatically and idiomatically. Further, /is/ in its archaic Macedonic form is /iest/ and /asti/ in Sanskrit. Macedonic noun ‘iestestvo’ and Sanskrit’ ‘astitva’ in both languages means ‘existing’. Also, Sanskrit ‘madiy’ may be compared with ‘'moy’ of Macedonian and ‘my’ of English. But if the object is feminine it is only Sanskrit and Macedonic in which the possessive pronoun ‘madiy’ and ‘moy’ changes into feminine-articled ‘madiya’ and ‘moya’. That’s not so much exceptional by itself because of the syntaxes or the letters order, but because of the uncontaminated spirit preserved in these two languages and one of a kind expressiveness that takes into consideration every aspect of the expression. In all European languages are found a great number of words having the same root with Sanskrit

and Macedonie, but the common ground ends there. In the Macedonie languages, in addition to the coincidence of 60% of word roots, the very structures of the idioms, which change the least over time, are identical with Sanskrit. On contrary, in the modern Western European and Indian languages there are no means of preserving the ancient language systems.

The two languages have two broad similarities. First, Macedonic is the only European group of languages¹ that share a strong common grammatical base with Sanskrit. Both Sanskrit and Ancient Macedonic script are written with syllables, a consonant-vocal symbols. Secondly, both Sanskrit and Macedonic are unexpectedly dear and pleasing to the ear. The very name ‘Sanskrit’ means carefully constructed, systematically formed, polished and refined. Their suprisingly pure nature and superb ways of expression are nowhere to be found in the modern latinized and anglicized idioms. British linguist William Jones wrote: “Sanskrit language has a wonder structure; more perfect than the French, more abundant than the Latin and more exquisite and refined than either.” This is because before the written languages the abstract ideas were represented by symbols or hieroglyphics such as natural or familiar objects and a combination of objects in word pictures. In the early time there was no word for strength, and it was represented by a pictorial images of, for example, deer or the lion, as a fox would represent cunning, as people had no abstract word for cunning. Thus the Sanskrit/Macedonic word for strength still is /silen/, from si-elen (i.e. you’re deer) or from si-la’ (i.e. you’re lion) ²; as a /lisica/lisca/ or shortly /liya/ (Macedonic word for fox), transformed into the modern Macedonian noun laga (a lie) or the verb lazi. Even the verb ‘lezi’ (lie) is from the same root, as animals are lying low (hiding) in order to decieve the hunter or predators. Or take the Macedonic word for ‘ancient which is /drevno/ - it resembles the Sanskrit-Macedonic /darvu-drvo/, i.e. tree, as the trees largely surpass the human beings with their longevity. In the past people had no means to measure the trees longevity, but their constant presence was observed by many generations, and the word for tree (Darvu/Drvo/Derevo) achieved meaning of ‘ancient’, i.e. Drevno in plain Macedonian. Mead (Sanskrit Madhu - honey) is even better attested: Bomhard and Kerns (1994) set up a Proto-Nashinski³ root madw/medw - ‘honey; meadV med in plain Macedonian.

Further, for example the origin of the Macedonic word ‘grad’^{1 2 3 4}, meaning ‘city’, can also be traced in Sanskrit and Macedonic languages. In Ancient Macedonia and in India the cities were built to serve as forts for protection and defence against aggression from an enemy. The corresponding word in Hindi is ‘gadh’ which means ‘fort’. The same etymology can be found in modern Macedonian noun /grad/, the verb /gradi/ and /ograda/, meaning ‘city’, ‘build’ and ‘fence/palisade’ respectively. And in all the Macedonie languages the suffix /grad/ and modern Hindi suffix /gadh/ are used to form names of cities: such as Belgrad (the ‘White-city’), Petrograd (the ‘Peter’s City’), Raigad (the ‘King's fort’) or Bhorapgad (after its presiding deity, Bhoraidevi-city).

