Is the Georgian language related to Basque, another European “outlier”?

May 15, 2014 by

The history of the Georgian language reveals some interesting patterns of cross-cultural interaction. Georgian can be traced back to a ancestral language— Proto-Kartvelian—that it shares with its close relatives: Mingrelian, Svan and Laz. Spoken in the second millennium BC, Proto-Kartvelian must have interacted closely with Proto-Indo-European, the ancestral tongue to most European languages, as well as those of Iran and northern India. This connection is indicated by the so-called ablaut patterns (like the English sing-sang-sung), which Proto-Kartvelian probably borrowed from Proto-Indo-European, alongside many specific words. The most notable among these loanwords is the reconstructed Proto-Kartvelian m.k.erd ‘breast’, which is said to be a cognate to the Indo-European kerd ‘heart’ (cf. the Latin cardio—and even the English heart).

While the connection of Georgian to Indo-European languages is solid, if distant, several scholars have searched for linkages to other languages, most notoriously Basque, a non-Indo-European “outlier” language in Europe. To this day, no proven connection has been demonstrated between Basque and any currently spoken languages; as a result,  Basque remains a perfect isolate, an “orphan” language with no ties to any language family. But the idea that Basque might be related to some other languages, in particular Georgian and other  languages of the Caucasus, has ignited a lot of interest among Vasconists (i.e. scholars of Basque) and Caucasianists alike.

The search for a connection between Caucasian languages and Basque dates to the work of Hugo Schuchardt in the early twentieth century. Schuchardt was chiefly interested in finding a North African connection for Basque, but in a 1913 paper he cited some parallels between Basque and the languages of the Caucasus. The Dutch linguist Christian Cornelius Uhlenbeck explored the same connection in a series of papers beginning in the early 1920s (e.g. “De la possibilité d’ une parenté entre le basque et les langues caucasiques”, published in the Revista Internacional de los Estudios Vascos) and continuing through 1940s. The Italian linguist Alberto Trombetti wrote an entire book in 1925 based on a long list of supposed Caucasian-Basque cognates. The Georgian linguist Nikolai Marr published several articles comparing the languages of the Caucasus and Basque, but Marr is now generally considered to have been more a myth-maker than a scientist (in a curious twist of fate, his teachings were declared anti-Marxist in an article published in the Soviet newspaper Pravda under the signature of Joseph Stalin himself, but this article was most likely inspired by the writings of Marr’s most energetic opponent, Arnold Chikobava). The French Indo-Europeanist (and Caucasianist) Georges Dumézil devoted a chapter of his 1933 book to putative cognates found among Basque and the Northern Caucasian languages. René Lafon, a French scholar of Basque, produced a long series of articles, published in 1930s through 1960s, arguing for a Basque-Caucasian link. This idea was further explored by the Norwegian Caucasianist Hans Vogt and the German linguist Karl Bouda, although they achieved very different results: Vogt’s conclusions were largely negative, whereas Bouda is perhaps the most enthusiastic of the proponents of a Caucasian-Basque link. Bouda’s papers from the late 1940s and early 1950s provide a most extensive list of cognates, including some 500 items.

The original inspiration for the Georgian- (or more generally Caucasian-) Basque link came from the existence of the ancient Kingdom of Iberia in the Caucasus (its self-designation was Kartli, hence “Kartvelian”), basically located in present-day eastern Georgia. Another supposed link involves the existence of the Basque place-name ending in –adze, similar to Georgian surnames ending in -dze or –adze (prevalent in western Georgia). (The most common surnames ending in -(a)dze are Kapanadze, Maisuradze and Giorgadze; one may also recall in this connection the names of the former Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze and of the iconic ballet choreographer Giorgi Balanchivadze, better known as George Balanchine.) However, this suffix literally means ‘son’ in Georgian, so the connection to Basque toponyms is hardly substantiated.

As mentioned above, various scholars have proposed a number of putative cognates, but most of them have simply listed Basque words and morphemes that bear a vague resemblance to words and morphemes in one Caucasian language or another (including Georgian). Representative examples include: the Basque word etxe ‘house’ is matched with the word ča ‘hut’ in Lak (Northeast Caucasian); and the Basque ahari  ‘ram’ is matched with words meaning ‘small lamb’ in three Northeast Caucasian languages (Chechen Eaxar, Ingush häxar and Batsbi axrab). Many of the proposed cognates require a leap of imagination to see the sound correspondences at all, as is the case with the Basque haragi ‘meat’ matched with the Circassian l« ‘meat’; the Basque hotz ‘cold’ matched with the Abkhaz sw ‘freeze’; Basque larri ‘anxious’ matched with Avar erize ‘be afraid,’ and so on. Among the specifically Georgian-Basque cognates that suffer from the same problem is the Georgian bza ‘box tree,’ matched with the Basque ezpel ‘box tree.’ These lists of putative cognates typically pair Basque words with words in some particular Caucasian language (or closely related languages). Yet, these works do not demonstrate a connection between Basque and the ancestral languages of Northwest, Northeast or South Caucasian languages, let alone a connection between Basque and the ancestral language of all Caucasian languages.

And since the search for a Caucasian-Basque link involves some forty Caucasian languages, it is not surprising that some resemblances can be found, if only by chance. Such a possibility is enhanced if one allows rather loose parallels in sound and meaning, as has indeed often been the case.

