Comparative Similarities Between Indo-European Languages Reflect Ultraconservation

As I was watching the James Bond film Specter a couple of months ago, I spotted the Spanish for "The Day of The Dead", "Dia de Muertos" flash across the screen. The scene was when Daniel Craig was visiting Mexico City on an unofficial purpose. 

I was overawed once more! How could there be so much semblance between languages, given that they are spoken by people separated some several thousands miles apart? Here in this case for example, dia stands for day in English and din in Bengali; while muertos (dead) is phonetically and alphabetically related to mrityu (death, in Bangla). Not only do they retain their meanings across languages/dialects/cultures so disparate geographically but also the phonetic pronunciation remain almost intact. I have been, for a long time, amazed at the astounding similarities between English and other European languages with that of Bengali and Hindi. Please note that these similarities existed way before the British came to India: some 15,000 years ago! (see references below). More recently, "in the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent began to notice similarities among Indo-Aryan, Iranian, and European languages." Here are only a few examples. More examples can be found here, here and here.

Phonetic Bengali [(IPA) symbols NOT adhered to]	English/other European terms with same meaning	Hindi or other ANI   Ancestral North Indians (ANI)
POOROপুরো	PURE, Full, 100%	POOREY, पूरे दशम
MRITYU মৃত্যু	MUERTOS (SPANISH)	MURDA/MURDER मुर्दा
PATH পথ	PATH	पथ
ADOR আদর	ADORE
OLI (=LANE)-GOLI অলি	ALLEY
AAGRAASON আগ্রাসন	AGGRESSION
NAAM নাম	NAME, NOM	नाम
BAWD বদ	BAD	बद
DWOR দোর	DOOR	दौर
KUTTA কুত্তা	KUTYA (HUNGARY), Dog	KUTTA कुत्ता
BHRAATAA ভ্রাতা	BRAT (RUSSIA, POLAND, UKRAINE, CROATIA), Brother	भ्राता
BAARF বরফ	[BRITISH SLANG FOR SICK]	SNOW IN FARSI, URDU, HINDI बर्फ
BOWMI বমি	VOMIT
NAWBOW নব	NEW, NUEVO	नया
	BETTER	BEHTER बेहतर
BYABOHAAR ব্যবহার	BEHAVIOUR	ब्याबोहर
আহ্নিক	DI-URNAL
সায়া কায়া ট্রিক	PSYCHIATRIC [SAYA-KAYA (BODY-MIND)]	साया _काया
ONDOR অন্দর	INDOOR	अंदर
BAAG বাগ	BURG/BURGH/Borough [E.G. KAROLBAAG, HAMBURG]	BAAG बाघ
GEET/ GITA গীত, গীতা	GUITAR [Song, E.G. BHAGWAT GITA]
OSTHI অস্থি	OSTEO (BONE)	अस्थि
SHAWTOW শত	CENTUM (HUNDRED)	शत
PAWD পদ	PEDIS	पद
BAKYO বাক্য	VOX, Voice, Word	BAKSH बाक्या
DOSHOM দশম	DECEM, TEN	दशम
বার্চ	BIRCH	BHURJYA भुर्ज्य (SANSKRIT)
AAMI আমি	ME, MYSELF	मुझे
DIN দিন	DAY, DIEM	दिन
NAASAAA, নাসা, নাসিকা	NASION, NOSE	नासा, नासिका
DEVAH দেব	DIO (GOD)	देवा
SARPA, SERPE সর্প	SERPENT	सर्प
ASTAA অষ্ট	EIGHT, OCTO (LATIN)	अष्ट
NAVA নবম	NINE, NOVE (ITALIAN)	न
SAAT সাত	SEPTEM, SEVEN, SETTE	सात
DWO দু	TWO	दो
SARKARA শর্করা	SUGAR/CANDY	SUKKAR (ARABIC) शक्कर
আদমি	ADAM	ADMI (PERSON) HINDI) आदमी
DANT দাঁত	DENTAL, TOOTH	दांत
BANDHAN বন্ধন	BONDAGE	बंधन

Well, then how are these languages so intricately related? How likely is it that the "cognates" are just coincidences? 