Sanskrit-Macedonic vividly and in great extent preserve these primordial allegories. The striking similarities in Sanskrit and Macedonian indicate that during some pristine period of history the speakers of the two languages lived close together. According to linguist and author W. R. Rishi, the relation between these two languages is very close and correspondence between them is so minute that it cannot be attributed to mere chance. It was not by chance that Alexander the Great embarked on his monumental Macedonic campaign toward India. At the end, he was just reuniting the pieces of the one and the same urheimat, where the people could’ve understand him and his companions. How else could’ve he possibly enrolled the Persian military forces immediately under Macedonian command, or hold the waste Persian state administration under control if they didn’t understand a word of ancient Macedonic idiom? He conquered the ancient oriental world, but the Occidental Macedonic and Oriental Persian worlds didn’t clash. Alexander’s conquest was followed by a slow and peaceful process of mutual Occidental-Oriental contacts. His biographers have brought to us the notions of his eloquent encounters with the Indian Brahmans, with Indian kings and Bakhtrian princesses. Apame, the wife of his successor in Persia, Selevk (lat. Seleucus), brings to us the notion of yet another Macedonic/Persian word - ‘xarenah’, i.e. ‘tsarina’⁵ in plain Macedonic, which survived unchanged till nowadays. Dionysiac/Indian elements are also clearly mirrored in the coinage of Selevk.

From this original Macedonic trunk multiple dialectical branches emerged during the millennia. Macedonic Civil Wars (320-270 BCE), Roman invasions in the 2^nd century BCE, and later Romeian (Eastern Roman) and Crusade Wars, Turks, etc. provoked multiple waves of refugees, which spread across Euroasia and brought with them their ways of life and communication. Some of the oldest (less modern in linguistic sense) Macedonic branches, like the Russian Plain branch (Russia-Ukraine-Belorussia-Poland-Baltic region), kept their older form of expression compared to more evoluted southern Macedonic dialects. Due to the isolation from their original language-corpus in Macedonia, where the other Macedonic languages (Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbocroatian, etc.) in their native enviroment naturally developed much faster, in Russian Plains they remained largely preserved in their older form. As to their dating O. Trubacev wrote: “Presently, there is an objective tendency to push back the dating of the history of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Macedonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Macedonic may be measured by the scale of the 2^nd to 3^rd millenniums BCE but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of Pre-Macedonic or its dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Macedonic.”

The relationship between the Sanskrit and Macedonic implies a common origin for these

language families and their constituent languages, and presumably a common Proto-language homeland, occupied by the speakers of the notional ancestral language at a date well prior to the formation of the daughter families and their languages. Sanskrit evidence is very important for the recostruction of the Macedonic languages dating and assembly. By comparing the modern Macedonic languages with Sanskrit we can see their remarkable internal archaicity. Unlike hypothetical reconstructions, Macedonic and Vedic Sanskrit are real languages going back to at least 6000 years ago. Similar to the Macedonic script called Glagolitic (attested as of 4^th century AD) variants of script called Nagari, recognizably close to Devanagari, are first attested from the 1^st century AD, Rudradaman inscriptions in Sanskrit, while the modern standardized form of Devanagari was in use by about 1000 AD, coresponding to Cyrillic script as of 9^th century. Thus, according to these development similarities traced by Comparative Linguistcs it can be deduced that the “language split” must have occurred long before the supposed appearance of Aryan languages, which are the natural post-product of this diversification.

Other scholars have gone further. The Indian historian B. G. Tilak analyzed the hymns of the Rig Veda and offered his findings in 1903. His most important conclusion is admittedly the suggestion that the ancestors of all Indo-Europeans underwent their initial formation during the last glacial period. The beginning of the last Ice Age (30,000-12,000 BCE) displaced these primordial people to the south, to the Balkan mainland and toward India, where began the Indo-Europeanization and the civilization as we know it. Tilak divided it into Vedic Periods:

1. Pre-Orion Period (Treta Yuga⁶, 6700-4000 BCE), that he defined as Aditi.

2. The Orion Period (4000-2500 BCE) in which the major Vedas were completed.

3. The Krittika Period (2500-1400 BCE) in which most of the Brahmanas were composed.

4.    Pre-Buddhist Period (1400-500 BCE; coinciding with the beginning of Kali Yuga in 700 BCE) which was the time of the Sutra literature.