But the Caucasian-Basque hypothesis was fueled not only by questionable lexical cognates, but also by a number of typological similarities. Georgian, for example, shares with Basque its ergative case system, an elaborate scheme of verbal agreement, as well as such other characteristics as agglutinative morphology, Subject-Object-Verb order, vigesimal number system (base 20), and the presence of distributive numerals. A full discussion of such similarities would be too long and too technical to be included here, but some points of commonality do deserve discussion..

Let us briefly consider the ergative case system shared by Georgian and Basque. In English, word order encodes who did what to whom: John kissed Mary and Mary kissed John differ by who initiated the action and to whom it was applied, which we deduce solely from the word order).  But many, if not most, languages use some overt morphological marking to encode the same thing. Noun case is one such type of marking: in a case language such as Latin or Russian, the equivalents of ‘John kissed Mary’ and ‘Mary kissed John’ differ not so much by word order but by the forms of the nouns ‘John’ and ‘Mary’. In scores of languages, Latin and Russian included, the subject of a sentence – here, the one who did the kissing – appears in one form, called “nominative”, whereas the object – here, the one who is kissed – appears in another form, called “accusative”. Since “who did what to whom” can be deduced from the forms of the nouns, word order in many case languages is much freer than it is in English.

However, not all languages that rely on case use the same nominative-accusative model employed by Latin and Russian. Both Georgian and Basque follow a different model, known as “ergative-absolutive” (after the names of the two main cases). In this model, the subject appears in the so-called “ergative” case – but only if an object is also present. If there is no object, as in for example ‘John left’, the subject appears in a different form called “absolutive”. This latter form is also used for objects.

Here are some illustrative examples from Georgian. In the sentence (1a), which has both a subject and an object (it is thus called a “transitive sentence”), the subject bich’ ‘boy’ is marked with the ergative suffix -ma, and the object dzaghl  ‘dog’ is marked with the absolutive suffix -i. In the sentence (1b), which has a subject but no object (and is thus an “intransitive sentence”), the subject is not marked by the ergative suffix -ma, but rather by the absolutive suffix -i.  In effect, the object in (1a) and the subject in (1b) are in the same form.

(1) Georgian

(1a)

bich’-ma         dzaghl-i           bagh-shi             da-mal-a.

boy-ERG         dog-ABS         garden-DAT-in hid.AOR

‘The boy hid the dog in the garden.’

(1b)

dzaghl-i           bagh-shi                      da-i-mal-a.

dog-ABS         garden-DAT-in           hid.AOR

‘The dog hid in the garden.’

The same thing is true of Basque: the ergative suffix -k attaches to subjects but only if an object is also present (as in (2a)); if there is no object, the subject appears in the absolutive case, which is marked by the absence of the ergative suffix -k.

(2) Basque

(2a)

ehiztari-a-k                 otso-a                         harrapatu       du.

hunter-DEF-ERG       wolf-DEF.ABS           caught             has

‘The hunter has caught the wolf.’

(2b)

otso-a                         etorri               da

wolf-DEF.ABS           arrived             is

‘The wolf has arrived.’

But the ergative case system is not the only typological similarity between Georgian and Basque. Both of these languages require its verbs to agree not only with subjects (as in the English I play vs. He plays), but also with objects. Both the ergative case system described above and the pluripersonal agreement (i.e. agreeing with both subjects and objects) appear exotic to a speaker of any major European language, so it is tempting for us to look for a familial connection between Georgian and Basque.

But one particular quirk throws the relationship in doubt. While both Georgian and Basque employ the ergative case model and pluripersonal agreement, only Basque follows the ergative model for its agreement, selecting the same agreement morphemes for intransitive subjects (i.e. subjects that occur with no object in sight) and for objects, whereas agreement with transitive subjects (i.e. subjects that occur with an object in the same sentence) is marked by a different set of morphemes. In contrast, Georgian follows the nominative-accusative model for its agreement: agreement with subjects is marked by one set of morphemes, regardless of whether an object appears in the same sentence or not, while agreement with objects is done by another set of morphemes. In other words, for the purposes of selecting a case suffix, Georgian treats subjects differently depending on whether the object is present or not, whereas for purposes of agreement on the verb, all subjects are created equal. Basque, on the other hand, relies on the ergative-absolutive model more extensively. Thus, the apparent typological resemblance between Georgian and Basque – their ergative case system and the pluripersonal agreement – does not hold up on a closer inspection.

Although the common presence of non-Indo-European grammatical properties (together with putative cognates) has been enough to persuade some linguists that there must be a connection between Georgian and Basque, this is a dangerous assumption, as typological resemblances have rarely been useful in proving common descent from an ancestral language. As a result, most linguists today – including most notably R.L. Trask, Luis Michelena, V.A. Chirikba – reject the idea of a Georgian- (and more generally, Caucasian-) Basque link.

Moreover, genetic studies to date have not found any link between the Basques and the peoples of the Caucasus. For example, Bertorelle et al. (1995) conclude that “a genetic test of this hypothesis, based on classical markers [i.e. blood groups and protein electromorphs], did not show any particular genetic link between Caucasians and Basques”. This conclusion is further supported by the work of Nasidze and Salamatina (1996), who found that “Georgians seem to be genetically differentiated in relation to European populations, again as shown by classical markers”. Nor was mitochondrial DNA any help, as Comas et al. (2000), who studied a 360-base-pair stretch in HVR I of the mtDNA control region, concluded that “the putative linguistic relationship between Caucasian groups and the Basques, another outlier population within Europe for classical genetic markers, is not detected by the analysis of mtDNA sequences”.