[Cognates are words which have the same linguistic lineage. When you do a voice search on Google Assistant or Apple's Siri, the server breaks-up your voice command into 'phonemes' and they then try to match the word that appears most likely to be spoken by comparing with its database. Cognates are thus likely to be confused by the computer since they are so phonetically similar. Generally, most cognates have a linguistic half-life of about 2000-4000 years. This means that there is 50% chance that a cognate will be replaced by a non-cognate (not similar sounding) one. But it has been seen that pronouns, numerals and some other words tend to persist much longer, and are less prone to erosion.] 

The semblance unequivocally points to a common origin; and that these words did not originate 'separately' on the planet!

However, the linguistic similarities are noticed between European and North Indian languages only. 

It has been proved by genetic analysis that most of the ethno-linguistic groups in India (and South Asia in general) originated from two separate ancestral populations: Ancestral North Indians (ANI) and Ancestral South Indians (ASI). While the ANI ancestry is strongly related genetically to Central Asians, Caucasians and Europeans, the ASI ancestry derived from within the subcontinent. This finding in genome analysis corroborates with the evidences from archaeology and linguistics, that there was a mixture between ANI and people from the said regions. 

[There happened mixtures between ASI and ANI as well, but endogamous marriages became the order of the day when the caste system came into vogue precluding any further admixtures.]

Clearly, the etymological similarities between the said language families strongly suggest a single single linguistic superfamily (Proto-Indo-European superfamily) from which civilizations diverged. So it is certain that there were some ancient populace who migrated and somehow some of the words still managed to survive the language erosion. 

[The term Indo-European was first used by none other than Thomas Young, the British Polymath, famous for his double-slit experiment that foxes our ordinary minds!] 

The most accepted opinion is that the early linguistic ancestors migrated from the Pontic Caspian steppe, somewhere near Ukraine, to populate more southwards. There is another postulate that the early migration took a northward route, towards Europe.

But is there any proof that these ancient people really traveled or migrated? There is, indeed! Not only the similarities in language, there are also other clues that prove that this migration really happened. It is bolstered by archaeological, ecological, genetic and anthropological evidences. Though it is innate human nature to forage and advance just for the sake of adventure, the early migration may have arisen out of necessity. The early hunter-gatherers may have moved to a favorable place where farming and agriculture was prevalent, so that they could feed themselves and their cattle and horses. Perhaps a harsher winter in Europe forced these population to leave their original homeland (Urheimat hypothesis or the primary homeland hypothesis).

Consider the Gundestrup Cauldron (below) adored as a beautiful example of Celtic art, discovered in Denmark in 1891 and was thought to date back to about 100 BC. 

The horned god, sculpted in the cauldron, looks very much like the seal of Shiva/ Pasupati icon of  early Indus Valley Civilization (below), which dates back to about 2000 BC. 

There are other artefacts of proto-Indian-European (PIE) religion that suggest the linkage of ancient Indian items to that found in Europe.

Of all the possible theories that explain our common ancestry, the most interesting perhaps is the Genetic theory. 

There are 46 chromosomes in humans. 22 pairs of autosomes and two sex chromosomes: XX in females and XY in males. In addition to these strands of DNA that these chromosomes contain, there are mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that also contains the 'four letters' (ATGC) of the nucleotide alphabetic lexicon. What's interesting about these mtDNA strands is that they are inherited "exclusively" from the maternal side.

So it's certain that migration of population did take place but in which direction? The Aryans migrated from Europe or the other way? I'm sure that if you have seen the 2 pictures above and noted their dates as well, you've already drawn your conclusion!

We will next discuss about the faint 'possibility' of a plaussible "Aryan Invasion Theory" in our next blog post. Till then hang on! 