Among Indo-European family the continuity of Macedonic languages is uniquely attested. It is the only European language that has clearly distinguished and recognisable features of all the 5 stages of development defined by the modern comparative linguistics: Proto-language, Pre-Language, stage of the Common Language unity, Old Language and Modern Language. According to the comparative linguistics, the timeline of these stages should be roughly as follows:

1.    Pre-Historic (i.e. Proto-language) Macedonic, until the 1^st millennium BCE;

2.    Ancient Macedonian, i.e. Pre-language (analogue to Indo-European Common language stage, 1^st millennium BCE until the 5^th century AD);

3.    Macedonic Common-language stage (East-Roman empire and Samoil’s Macedonian empire, 5-13 century AD);

4.    Old Church "Slavonic", i.e. Old-language (under the Turkish invasion, 14-18 century AD); and ⁶

5. Modern Macedonian language (18-21 century AD).

But, like above mentioned Trubacev, also the Russian scholar V. A. Chudinov stumbled over the discordances regarding the dating of some old inscriptions from the Iron Age found in Belorussia. Instead of Macedonic root PRJA- he read the older (earlier) PRA-, a difference preserved in modern Eastern Macedonic languages. These differences between the Eastern Macedonic languages showed that they were at least thousand years older than their presumed age. That also meant that the stage of Common-language of the Macedonic was actually much earlier than the second half of the first millennium AD. Chudinov’s second doubt arouse from his observation that the South Macedonic languages (Macedonian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Kroatian, etc.) had much quicker development than the ones in the North. That again meant that the southern Old Macedonic (i.e. Old Church "Slavonic"¹ ) for its age is too young, showing features which indicate that it was generated much earlier, long before the 14 century Turkish invasion on Europe. This is undoubtedly prowen by many other sources, as the Macedonian Lexicon from 16^th century.^{7 8} Compiled by anonymous author, of whom the only likely conclusion that can be drawn is that he may have spoken the Macedonian language natively or acquired it as an additional tongue due to living in close proximity to people who spoke it. It is one of the earliest manuscripts of the modern Macedonian language. Written in a purely vernacular tongue, its content was collected from the village of Bogatsko, which is found in the region of Kostur, Aegean Macedonia. Containing a rich glossary of words and phrases, the texts demonstrate the enduring strength and consistent pertinence of the Macedonian language through preservation. It also shows that the words used in today modern Macedonian has at least millennium-long tradition. Thus convincingly pushing back in time the previous development stages of the Macedonic languages.

The church played enormous role in preserving the Macedonic language continuity and local customs during the Middle Ages, and served as cultural medium for the population. The significance of all these elements together cannot be overstated, seeing that the language of medieval Macedonia was the same as the language of the Russians today. The old-fashioned way of speaking of the modern Russian idioms is also easily observed by the laic-audience of the common people from Macedonia. When they hear how the Russians speak, without hesitating they say ‘it sounds like church chanting’. This is because the Russian idioms were isolated from their original Macedonic urheimat at some earlier stage, and remained basicly on the level of its latest update from the 9-10 century, which is the Old-Language stage. Thus the updated development stages for the Macedonic languages according to comparative linguistics are as follows:

1.    Pre-Historic, i.e. Proto-language (before the 2^nd millennium BCE)

2.    Ancient Macedonian, i.e. Pre-language (till the end of 2^nd - beginning of the 1^st millennium BCE)

3. Common-language (second half of the 1^st millennium BCE, until 6^th century AD and the reign of Justinian I the Great)

4. Old-Macedonian (Old Church "'Slavonic"), i.e. the Old-language stage (7^th - 13^th century AD)

5.    Modern Macedonian language (as from 14-15^th century AD until today)

The above list allows to project a sketchy space-temporal displacement of the Macedonic languages in the form of graphic diagram, which can be seen below.