The negative findings of modern scholarship have not, however, prevented certain schools of populist nationalism from propounding an “Iberian” theory of pre-history based on the supposed kinship of Basque and Georgian. A website called “Iberia Forever”, dedicated to the “spiritual mission of Georgia”, claims that “According to the latest studies of modern Kartvelologists (Jan Braun, and others), the view is gaining ground on Basque being a fourth Kartvelian language”. Another Georgian site follows the discredited work of Nikolai Marr in arguing that “the Georgians and the Basques (in Spain) are the sole survivors [of the proto-Iberians], though the extinct Etruscans in Italy may have belonged to a kindred family”. Such claims are taken much further in an imaginative YouTube video modestly entitled “Iberian Heritage: Let the Truth Speak for Itself” (see the image to the left).  Such ideas occasionally filter into the mainstream media.  A 2003 Washington Times article, for example, begins by noting that

“It may come as a surprise that the Georgians of the former Soviet Union and the Basques of ancient Iberia, now Spain and Portugal, have a common ancestry, but early Greeks and Romans called those Georgians and Basques Iberians.”

 

The search for common ancestry among seemingly disparate ethnic groups is understandable, and is beneficial insofar as it draws people to the study of history, geography, linguistics, and genetics. But it is the responsibility of scholars to occasionally throw cold water on fond dreams that do not withstand scrutiny.

 

******************************

Bertorelle G, Bertranpetit J, Calafell F, Nasidze I, & Barbujani G. (1995) “Do Basque- and Caucasian-speaking populations share non-Indoeuropean ancestors?” European Journal of Human Genetics 3:256–263.

Comas D, Calafell F, Bendukidze N, Fañanás L, & Bertranpetit J (2000) “Georgian and Kurd mtDNA Sequence Analysis Shows a Lack of Correlation Between Languages and Female Genetic Lineages” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 112:5–16.

Nasidze IS, Salamatina NV. (1996) “Genetic characteristics of the Georgian population”. Gene Geogr 10:105–112.

 


Related Posts

Subscribe For Updates

We would love to have you back on Languages Of The World in the future. If you would like to receive updates of our newest posts, feel free to do so using any of your favorite methods below:

      

Tags

  • trwier

    Hi Asya, great article as usual. I do feel I should correct a few mistakes about Georgian though. Almost no scholars now consider Georgian to be an ergative language, either in its case-marking or in its verb agreement; Hewitt is the sole exception, and even he does not defend his position publicly anymore. This is because there are two classes of intransitives, and the subject of one of these classes (so-called ‘unergatives’) patterns like the subject of transitives, both in case and agreement, while the other class of intransitives (so-called ‘unaccusatives’) has a separate system of case assignment more like the objects of transitives. This second class of intransitives also has distinct verb agreement. Thus Georgian is more like a split-S language like Hidatsa or Guarani than an ergative language like Basque or Yucatec Mayan.

    Also, although Proto-Kartvelian certainly does share a number of lexical items, such as mk’erdi ‘chest’ that might suggest borrowing or even common inheritance from an ancestral language, I think the ablaut patterns in Georgian are really quite different from Indo-European and almost certainly do not have a common origin, at least based on current reconstructions of Indo-European.

    • Thanks, Thomas! I agree that Georgian is not quite ergative in the precise tense and I am quite aware of the split-S patterns in that language. I was just trying to illustrate the potential argument from ergativity for people who don’t know what it is. Perhaps my simplification has gone too far (certainly too far for the specialists such as yourself).

    • Vasil

      Georgian language doesn’t belong any language families. Scientifically, there is very different and hard grammar structure, which I cannot explain here. If you know Georgian language, just search in online and you will find many researches that help you find your way. There exists research which says that Proto-Georgian language was the language since creation of human nature. There is a lots of parallels that says it’s true.

      • FYI: Thomas Weir is a specialist in Georgian linguistics, and judging by your comment here, you are not.

        As for the content of your comment: Georgian belongs to Kartvelian language family, together with Laz, Svan and Mingrelian. As for its grammatical peculiarities, a quick introduction is found here:
        https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-characteristics-of-the-Georgian-language/answer/Thomas-Wier

        As for the idea that Proto-Georgian was “the language since creation of human nature”, it does not hold water.

        • shota tsikhiseli

          Hello. I have to say that this definition that ” Georgian belongs to kartvelian language family, together with laz, Svan , and Mingerelian (morre correct form is Megrelian ) ” comes from soviet union and they were trying to create some national separation within Georgian nation. Laz , Svan and Megrelian are only dialects. Saying that Megrelian, Laz and Svan are languages looks like to say that high German and low german are different languages or the Arabic people speak in Cairo is not arabic. Georgian language is the only language in its family. That’s why I don’t think that it is relevant to say Kartvelian language family. Nowadays we have modern theory that Georgian and Basque are part of Iafet-Iberian lingua- cultural family.

