The document that you show here is not correct: while it’s true that the Romans borrowed many words from the Greeks, the Latin language per se did not come from Greek. Latin and Greek are sister languages; both descended from what historical linguists call Primitive Indo-European, which also gave rise to the Germanic languages, of which English is one.
My humble question: Since the so called Indo-European civilization left us no written language, no symbols, no temples, no ancient city ruins, no ancient artifacts, how could we support the existence of such a civilization?
You think Greek and Latin are sister languages, I know that the Greek language is not only the richest language on earth, due to its mathematical structure, but it will always borrow terms to every other language in order to fill up inevitable gaps.
While the Indo-Europeans didn’t leave us any written records, their descendants, including the Greeks, Romans, and Hindus, did. Linguists use ancient and more recent writings from Indo-European languages to compare words and grammatical forms. On the basis of all that evidience, linguists can infer many things about the original language and about how the various subfamilies developed.
If you have access to the printed version of The American Heritage Dictionary (4th edition), from pp. 2007–2015 you’ll find an excellent essay by Calvert Watkins about the Indo-Europeans nd their language. The essay includes an example of how linguists use related words in various Indo-European languages to reconstruct a plausible version of the Indo-European original.
We all agree that scientists or linguistics in particular can undoubtedly provide interesting findings. However, a research conducted on the reconstruction of a language (i.e the Hindo-European) , should firstly reassure that the civilization which used it really existed. The very existence of this culture, has no more than theoretical basis.
Dear sirs, I am no linguist, just a curious browser, but I have a couple of legitimate questions:
Ancient Greek originated ( and is found in written form) much earlier in time than Latin, isnt that true?
As the Romans borrowed many words from the Greek, and if those were sister and not “mother and daughter” languages then the Greeks and the Ancient Greek language should contain similar or at least analogous number of Latin borrowed words, which it does not…
Am I wrong to assume that despite the dissimilarities, that can be attributed to the historical divergence of parallel development of these languages for so many years, Greek predates, and thus contributes “motherly” to the origin of latin?
Many Indo-European sounds (especially consonants) turned out similarly in Latin and Greek which can make the distinction between parent vs sibling less clear in these cases: the parallel relationship (whether you prefer to say sibling, cousin etc) might be better shown by examples like
(NB. English words used as example for Germanic Languages, * indicates reconstructed original sound)
*IE dh IE w,g IE k-,-d IE k-,-t IE k-
Germanic red work heart hund(red) hound
Greek (e)rythros erg- kardion (he)katon kyon
Latin ruber verg- cordis (gen.) centum canis
Several sound laws are relevant to the examples shown and detailed discussion can be found on other sites (for example, search for “Grimm’s Law”)
Of particular interest to those interested in the history of Greek is the Mycaenean language (limited records from the so-called “Linear B” script tablets) which shows “iqos” as an early form of “hippos” (note Lat. equs, Old irish ech). The outcome of Indo European *kw is varied particularly within Greek depending on the vowels which originally followed it, giving p- before o,a; k- before u/y and t- before e,i – the compare interrogative pronouns amongst Latin, A.Greek and, say, English (where you usually get wh- but h- before some)
The following are rather more complicated (see, among other sources, indoeuropean s-mobile on Wikipedia)
Germanic water (s)weet
Greek hyder hedys
Latin sudor (sweat,moisture) suavis