Old (Church) language Old (Church) language ^{oman mvasi01}

Another very simple but solid proof of the above is the suffix /-go/, widely used in the Old-Macedonic language stage (or so called Old Church "Slavonic"). As for example in the Old (Church) Macedonian word for ‘Saint - /Svyatogo/, where the pompous suffix /-go/ was exclusively glorifying and decorative ornament added by the ecclesiastic medieval church, meant to give special importance and ostentatious richness to the gospel-chanted words. In the Ancient Macedonian language the syllable "^" - /Goo/ meaning ‘golem’ (i.e. the great) is attested as the acronym of the eternal power and exalting superlative adjective of the Supreme God and Creator of the Universe - Voo. This primordial old-fashioned expression and suffix still remained in everyday use in many adjective-words⁹ in Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian, while in more developed modern Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, the suffix /-go/ lost the vernacular usance in the Modern Language stage. The more plain abbreviated form /Sveti/ (see also Sanskrit ‘Sveta’) is largely used instead.

Above: The sylable “Goo” ("-^L" - second from the left infront of the horse) on the coin obverse of Alexander I of Macedon, 5th century BCE

For this outdated medieval-aspect of the Russian idioms in "A History of Ukraine: The land and its peoples", on p. 107 Paul R. Magocsi writes: "One thing is certain: the written language of Kievan Rus' was not based on any of the spoken languages or dialects of the inhabitants. In other words, it had no basis in any of the East Slavic dialects, nor did it stem from some supposed older form of Ukrainian, Belorussian or Russian. Rather, it was a literary language, known as ”Old Church Slavonic”, originaly based on the dialects of Macedonia, an imported linguistic medium based on Old Macedonian."

INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

Ur«k

l.ithvjanlon

Laivian

M v«doiiiie

Sil 1 r

Sri !ic-t 'toat uu

Unit: ji <an

Above: A page from the Webster Dictionary (edition 1967-1969), where can be seen the principal branches and subgroups of Indo-European languages. For political reasons

and due to the creation of the modern nations, Macedonie languages as of the 19^th and 20^th century were subdivided into: Macedonian, Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kashubian, Wendish, Sorabian, Polabian, Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian.

Below: For the same political reasons the above table was removed from the newer editions, and in today online Webster Dictionary can be seen only this:

Definitiori of MACEDONIO : macedonian

Another important clarification was evidenced by the renowned slavicist Vatroslav Jagic.¹⁰ He was very interested in the language of the "Old Slavs" ("Staroslavenski jezik", i.e. Old Church "Slavonic"), and after years of researches and studies concluded and proved that it did not originate in the central plains of Pannonia, as most experts claimed, but in southern (Aegean) Macedonia.

But lets turn back to the Sanskrit and its similarities with Macedonic languages, and observe yet another evidence. According to the Vedas, there are four main deities: Agni, Indra, Varuna and Surya. Agni or ‘Fire’ (Ogin - in plain Macedonian) is the lord of the earth, Surya or Sun is the lord of the Sky, Varuna is the Ocean-god, and Indra is the lord of the region between the Earth and the Sky. One of the greatest deeds performed by Indra was to release the waters held captive by the demons. According to this myth, the earth was scorched and dry because the rain clouds have been imprisoned by the terrible demon of drought known as Sushna or Vrtra. At last the conflict was over, the rains descended and the earth was made fruitful again:

“Now bound by Sushna’s spell no more The clouds discharge their liquid store;”

Susha (Susa) in plain Macedonian is ‘drought’, as adjective: Susna godina - ‘dry year’. Further, the Vedic heaven of Indra was called Swarga, which again resembles closely the Macedonic Svegrad (from Sanskrit/Macedonic Sva¹¹ - ‘all/everything’, and grad - ‘city’), as well as Swarogoo (the ‘Great-god’) - a later Macedonic supreme deity which also resembles the Sanskrit Iswara - ‘god’. The ruler of the dead was Yama - his name in plain Macedonian is nothing else than a vulgar expression for ‘grave’, in vernacular parlance generally ‘a big hole’ excavated in the ground, where usually the carcasses of dead animals are thrown. ¹¹