          • Indeed, linguists consider High German and Low German to be distinct languages (even distinct language groupings), and same for Egyptian Arabic vs. Modern Standard Arabic:

            http://www.ethnologue.com/subgroups/west-18
            http://www.ethnologue.com/language/arz

            That’s based on linguistic criteria (e.g. divergence of vocabulary and grammar), not geopolitical factors. The opposite claims are typically based on geopolitical and ideological issues and nothing else. Ditto for Georgian vs. Laz etc.

            As for the “theory” that Georgian and Basque are related, see the post itself. It’s not supported by factual evidence and therefore not a scientific theory — but just an idea that some people are pushing because of their political, cultural or ideological agendas.

          • Maciej Kulczycki

            You, Georgians very often confuse nation with language – mostly due to historical reasons, I hope. Svans, Mingrelians belong to Georgian culture, nation but they have separate languages absolutely. Why? Because Georgians to whom mother language is just Georgian, don’t understand them – especially Svans. The difference between Svan and Georgian is bigger than between Polish and Slovak and it is ridiculous to claim that Svan is a dialect of Georgian. It is just according to the main and logical linguistic criterion: if you don’t understand each other, you speak different languages!

          • shota tsikhiseli

            Because of geographical factor Megrelian and Svan dialects were developed different from Georgian ( I mean literary language), that’s why today it is hard to understand them ( But a person who knows only literary Georgian can understand content of speaking) . This is Russian propaganda to define Megrelians and Svanians non Georgian people. ”if you don’t understand each other, you speak different languages!” _ I can tell you one example, this was my individual experience few years ago (actually I’m biochemist, but l always were interested in linguistics) In Georgian south region Tsalka (წალკა) (village Gumbati) lived Greeks (nowadays most of them don’t live there, they are returned to their homeland Greece) these Greeks were Greeks who had been living in Turkey over the centuries but in 1832 they were populated in Georgia by Russian empire. And they had been lived in Georgia from that time. Few years ago Greek bishop (from Athens) visited this region of Georgia, He and this people could not understand each other They seemed to be speak other languages ( but both were Greek) and they could speak only via interpreter. After years when these greeks returned to their homeland they ”started” to learn literary Greek. Because their Greek was not proper (and was absolutely impossible to understand). Svan and megrelian dialects developed the same way , because of Geographical and historical factors these dialects are more or less far from literary Georgian language but they are just dialects.

          • So what is your definition of a dialect as opposed to a language?

          • shota tsikhiseli

            I think you exactly know what a dialect is : A form of the language that is spoken in a particular part of the country or by a particular group of people. Dialect contains some vocabulary and grammar that are different from mother tongue.

          • I do know what a dialect is, but as any other linguist you’d ask, I think the difference between dialects and languages is in the mutual comprehension (yes for dialects, no for languages). You reject that definition, clearly, as you claim that Svan and Mingrelian are dialects of Georgian yet they are not mutually comprehensible, which is why I asked what YOUR definition is. So for you, is Ukrainian, for instance, a dialect of Russian? There are 1.8 million speakers of Ukrainian living in Russian Federation proper (plus more if Russia claims parts of Ukraine), virtually everybody speaking Ukrainian are members of a particular group of people (ethnic Ukrainians), and it “contains some vocabulary and grammar that are different from” Russian — and there surely are Russians who claim that Ukrainian is just a (corrupted) form of Russian! Would you agree with them? It seems that your definition would force you to agree. What about Tatar? Over 5 million people (overwhelmingly members of an ethnic group) speak it within Russia and it contains some vocabulary and grammar that’s different from Russian (and also a lot of vocabulary that’s similar). I am purposefully asking you about examples that are relatively “close to home”, but I could ask you the same sorts of questions about, for example, Swiss and Austrian German — are they different languages from High German because they are spoken in a different country? What about Low German?

            Anyway, my point is that you need a sensible definition that is now clouded by ideological views of a particular situation, which seems to be the case with your comment above.

          • Marko

            The linguist Max Weinreich said: “A language is a dialect with an army and a navy.”

          • That was a joke on how laymen perceive this distinction, not a scholarly definition.

          • Exactly!

          • nadyia

            Shota’s definition of dialect is bizarre. by that definition itself, someone can claim that Georgian is a dialect of Arabic, for example the word “surati” in Georgian and Arabic means one things. in addition, Arabic language produce some of the harshest sounds, let along sounds produced by Georgian language. does that mean they are related? hardly! Georgians have the tendency to claim uniqueness in many things, much like Armenians who likes to claim “someone” is one of them such as “Nefertiti” without any proof. regardless, Asyan, an amazing piece of thoughts – articulate and educational.

          • Good points, thank you, Nadyia!

          • shota tsikhiseli

            I think you did not understand the concept of my comments. I wonder were did you see that kind of concept to conclude this kind of speculation about Arabic and Georgian. As far as Armenians not only Nefertiti but also Shota Rustaveli (I think you know who he is ) was Armenian. Also they say that Georgian Alphabet was written by them…… (this is funny), Saying that we have the same kind of ” tendencies ” is pretty funny.

