Andis Kaulins replied:
There is no question that the Indo-European alleged hypothetical root of *uber is a fabrication of deluded and misguided world linguists having little understanding of the true development of human language.
I wrote long ago that the root of the terms discussed here is seen clearly in the whole host of words in Indo-European e.g. Latvian having a PA-RA root, i.e. as written at http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi53.htm :
"[They are ]derived from the combination of PA [viz. BA] with RA, with PA as a "prefix of being, or place" and RA as a root of "eye, see, sight, light, use, eye (to hand) coordination"."
Hence PĀR viz. PĀRI (both with long a) in Latvian mean "over, above, across", as derived from the primordial idea of "there - see", which of course is related to English far, i.e. "over there".
The idea of being "over" or "above" something led in time by the process of dissociation from PAR to the word VAR / VARS in Latvian meaning "to be able to do, to can do, power, might".
Combined with the S-mobile prefix as derived from the affixation of the prefix ES "the self, I" in its conversion to a directional prefix, this not only led in Latvian to words such as UZVAR(A) "victory, win" - from UZ-VARA < *ES-VARA ("I win") but also to the idea of SVAR(S) [ES-VARS] "weight" and "might" in this sense.
This resulted in words such as English SOVEREIGN which is Latvian SVĒRIEN(s) - long e - "weighing, mighty of weight" or English SUPERB which is Latvian SVARĪBA - long i - "importance (by weight), weighty".
SVARS was by the way also an important word in ancient Egypt and is the word transcribed erroneously by the Egyptologists as OSIRIS, the God of the Underworld. Of course, SVARS was actually the Egyptian concept of gravity initially, a force which the ancients saw as emanating from the bowels of the Earth (that analysis is our discovery). Later this force was personified.
Your run-of-the-mill Indo-Europeanist or Egyptologist has never seen these connections because 1) he or she does not speak Latvian [or any similarly useful language such as Lithuanian], 2) they do not consult Latvian in making their etymologies, and 3) they generally have no clue about how language was actually constructed in ancient days - as mainstream linguists mostly fail to appreciate that more complex conceptual ideas derived from simpler graspable physical concepts - for which there were originally words.
As a result, it is quite clear that BR, FR, SBR and SWR do in fact have have the same root [when applied to terms meaning over, power, etc.], whether this be Indo-European, Ugaritic, Hebrew/Aramaic or Classical Arabic.
As for the fifth term, the word summit, how the Indo-European linguists managed to attempt to merge a totally unrelated word like summit into an equally erroneous root of *uper is a case study for the cognitive psychologists who study these kinds of academic aberrations.
The Latin term for "sum" was summa viz. summus, for which the Indo-Europeanists have no clue of actual lexical origin, because they have not consulted Latvian. In Latvian the origin is clearly seen, as a saim(is) or sain(is) which is a "bundle of something", for which reason also a saime is a community of some kind, i.e. a bundle of persons, a sum of persons, and for which reason in Latvian a soma is a "bag" or "pouch" of some kind, in which one collects some number - a bundle (viz. sum) - of objects.
The origin of the English word sum, is correctly seen in the concept of "bundle".
As for astronomy, I write about the Sumerian zenith at
The word summit has the same origin as the word azimuth, as found in Latin semita "path" and the Arabic as-sumut or as-samt "the way, compass bearing", which may be related to Latvian atzīmetais "that marked" and "acī-metis", that marked by the eye.
The Indo-Europeanist idea that the word zenith derives Arabic samt (ar-ra's) is curious to say the least, and the Latvian ce(l)nite - long i - "that raised, that in culmination" gives us the proper ancient explanation, pointing to the root word cel- "raise".
Again, Ishinan, Latvian shows that all of these languages - Indo-European, Ugaritic, Hebrew-Aramaic and Classical Arabic - once all derived from the same source.
"There is no question that the Indo-European alleged hypothetical root of *uber is a fabrication of deluded and misguided world linguists having little understanding of the true development of human language."
To view Andis' response in its entirety click on the URL below:
"Much of mainstream human history is based on myth, unfounded opinion and just plain hearsay. When we look at the testimony of man's history through the piercing eyes of a cross-examining lawyer, much accepted dogma needs revision." Andis Kaulins
Andis Kaulins replied:
I wrote previously that "The word summit has the same origin as the
word azimuth, as found in Latin semita "path" and the Arabic as-sumut
or as-samt "the way, compass bearing", which may be related to Latvian
atzimetais "that marked" and "aci-metis", that marked by the eye."
When I reconsidered the Latin semita "path" again, then it became
clear that the Latin term semita has a different origin than the word
summit and that mainstream linguists have erred in seeing the two as
The correct origin of the Latin term semita is in the Indo-European e.g. compound term samita in "Latvian" as derived from sa-mita "down-trodden", i.e. a "trodden path" formed by man or animal, which is what the most ancient "paths" were.
Summit on the other hand will either be related to eye orientation, as
I already surmised previously, or is related to the Latvian term jumt-
which means "ceiling", perhaps from an original *uz-met "upon thrown",
i.e. above one as a summit in this sense.