Other fascinating similarity is within the kinship system. Sanskrit and Macedonie have cognate words of uniquely equal and inexstricably identical form. Sanskrit ‘Yatr’ (hasband’s brother’s wife) in Macedonic is ‘Yatrva’, ‘Snoha’ (daughter in law) in Macedonic is ‘Snaa’, Sanskrit ‘Svakr’ in plain Macedonian is ‘Svekor’ (father in law), ‘Devr’ is ‘Dever’ (brother in law) , ‘brathr’ is ‘brath’ (i.e. ‘brother’), ‘suna’ is ‘sin’ (i.e. ‘son’), etc.

Unanimity of the Sanskrit and Macedonic languages is largely ignored and underestimated by the indolent western linguists and their narrowly minded national interests or political agendas. Modern historians and linguists can manipulate the language, make it simple, reorganize it, misuse it, change it and even forbid it. But they cannot destroy the spirit of the language and its primordial images. Macedonic is a unique decoder of the universal elements. This is the language that was used to write the genetic codes of the nations. Macedonic languages regenerate all possible images and their meaning. Of course we are talking about the ancient language which was restricted and mismanaged, as it was corrected and changed significantly in the 9^th century by Cyril and Methodius reform, by numerous repercussions and restrictions after the WW1 and WW2, and it is still affected by dramatic changes. Nevertheless, some easy-recognizable equal traits of the letter symbols are still preserved in the both scripts even now, as for the specific sound 'ch' (like in 'church'): Sanskrit - Macedonian - H. As can be seen, this ancient caligraphic embroidery was abandoned in the modern Macedonian Cyrillic script in the 20th century, but it’s still present in its less modernized versions, like the Russian Cyrillic, where some older forms of rich Cyrillic letters and syllables are still preserved (M_, ro, H, etc.)

Despite all the misleading political manipulations and terminological fragmentations, the obvious oneness of the Macedonic languages cannot be ignored. Here is an example of the remaining Thracian glossary, and as the following hypothetical sentence shows, constructed entirely from known ancient Thracian words (in blue) - it is one and same with modern Macedonian (in red):

SERDE GORD, AS BRUZA DADON ZELKIA ANA DZVERI OSTA.

SRED GRAD, JAS BRZO DADOV ZELKA NA DZVER USTA. (translation: At the center of the city, I quickly gave cabbage to the beast mouth.)

Or here’s another two examples of the remaining Phrygian glossary (Brygians/Phrygians, another Macedonic tribe; close Thracian neighbors)^{12 13}, and the following hypothetical sentences constructed entirely from known Phrygian words (in green), shows again that it’s one and same with modern Slovenian and modern Macedonian (in red):

VONOK, SIT SI? SEST TU IN SUR TO SOK.

VNUK, SIT SI? SEDI TUKA I S’RKAJ TOJ SOK. (translation: Nephew, are you satiated? Sit here and sip that juice.)

AK BAGUN IMA AGON, TI STAT TU DEVA IN VAR MODRO ADUMA. AKO BOG IMA OGAN, TI STOJ TUKA DEVOJKO I VARDI MUDRO DOMA. (translation: If god has fire, you stay here girl and guard wisely.)

Not to mention the Hittites (who were superseded by Phrygians), which called their language Nasili - “our language"; - in modern Macedonian: ‘Nasinski, or in dialects from Aegean (Southern) Macedonia: ‘Nasi-laf(i)’ - “our-speaks".¹⁴ Even the very ethymology of the word “Ethnos” is corrupted laitinized form of Macedonic ‘e nas’ (lat. ‘et nostras’) - it’s ours, of our kin/country. In support of the above transliterated sentences there are numerous artifacts that show inextricably the same structure, shape and style of the inscriptions. In order to visually confirm the oneness of the ancient Macedonic scripts and languages, below are some examples of “different”(?) inscriptions, carved in stone, as defined by modern scholars:

3

1. Phrygian; 2. Pelazgian (a stele from the island of Lemnos); 3. Etruscan.

Or lets see again the shape and symbols/letters of other more northward European scripts: 4.Venetic scriptures; and 5. Runes (or the so called Futarch script):

5.