          • nadyia

            I am only stating an example based on your definition about dialects, by bringing the comparison of Arabic and Georgian to show how bizarre it was. in addition, the “tendency” remark is based on observation when I was in Tbilisi and New York (Georgian community), does that mean every Georgian or Armenian? of course not. but part of our human social cognition, we observe and tend to make a general remark in regard to what we perceive the most. hence it is never a fact, but rather an opinion on perception, realized on observation within the internet forums and my interaction with Georgians and Armenians. in one scenario, while in Tbilisi, a group of Georgian where discussing how Georgian alphabet is the oldest written system. unfortunately, I was the only one who disagreed and was met with hostility. but that is off topic… Georgian do belongs to kartvelian language family, together with laz, Svan , and Mingerelian. linguistics scholars unanimously agreed on that. However, It is Unique that they belong to a family that is not shared by any other language. Into-European or Afro-Asia families are huge, while kartvelian is small with only four languages. hence the uniqueness. Low and High German are indeed different language with different writing system such as Grammar etc, while Arabic in Cairo is only a dialect and slangs, but the writing system is forma Arabic. Low and high German, is like Afrikaan and Dutch, two different languages despite the fact that Afrikaan is considered a daughter of Dutch.

          • shota tsikhiseli

            Very good examples! But beyond linguistic approaches there sometimes political interests. Our ”lovely” North neighbour always tried to show that Georgian nation is just collection of different nations with different cultures and languages. So they gave ”Megrelian language” an alphabet ( that was based on kirilica) and started separation of Georgian nation. In official documents from 19th century (Georgia was occupied by Russian empire) the nation of a person who was from samegrelo(region) was written as Megrelian, someone who was from svaneti (region) was written as Svan etc. Russia started russification process of Georgian nation and prohibited Georgian language at school, churches and official structures. But Georgian Nation maintained it’s identity. Nowadays Russian ”Soft Power” tries to show the world that Georgia has not it’s own culture, language and identity and this ”nation” is just mix of different people. And you linguists may even don’t know that you are part of this imperialistic machine! yes we have unique culture, yes we have unique language (that belongs Iberian caucasian language family, with basque language ). We are small nation with past and future! And our desire to protect our identity is above all the linguistic speculations!

          • Indeed there are political interests, but that is not what this site is about or for. We are interested here only in linguistic (i.e. scientific), not ideological arguments. Linguists are NOT a “part of … imperialistic machine”, and if others are trying to use linguistic facts for this or that ideological point, that’s their problem, not ours. We do not deny anyone’s identity or political aspirations, but this is also not the right platform to air them. Please remain within the scope of this site or you’ll be blocked from commenting further.

          • Phearran

            I say Georgia does contain different languages but this is not Russian propaganda as I say this is even more the case for Russia itself.

  • If Proto-Kartvelian was spoken in the second millennium BC, it can’t have interacted closely with Proto-Indo-European. Even though they are only relative chronologies, they don’t fit properly. The heard-etymon can be loaned anytime later as well, if it is not co-incidence.

    English sing-sang-sung is not an example for PIE ablaut. PIE ablaut is non-grammatical, ablauting verbs are a completely new idea in Proto-Germanic.

    As for the rest, PIE linguistics base on sound equations. They require a convincing set of of examples, not picked similarities. The co-incidences between Georgian and Basque do not convince me. I have seen much stronger evidence between Semitic and Ancient Egyptian and they have turned out to be ficticious.

    Features like ergativity can’t be used as evidence for obvious reasons: It comes and goes, as Djirbal in Australia and Hittite show.

    • Thank you for this comment and the corrections. I am sorry if it came across as if I think the similarities indeed amount to evidence for the relationship — my point was exactly the opposite.

  • Amiko

    I’m Georgian. I can freely say that our language is not even close to BASQUE. I can’t understand a thing.

    • Sergo Cusiani
      • Ioane

        I’m Georgian too but I can’t understand a thing in in Svanuri or Megruli. Should I make conclusion that they are not Georgian languages? I am 100 % sure that Svanuri and Megruli is as much Georgian as Qartuli.

        • Sergo Cusiani

          This is because some “Georgians” like Amiko did not even know that there are the Megrelian and the the Svan languages as dialects of the Kartvelian.

  • Enneko

    Hi Asya!. I´m basque. I dont believe about any relationship between basque and georgian or other caucasian lenguaje. Luis (Koldo) Mitxelena did write about this and is very clear. But there is a very ineresting theory about the origin of bask population and culture: When ices was over most Europe, in the last glatiation of Würm, there was a part of the coast of France and north of Iberia who had the sea very close and there can develope an ancinent cro-magnon and neanderthal culture. The bask lenguaje (euskera) or “eusk” (euskaria), “wask” (waskonia) “usk” eúskalherria, depends the part of the territory where you begind, is a very simple way of comunication: exaples: ar = Stone, ur = wáter, e-lur = snow (before the ground), lur = ground, aitz =(cut-stone), aiztkora (actually, axe), etc; simply sounds from nature used by the first men and women.
    In U.K. were many cultural/archeological substrate (In Cornwall, Wales, west of Scotland..) that remains the ancinent basque culture and some studies about RH and ADN filled the bask and ancinent britons (not gaelic, before them) like a similar origin people.
    Sorry about my english (or engelsk) and thank tou for your time. Laister arte!

    • Sergo Cusiani

      Can Enneko say the meaning of Archanda (or Artxanda in Basque transcription) in Basque language? In Georgian it is “could not be viewed”.

      http://www.alamy.com/stock-photos/BA47E8/Apples-for-sale-Bokeria-market-Barcelona-Spain.html

      It seems the market was named after the man with Georgian family name Bokeria.

      Another Georgian familty name, common to Basques – Telia.