Special Reference:
https://www.rbth.com/blogs/2014/11/01/sanskrit_and_russian_ancient_kinship_39451

["The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either":  (William Jones, Philologist)]

Published on 30/06/2018, last updated on 02/03/2025

tags: aryan invasion theory, genetics, evolution, DNA, archaeology, cognates, James Bond, Specter

Speak No Evil

James Watson, the scientist who contributed a lot in the discovery of the structure of the DNA, had to retire from the post of chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), Long Island, New York, USA. The Nobel Laureate was gloomy about the prospects of Africa, as Africans were less intelligent, (according to him). This 'racial' comment sparked a furore and he had to resign from the laboratory that he himself helped establish.
True, that the IQ tests are not foolproof and they may give false negative results from an African perspective. At the same time we are surprised to find almost no representation in the field of science from this continent. One might argue that they do not have any access to modern science, even adequate nutrition and so on, and that is why they are not inclined towards science. But what about African-Americans; have they shown any significant improvement over their African counterparts? I know you might say that science wasn't the sole yardstick to quantify intelligence, and Nobel Peace prize winners (or even in literature) could still be found there. Well, you have your own logic but so did James's.

William Bradford Shockley, the co-inventor of transistor, who went on to win the Nobel prize in physics in 1956, was an eugenics activist later in his life. He also thought that there was a connection between race and intelligence. He, like Watson, was reprimanded for this stance.

While there is a possibility that both of them may be wrong, they may be right too. Rather than burying our head in an 'ostrich policy' and 'censor and censure' these statements, why don't we search for the truth instead? These Nobel laureates are not fools anyway. We try to strangulate the cloning research by the same logic (ethical issues are also there), but for whose benefit?

Recently, researchers at the University of Florida, led by Marta Wayne, said that men were genetically simpler and for this reason they evolved faster. Could it be termed sexist by our moral police? Women have two X chromosomes (in addition to 22 pairs of autosomes), and any alteration in either of these two sex chromosomes, will be counterbalanced by the other unaffected X chromosome. This is not so in males who have one X and one Y chromosome (instead of two X chromosomes in females); Y chromosome being much shorter, it can not counter the mutation. Hence, in males, such mutation will give rise to evolution, due to this selection pressure. It will remain a fact no matter who says what.
I do not necessarily support their statements but I am open minded. The judgment may not go in favor of me or that of the Africans or the Ashkenazi jews, but let truth be out for the sake of science and humanity.

Walk like an Egyptian!

When we move from one place to another, we use our legs. So do all other animals. Movement (locomotion, to be precise) typically involves a support phase or stance phase when we support one foot on the ground and a swing phase when we swing the leg forward. Even our internal machineries also carry molecules or organelles from one part of the cell to other, by 'walking' in this fashion, and not by rolling.

Compare this (natural movement) with that of man made things that move. How the ancient Egyptians built the Pyramid in those days, is still debated. But they probably carried those heavy stones, on logs acting as wheels. Consider locomotives for example. Vehicles run on wheels, which rotate around an axis. Nearly all machines operate by rotating motors. Why then in nature, the transportation is looked after by the process of stepping?

One explanation is that in animal kingdom, a revolving appendage would mean detachment of that appendage, due to anatomic constraints. Secondly, devising an engine that would move in a step-like manner is not easily feasible due to the inherent unsymmetrical pull on its 'limbs' due to gravity, but the 'pi' factor would let the wheel move smoothly-in a continuous fashion.

I intend to write about the movement of 'molecular motors' in a later post. In the mean time it is really worth pondering why in nature things 'walk like an Egyptian'.

Right is Might

You have forgotten your car keys and done hours of thinking; but to no avail. You give up in despair and start sipping your evening cup of coffee. Suddenly, out of nowhere you remember where you kept your keys. What you could not remember thinking, came so abruptly on its own. This is intuition and it is said that its the right brain (right half of the brain, obviously!) that is responsible for this. The famous scientist, Albert Einstein said “The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