What can be seen at glance, even by a nonexpert eye, is the corresponding similarity and inextricably familiar form of the symbols (letters and/or syllables) of all these Mediterranean and Central European pre-latin scripts. And all of them use dots ( : , • , 0 as separators between the words. Why are these “different” scripts so much alike? The undeniable fact is that they are written in more or less similar-fashion alphabets, as if they’ve all originated from the same source at some distant antecedent point in time. This similarity can be compared to today usance of, for example, Latin in Turkish, English, Italian, etc. , all of which are mutually unintelegible languages, but still they use the same

script. And if so - why today linguists and scholars refuse or neglect to connect the obvious, and continue to diverge and disclassify these scripts with modern politicaly biased criterias?

Another fact that connects them, comprised ‘Linear B’, ‘Phoenician’, and so called “Demotic”, is their decodification - none of these is successfully deciphered by the modern western-latinized linguists. This is due to the fact that they simply cannot understand them, as they stubbornly enough persist in using the modern Latin as medium in order to decipher them - something comparable to the use of the Morse Code for deciphering Computer binary languages. Needless to say that the Latin was purely administrative language, not directly related to any population: „Latin always was and still is a dead language. Nowhere and never in the world there were a Latin-speaking people to be found. It was artificially created with the specific purpose, yet to be fully understood and clarified. The crowning proof of this is the following: there is very little (or non!) variation of the Latin language in time and space (introduced were only some terms and some changes, but it's a very small number of words, and it’s practically unchanged to this day). The Latin records are all the same wherever we find them, in Dalmatia, Libya, Macedonia, Syria, Anatolia, Iberia, Anglia, etc. From this we could conclude that the whole Roman empire spoke a single language (?) that had no dialects and didn’t change for a thousand years... This is not possible of course, because even today, regardless of mass education, linguistic standardization and mass media - there are still countless dialects. Language is therefore a living phenomenon and is constantly changing all the time. What the Roman Empire actually intent with introducing the Latin script was to forcibly prohibit and eradicate any other literacy (Old Macedonian Syllabic, Cuneiform, ^gyptian Hieroglyphic, Vincha Script, Phoenician, Etruscan\Venetic, Rovas, Runic, etc.), and tried and largely failed to suppress autochthonous languages, mostly Macedonic.

Since the writing capacitates knowledge, restricting the literacy had a very important role in ensuring the Roman rule and preservation of the overall control on uneducated masses. The same is true for the Septuagint Uncial script (or so-called „Greek“) imposed by later Eastern-Roman empire, which was also strictly cleric-technical language.“¹⁴

Regarding the use of Septuagint Uncial script in Eastern Romeian Empire there's another striking testimony of the imperishable continuity of Macedonian language - situated in the Syrian desert. In the place called today ‘Qasr Ibn Wardan’ (The Palace of Wardan), northeast from Hamma, there are splendid remains of 6th century basilica and fortress built by Justinian I the Great in AD 564. Above on the two of the portals on the Justinian’s basilica, beside the year, is written CEnTEMBPI and NOEMBPI (September and November) in perfect Macedonian. Thus, the names of these two months are written, not in Roman, nor in any other language, but exclusively in perfect Macedonian. And nonetheless, but exactly same as the Macedonian written and pronounced today, 15 centuries after - in no other language except the Macedonian are September and November written and readen like this, in this style and these letters. The only "difference" is the change of the letters N and I, which in today Macedonian Cyrillic script are H and H respectively, thus CEnTEMBPM and HOEmBpM. So, the conclusion is inescapable - 15

centuries ago the Romeians spoke as the Macedonians speak today, or at least large portion of their language and script was Macedonie.