      Bortu – hill in Basque;
      Bortsvi (Bortsu) – hill in Georgian.

      Buru – head in Basque;
      Bur – the root of Georgian words, such as:
      Burva – cover the head;
      Saburavi – cover, roof;
      Buruli – roof;
      Tzaburva – tribute (money) at the funeral, literally means “to place tribute on the head of the deceased;

      • A similarity between some words of two languages is not considered evidence of common descent, especially if standards of sameness in both pronunciation and meaning are significantly reduced. What one has to show is regular sound correspondences that apply across the entire languages. Otherwise, words may look alike because of borrowing or simply by accident. There is plenty of examples of both.

        • Sergo Cusiani

          Borrowing something from people at 2000 miles distance — logic built on enthusiasm out of reinforced concrete!
          Reaching an intended target at 2000 mile distance by accident — this was a prerogative of Intercontinental Ballistic Misciles of Strategic Destination SS20!

          • Borrowing across huge distances: “sputnik”, “perestroika” from Russian to English, and “girla”, “shuzy” (shoes) from English to Russian — way greater distance!

            Accidental similarities across large distances: German “nass”, Zuni “nas” both meaning ‘wet’. Also a greater distance than between Georgia and Basque country.

          • Sergo Cusiani

            Bad Examples! Very bad examples! Terrible examples! Sputnik and perestojka travelled all over the world with radio and TV.

            How could Archanda travel from Georgia to Bilbao? I see, Georgians used teleportation! Certainly not SS20!

            Everyone knows vikings were in America 500 yearlier, in 10th century. They could put their shares in the local languages. Moreover, needles made out of fishbone found in France and the ones in South America are made at the same time 20,000 years ago. It is proved, anscient people could travel from the North of Europe to North America on the boats stitched with anymal skin using the very needles. Many researchers keep to the idea that America was first colonized from Europe, not Siberia. I wonder, after all, why there is only one similarity with German nass an Zuni nas. Must had been much more.

          • Check the words for ‘onion’ in Basque and Ukrainian: http://languagesoftheworld.info/etymology/geography-onion-vocabulary.html

            Both much older than radio etc. — does it prove that Basque and Ukrainian are from the same language family? And consequently, that Georgian and Ukrainian are?

            Ditto with words for ‘book’: http://languagesoftheworld.info/etymology/geography-book.html

            Are Irish and Tagalog related? Or Tatar and Swahili?

            You are missing the main point — similarities between individual words across languages prove nothing. It’s the main mistake amateurs make the world over. My hope is that you learn from the mistakes OTHERS make and don’t make it yourself. That’s what the blog is for. If you want to keep believing that the world is flat and ignore hundreds of years of scholarship, that’s up to you, but don’t waste my precious time.

          • Sergo Cusiani

            Interesting links! Though I do not see the point you mentiond them in the subject!

            ///Basque—also a non-Indo-European language— borrowed its ‘onion’ word tipula from Spanish./// — this is the only info on the page you specified as link to Ukrainian and Basque similarity. Did you read the article? I am afraid, No!

            The article mentions NOTHING about Basque&Ukrainian similarity! AT ALL!!!

            The above mentioned link about Irish vs. Tagalog does not say anything about similarity, too.

            I am sorry, your judgement is irrational! “Does not get through any gateway”.

            http://i.imgur.com/i2EgW.jpg

          • Please pay attention before you respond, or you look an idiot! Did I read the article to which I linked? I WROTE it!!!

            My point, which you didn’t seem to get at all, is that one can find similarities between individual, random words (like ‘onion’ or ‘book’) across languages that are far away and not at all related. Therefore, the similarities between random individual words from Basque and Georgian prove nothing.

          • Sergo Cusiani

            Yes, you did not read the artices you write. And if you did read, this does not mean you discources truth just because you read your own articles, especialy on a different logics.

            So, read you article before making it as a reference to back up your ideas, especially when the articles have nothing in common but their author.

            In other words, when you refer to your own article, this does not necessariy mean, that your argument is right because it is your own. Like in a Russia saying: “The fox called her own tail to wittness her (foxes’) innocence”.

            I address these words to adequate readers (and commenters). There is nothing about similarities in Basque-Ukrainian or Irish – Tumbayumba languages highlighted in the articles this lady mentions. This lady believes she belongs to a hundred years shcholarship, but did not even read a book. ANY BOOK! Just articles written by so stupid scholars, that gradually she became even worse than them.

  • Sergo Cusiani

    I had already made some comments on this article at other website.
    Nevertheless, the points did not change.
    1. Mount Archanda (Artxanda) near Bilbao. In Georgian it means “could not be viewed”. The mount often is hidden behind the dense fog. The name speaks for itself. The Georgian name.
    2. About 200 similar words exclusively in both languages. Words are not migratory birds, they do not pass from people to people without contacts. You can google these words.
    3. Have a look at the rural culture in Basque country, and in Georgian provinces of Kakheti, Guria, Megrelia: cult of bull, polyphonic songs, pottery, woodcarving, etc
    4. Counting system. Both peple count by 20, that is 40 is two twenties; 30 is twentyten, 31 is twentyelleven and so on. The French also use this system,though they aqcuired it from Basques.