When we copy a 'normal' picture, the 'logical' brain breaks down the picture into graphical pixels. These pixels are then plotted in their graphical co-ordinates. This is rather like mathematics. The picture on the left have been intentionally placed upside down. When you try to draw this picture, you just can not take anything for granted, because the orientation is just not right. The mathematical plotting can not be activated. Where reasoning ends, intuition begins. It is much easier to draw (copy a picture) a picture placed upside down, since our logic takes the back seat then; and the intuitive role of the right hemisphere ('intuitive brain') starts to play. We are no longer primed to 'assign' any coordinates preemptively. The right hemisphere of the brain is not only associated with intuition and drawing (art), but also emotion, music and other artistic abilities. The left brain is rather logical and deals with mathematics and other tasks that require calculations. When a subject is told to recall words, the activity in left frontal cortex increases (left parahippocampal area is also stimulated); while activities in the right frontal cortex (along with para hippocampal areas of both sides) are increased when a subject recalls sceneries or pictures. These activation patterns of the brain have been measured by fMRI scans (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), ERP studies (event related potential or evoked potential) and other medical investigations.

Have you noticed that when we hold babies in our arms, we put them on our left? This left cradling is puzzling, because its the right arm that is stronger. So, why do mothers hold their babies on their left laps? It has been suggested that our expressions show better on the left side of the face and left cradling fosters stronger mother-baby relationship. This arises from the fact that the hemispheres of the brain is cross-wired. The (some of the) neural pathways from the brain cross to the opposite sides, as they enter the spinal cord, to supply peripheral circuits. The right brain (the one responsible for emotion etc) is wired to the left side of the body and the left brain is wired to the right. Thus the 'emotion generator' right brain, will have its manifestation on the left side of the face. Mothers possibly don't bother about all this, but evolutionary anthropology has left its indelible footprints on bipeds.

To become a creative genius, you need both intelligence (a faculty usually attributed to the left brain) and intuition (typically a right brain's domain). Albert Einstein, it is said, had strong intuitive powers, which helped him to formulate his famous theory of relativity, ahead of the contemporary knowledge. So, its time we wake up to this fact and start exercising our right brains as well.

Aging: From a General and Evolutionary Perspective

The inevitability of aging and the fear of dying have haunted the human race, and its been a human dream to retard aging and defy death. Aging is a complex syndrome that is progressive, deleterious, universal and so far irreversible. It is much like 'biological entropy', which increases with time, just as a block of ice would melt in an isolated environment, such as a room, in room temperature.

It has been argued that animals in the wild, do not suffer aging; they either fall prey (killed), die of starvation, or become victims of accidents. Aging only affects humans and zoo animals. Aging is, sometimes, also referred to as senescence.

With age; our strength, stamina, speed and skill diminishes, the encoding and retrieval of memories also becomes less efficient. Aging not only manifests in the intact organism as a whole, but also it affects the whole gamut of molecules (DNA, proteins, lipids, carbohydrates etc) to cells and to tissues (sarcopenia or diminution of muscle mass, for example).

Some gerontologists argue that homeostenosis is the most important key mechanism for aging. Homeostenosis refers to diminution (=stenosis/bottleneck) in body reserves. An elderly person who is apparently healthy and can carry out normal day to day activities, becomes unduly sick and frail, when faced with challenges such as a simple common cold, as he is homeostenosed.

What causes aging is not known for sure and many hypotheses have been proposed. They fall into two broad categories, programmed or intrinsic and wear and tear or extrinsic (stochastic). By definition, it is clear that programmed aging occurs from within the person's own make-up, whereas wear and tear aging is the result of the combination of a variety of environmental factors. Factors such as chemical toxins, radiation injury (X Ray, UV Ray etc), free radicals and other factors are some examples of extrinsic/environmental culprits.

Some people tend to go into old ages without suffering any major illnesses. This is healthy aging and is predominantly genetically determined. It is thus aptly said that healthy aging begins with the fetus.

The Ubiquitous Symmetry

Ever wondered why our bodies are so symmetrical? I mean, if you cut our (and also other animals') bodies in half (don't do a Jack the Ripper though!), through a line that passes through the nose, navel, the perineum (i.e., a sagittal section); you get two halves, left and right, which exhibit a near perfect mirror image symmetry. Not only are they found in the animal kingdom; in a molecular level (e.g. in crystal lattices), and subatomic level (electron spins) too they exist.