Above and on the next page: Scriptures on the 6th century basilica built in Syria by Justinian I the Great in AD 564

And if Macedonian language 15 centuries ago was same or similar with the modern Macedonian language that Macedonians speak today - there’s no reason not to believe that it was similar with the Macedonian language spoken in Ancient Macedonia. And who else can decipher ancient Macedonian script better than the Macedonians? This fact was confirmed by recent deciphering of the so called “Demotic” script on the Rosetta Stone by two Macedonian scholars, Tom Bosevski and Aristotel Tentov.¹⁵ The assumption of their Macedonic transcription was very simple and therefore utterly successful - it was based on the fact that the rulers of Egypt in those times were from the Ptolemaic dynasty, descendants of Ptolem I Sotir, one of the generals of Alexander the Great, i.e. they were ancient Macedonians. And, according to the perceptions of a part of the contemporary scholarship - the ancient Macedonians used to speak in a language different from the Hamitic Danaan settlers (or the so-called “Ancient Greex”) with origins in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is more than obvious that the Macedonians had to know how to read and write into their own language, if they were to rule any of their Macedonic empires and kingdoms across the ancient world. This assumption becomes perfectly true if the “Demotic” is taken into consideration either in its universal use on the part of the literate people of those time, as it was used in Persia and Egypt ruled by Macedoniab dynasties, for writing state documents, documents for legal and property issues, scientific texts, prose and poetry, etc.

It was concluded that a syllabic script of type consonat-vowel was used for the middle text of the Rosetta Stone. Symbols for 25 voiced-consonants and coresponding 8 vowels were identified. The wiring with sound of the identified syllables, isolated consonants, vowels and ligatures it was achieved by using archaisms from the dialects of the contemporary Macedonian language. In the text, which was written from right to left, without space between the words and without separation of sentences in an infinite series, more then 160 words which have kept their meaning in different dialects of the contemporary Macedonian language were identified. A certain number of grammatical rules were also identified which are discerned in today Macedonian, such as the formation of superlative of the adjectives with the prefix /Naj-/, i.e. ‘Nai-’ (equivalent to the English suffix /-est/ or adjective /the most/), the plural of nouns by adding /i/ (equivalent to English /-s/), as well as the frequent use of the original and typically Macedonian preposition /na/.

The results of deciphering of the middle text of the Rosetta Stone point to the fact that there are many details which cannot be found in the other two texts. This conclusion proves the science awareness from the time of Thomas Young (1822) that the middle text was the original.

i.

I    I

I    3.1

I    I

¹    4.¹

I    I

5

¹ £ ¹ I *'l

Above: from the Bosevski-Tentov appendix of the deciphered words and terms from the middle text of the Rosetta Stone (Note: the Ancient Macedonian was a strictly syllabic script with very few letters for single vocals, and was written and readen from right to left: ^ )

In fact, the two Macedonian scholars weren’t the first who understood that the middle text from the Rosetta Stone was Common Macedonic language. This honour goes to the renowned Egyptologist and linguist Jean-Frangois Champollion (1790-1832), who correctly recognized and underlined the three scripts from the pharaonic decree on the Rosetta Stone as: Hyeroglyphic, Old Macedonic Script and New Macedonic Script ‘Koine’.

On the next page: From the Champollion notes - ALT MAKEDONISCH (Old Macedonic) and NEUE MAKEDONISCHE SHRIFT KOINE (New Macedonic Script

Koine). Further, translated from German: "The name Ptolomei, in the Macedonian text of the stone, also Ptolemaios, was the first word in the Hieroglyphics that was deciphered."