    • Re: similar words, see my response above. Re: the vigesimal (base-20) counting system, many languages have it (http://wals.info/feature/131A), it doesn’t mean they are all related. Re: the polyphonic singing, I’ve recently read about it: apparently, it was characteristic on pre-Indo-European peoples in Europe and Asia, and Indo-Europeans brought their own musical style. I don’t have that reference handy at the moment. But similarities of culture have little relevance to relatedness of language. Consider the Adyghe-Abkhaz, Chechen and Kartvelian cultures and you’ll find numerous similarities in material and non-material cultures, but little similarities of language that would prove anything but the most distant relatedness…

      • Sergo Cusiani

        “Consider the Adyghe-Abkhaz, Chechen and Kartvelian cultures” — they are descendants of Iberian culture. To be exact, the rest of the people of Caucasus were influenced by the Iberian (Georgian) advanced culture. That is why there are so much similarities despite the fact that the languages are not relating.

        You should take into account that before Turkish invasion majority of nations a Caucasus used Georgian alphabet: you can still find lots of gravestones with Chechenian names and epitaph cut in Georgian alphabet. Moreover, there were Christian churches all over the Caucasus with the church services in Georgian only. Those relation stopped 300-400 years back only. So that they are not distant and can easily be traces.

        As for possible relations with Basques, the history says nothing about any relation between the Basques and the Georgians. So that words, songs, material- and non-material culture could not travel 2000 miles to and fro, like migrating birds. This can have only one explaination: once integral prehistoric Iberian culture was fragmented to almost disappear in time, leaving islands — Western Iberia in Europe, and Eastern Iberia in Caucasus.

        • Precisely: culture and language are not related. Therefore, all the arguments you’ve put forward to relate Georgian and Basque culture are besides the point when it comes to the question asked in the title of the post. Incidentally, stop and think about why you call it “Iberian culture” not “Basque culture” — it’s more about your prejudices and biases than about facts.

          • Sergo Cusiani

            Never mind calling it Basque culture! At some point if the researchers prove the origin of Georgian culture as an offspring of the Basque, I’ll be the first to vote for changing “Georgia” to “Euskara”.

            But! At this moment many famous researchers, including one in the UK, consider Basque language as the fifth Kartvelian (Georgian) dialect. I can neither prove or reject this theory.

          • Right. So the DEFAULT is that Basque sprang from Georgian? Because Georgia is “the navel of the universe” (as we say in Russian)? Your biases stick out like a sore thumb. I am sorry you fail to see them.

            The idea of science is to (discover and) follow the facts, not what someone calling himself “famous researcher” says. That was known as RELIGION.

          • Sergo Cusiani

            The default is all the people originate from Caucasus, all kind of peope, no matter the race. This is also an oppinion of researchers :

            http://msk.kp.ru/daily/25730/2720464/

            Probably, this is why “Caucasian” in mentioned in personal questionnaire instead of “white”.

            At least I am out of the RELIGION with the centre as a devil’s black stone in the Mausoleum on the Red Square.

          • I am not sure what the relevance of your last comment is.

            Re: the term “Caucasian” meaning ‘white’, see this: http://languagesoftheworld.info/russia-ukraine-and-the-caucasus/are-caucasians-from-the-caucasus.html

            As for the idea that all people came out of the Caucasus, it doesn’t hold water. Evidence from genetics, anthropology, linguistics all indicates African origin.

          • სისაური

            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
            Read this info. It will kick out the “Philosophy” you try to improve here. Never ask me how this info relates to your topic you try to improve. You need to understand that Georgians are one of the oldest nation in the earth, let say the first oldest nation in the earth, and we will improve that. The reason why we have this difficulties to improve our identity, is that Soviet Union destroyed 2000 year history of Georgian nation. Also, why do you (not personally you Asia) scientists blind yourself, just remind that we, Georgians have our unique alphabet, which has been changed two times since its creation. So we have three different alphabet in total. Asya, I don’t want to have some personal disappointments on you. The God help you to find the truth.

          • The Guardian article to which you link is a rather sensationalized discussion of this article:
            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326.abstract

            What the discovery of the skulls in Dmanisi, as remarkable in their preservation as they are, suggests is that the “species” (really, names for different fossils) found to date in Africa might need to be unified as one species, with variants that have previously been thought to be distinct species of early Homo.

            As the skull (and the entire issue) concerns species different from Homo sapiens, that is us modern humans, it hardly has any relevance to Georgians or any other group within modern humans. It is the same as finding a new kind of a dinosaur fossil, which would have no relevance to the national history of the Georgians or the Chinese or the Mohawk or anyone else. There is no suggestion whatsoever that modern humans (and among them Georgians) have evolved from these fossilized species in Dmanisi.

            A discussion of “oldest nation on earth” is meaningless unless you define clearly what you mean by that (and more generally by “nation”). Are the Georgians direct descendants (both genetically and culturally) of the first group to split off the Homo Sapiens tree? It is possible but not very likely, and the find reported on in the Guardian article doesn’t bear on the issue.

            As for the alphabet, the oldest extant inscriptions in Asomtavruli date from the 5th century *CE*, so there is no evidence that it is the oldest form of writing. Not that it is directly relevant to being “the oldest nation on earth”, as far as I can see.