The question naturally arises why nature exhibits this mathematical expression. A complacent and plausible explanation would be that it was an act of the evolutionary selection process (in the case of animals). A symmetrical body would give us the advantage in standing upright, against gravity. Assymetricality would mean a 'couple' (the couple/torque of physics: and not husband and wife!) working on the body, thus making it fall.

We should not nevertheless, ignore the plants' own aptitude in mathematics too. They are expert in number theories, in that, they exhibit Fibonacci sequence ( 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34......every number is the sum of the previous two numbers), fractal geometry (image to the left) and many others. Another interesting thing that amazes me about plants is the way the tree trunks so faithfully point towards the center of the earth, even on a sloping hill. In other words, the tree trunks could be considered as an extension of the earth's radius.

Lets discuss the point why and how we are symmetrical. When a sperm meets and combines an ovum, a zygote is formed. The cells in this zygote multiplies resulting in a ball kind of stuff, called the blastocyst. In this sphere like stuff, only the central portion remains, in the form of a disk, while the rest of the sphere disappears. This central disk then differentiates (=evolves into different kinds of tissues) into three layers: an outer ectoderm, an inner endoderm and an intervening mesoderm sandwiched between them. Now this three layered disk then folds in such a way so that the edges of the disks appose and merge. This merging point is the navel or umbilicus (and other midline structures), via which the fetus gets nutrition from the placenta, via the umbilical cord. The limbs like arms or legs form as an offshoot from this folded structure. No wonder then, that the growing fetus will be symmetric, since the left and the right halves including the limbs are forming almost identically from a single entity.

Dysmorphisms do occur though, despite all this. In the case of other animals too, this same kind of embryogenesis is seen (and expected too), as ontogeny repeats phylogeny.

The Baffling Hairs

Scanning down the evolutionary tree, one can find semblances with our ancestors (naturally, as a part of the legacy). But there are instances when one can not explain certain things. For example, in humans we find hairs in the axillary areas (armpits), pubic areas which seem to defy logic, from an evolutionary perspective. Goats, lions or chimpanzees don't have them. Why in the first place did we need to have them or what is the purpose they serve, or couldn't have we done without them? We don't find any evolutionary parallel in the vertebrate kingdom (to the best of my knowledge).

One might say that the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestoterone, in the said areas, by 5 alpha reductase, is the reason why they grow at those places. This DHT ( dihydrotestoterone) then combines with its receptor within the cytoplasm of the cells, and the receptor- ligand- combine translocate to the nucleus to exert their effects. My point is not that. I just want to know why, all of a sudden, humans needed to grow 'beard' at those odd places. I mean, what's so Darwinian about this?

One reason that seems to make sense is that those hairs at the intertriginous areas may help reduce friction while we move. But I am not sure, as it has not yet been documented. There are instances where there are excessive body hairs all over, hypertrichosis (a condition that could even be caused by the antihypertensive agent 'minoxidil') or hirsutism, where females produce excessive body or facial hairs. How heavily a woman is 'furred' could be determined by Ferriman Galway scale. Well these conditions do NOT have a predilection towards those key areas (that is, they are not axilla/pubis specific) and we can safely discard them as not being relevant here.

Body hairs may have some roles in heat regulation (erection of hair [known by various terms as: horripilation, goose-bumps, piloerection, cutis anserina etc. etc]---> increased depth of skin---> more insulation, provided by the subcutaneous tissue occupying this place). Body hairs could also provide superficial protection, or the maintenance of beneficial microbial flora, what purpose these intertriginous hairs serve is a mystery.

Another possible explanation is that, hairs being great thermal insulators (and electrical too), can prevent the heat of the adjacent thigh skin, to reach the testes. The testes are normally cooler than the core body temperature by about 2 degree centigrade. This way they may be doing great evolutionary service, by letting us procreate.
Can you shed some light on this thread?