EINE VERLORENE SPRACHE

Der Schlussel zur Entratselung der Hieroglyphen ist ein Stiick schwarzen Basalts, das wahrend Napoleons agyptischer Kampagne ini Jahre 1799 von franzosischen Soldaten. die in der Nahe von Rashid oder Rosette schanzten, gefunden wurde. Die Inschrift, die ani' ilim enthalten ist - ein Loblied auf Ptolemaus V. aus dem Jahre 196 v. Chr. ist von geringer Bedeutung. Unschatzbar aber ist die Tatsache. dafi der Text zusatzlich in zwci Sprachen eingemeiftelt ist: in Makedonsch und in einer spatiigvptischen Schrift, die demotisch genannt wird. Obwolil die Gelehrten die auficr ordentliche. geraclezu sensationclle Wichtigkeit dieses Fundes sofort erkannten, dauerte es noch 23 Jahre, ehe der „Stein von Rosette" sein Geheimnis durch die Entzifferung eines einzigen Wortes (gegeniiber) preisgab.

■iSiiii' 1

»..-a,*- 1

a^Cr^/^t:nu$TSi5<rj;:i;r?»-/v 1

iwstims. ctEs .v

But, as we know Napoleon lost the war, Rosetta Stone as war-trophy went to the British Museum, and the winners rewrote the history once again...

In spite of all misfortunes and centuries of systematic and implacable repressions, in recent times Macedonic reappears with all its vigour, as phoenix from the ashes. Repercussions and incessant attempts to repress it are following close behind, of which the last blatant example is the recent sensational publication of the Macedonian Encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Macedonica), which was promptly forbidden and withdrawn from the distribution under surmounting preasure of the foreign policies watchdogs. Nevertheless, thanks to the modern means of information (the Internet) it survived and spread like a forest fire on myriad of websites, from where it can be downloaded (below are reported some of the links).

MAKEDONS KA ENCIKLOPEDIJA - ENCYCLOPEDIA MACEDONICA Vol.1 and 2 :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24540780/Makedonska-enciklopediia-Kniga-1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24540849/Makedonska-enciklopediia-Kniga-2

https://archive.org/details/ENCYCLOPAEDIA.MACEDONICA.VoL1

https://archive.org/details/ENCYCLOPAEDIA.MACEDONICA.Vol.2

http://www.academia.edu/8098802/ENCYCLOPAEDIA MACEDONICA -MAKEDON S KA ENCIKLOPEDIJA Vol. 1 Mkd-Cyrillic https://www.academia.edu/8098502/ENCYCLOPAEDIA MACEDONICA -MAKEDON S KA ENCIKLOPEDIJA Vol. 2 Mkd-Cyrillic

Case in point - A Glossary of the identical words in Sanskrit

and Macedonic

Some remarks on how to read different letters, words and terms:

a = aa    b = neutral indeterminate    vocal (like in ‘burrr ’ for cold)

bh = b    z = soft ‘j’ (like in ‘journaV)

dh = d    c = ch (like in ‘church’)

gh = g    s = sh (like in ‘shop’)

Mkd. - today modern Macedonian meaning.

In the cases, where due to older or more recent changes the meaning between Sanskrit and Macedonic is not understandably similar or equal, the translation will be mediatory and/or the transitional meaning will be indicated in parentesis (if not obvious). Thus for example Sanskrit ‘Purvesam’, meaning earlier, antecedent, in Macedonic Serbo-Kroatian became ‘Prvi-sam’, and in modern Macedonian ‘Prv-sum’, meaning first I’m’. Or Sanskrit ‘Kalena’ (meaning: by time, temporally) developed into today Macedonic ‘Kalendar’ (lat. Calendar), etc.

Abreviations: + - Archaic; ^a - Russian; * - Serbokroatian; ^Il - Italian.

Gane Todorovski (1929-2010), famous Macedonian poet.

Same word found in Homer’s Illiyad. See the table at the end of this paper.

Hence Budha.

20

Cognate with modem /otvara/ - ‘opens’ in plain Macedonian. From corrupted /ot-dvara/ - ‘from the courtyard’. The same root is for /vrata/ - ‘door’, and /otvor/ - ‘aperture’, as the courtyard (Dvara/Dvor) is the entrance-opening of the house. It also contains number 2 (Dva) of /Ar-a/ (see Sanskrit ‘Arati’ - to plow), since the house normaly has two yard’s (Ar, i.e. ‘earth’) infront and behind.