  • Jan

    My previous comment was probably lost due to some error- anyhow- I doubt if any linguist in the world keeps up with development within population genetics- namely- there is at least 5 years various studies published online about north caucasian origin of R1B paternal lineage- most prevalent in the west (!!!!) and specifically at Basques (90%+ of all males) and in seems like late neolithic/bronze age intrusion en masse by various streams of shephers/warriors/bronze traders (circumtravelling Mediteriean from their homeland around Caucasus as suggested by Grover Kranz, other data indicate route via Anatolia and Danube basin), anyway- these were Protobasques of Caucasus /perhaps Yamna culture/ who brought to the west metalurgy of bronze, ginger hair, and words such as “er” (man, mister, commonly found in occupation names such as baker), and many were apparently trying to speak the language of local Europeans- and due to their inability to pronounce “p” and “b” they used “f” instead (John T. Koch of University of Wales). Using catastrophic drought in 2200b.c. and subsequent collapse of neolithic settlements, they dominated the west. Most likely killed off most of male population. Their descendants- 3 thousand years later- have not lost their lust for domination at all- they were called Conquistadores this time and spoke spanish..

    • Jan

      some examples how Protobasques changed european words- porest (porast in slovak) became forest, plamen became flame, poľov(ať)- to hunt in slovak became follow and so on.

  • Observer

    I found the article fascinating. I wonder if the author looked at singing and songs as well. I just discovered today on the internet that Basques have a song, the first verse of which goes “Errioxak Baigorriko.” I have NO idea what this means! But it is EXACTLy the same melody (the chorus at least) as the widely-known Georgian song, “Suliko.”

    Can someone offer an explanation to a non-expert?

    • There is some work on the commonality of pre-IE music in Europe, but alas I don’t have a reference handy. In this case, it may be a case of “accidental look alikes” though as there are often similar melodies in folk music around the world. It’s not something I can talk about though as music is not really my speciality. Maybe some other readers know more than I do?

  • John D. Bengtson

    As Asya Pereltsvaig correctly points out, there is a lot of confusion here. The resemblance of the names Iberia (ancient kingdom in the Caucasus) and Iberia (in western Europe) is simply a chance resemblance, and nothing can be based on it. This confusion was compounded by confusion about the precise nature of a “Caucasian” language family, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but this has gradually become clearer. Especially since the 1980s there has been a growing consensus that there are two major families of native languages of the Caucasus: Kartvelian (a.k.a. “South
    Caucasian”) and North Caucasian. The two families are genetically distinct, but have influenced each other over many centuries. Some linguists are still not convinced of the North Caucasian family, and continue to separate Northwest (or West) Caucasian from Northeast (East) Caucasian, but, as V.A. Chirikba has stated,

    “The notion of genetic relationship between [West Caucasian] and [East Caucasian] is supported by quite a number of prominent Caucasian scholars, such as G. Dumézil, G. Charachidzé, M. Khumakov, A. Shagirov, S. Kodzasov, M. Alekseev, Y. Testelets, etc. The critics of this theory so far have failed to produce any compelling argumentation, which would explain numerous lexical correspondences in basic vocabulary as observed between WC and EC families by anything other than genetic inheritance.”

    On the other hand, resemblances between Kartvelian and North Caucasian can almost always be explained as loanwords and areal
    typological features (such as glottalized consonants and ergativity).

    Along with better definition of Caucasian language families has come a clearer picture of the relationships between them and the Basque language, namely that Basque is related to North Caucasian, not
    Kartvelian. In this regard it is interesting that as early as Uhlenbeck’s (1924) catalog of 65 Basque-Caucasian lexical comparisons only four of them involved Basque + Kartvelian exclusively, nineteen involved Basque + Kartvelian + (West and/or East) Caucasian, while the majority (42) compared Basque words exclusively with (West or East) Caucasian words. Dumézil, as well, in his comparison of Basque and North Caucasian morphology (1933), remarked that South Caucasian (Kartvelian) hardly figured in the chapter, and hinted that Basque
    and North Caucasian might have a closer relationship than either does with Kartvelian: “Having, like many others, tried to clarify the structure of Basque by South Caucasian, I had given up: grammatical relationships were too fragmentary. But with North Caucasian the coincidence [with Basque], on all the important points, is almost complete.” Thus, already by the 1920s and 1930s there was a growing, but still dim, awareness that North Caucasian, rather than Kartvelian, was the closest relative of Basque in the Caucasus region, but this
    insight was not made explicit until some decades later in a brief article by Chirikba (1985), in which Basque was compared exclusively with North Caucasian, and in which, for the first time, Proto-North Caucasian forms, recently proposed by Sergei Nikolayev and Sergei Starostin, were cited. This has also been my approach, since the late 1980s: comparing Basque exclusively with North Caucasian. My forthcoming book presents the evidence, lexical, morphological, and phonological, in detail.

    But for the pioneers like Trombetti, Bouda, and Lafon, who labored in the early and mid-twentieth century, the clear definitions of Caucasian language families, as well as reconstructions of Proto-Kartvelian and
    Proto-North Caucasian, did not yet exist. As explained in detail in my book, I had to sift and analyze all their lexical and grammatical comparisons, and in regard to lexical comparisons in particular, as many as 80% of them have to be rejected for various reasons. Nevertheless, there remains a core of lexical and grammatical etymologies that have withstood the testing.

    It seems to be assumed that Luis Michelena, the greatest authority on Basque linguistics, categorically rejected any relationship
    between Basque and Caucasian languages. But when I examined Michelena’s actual discussion of this topic, I found that his opinion was more nuanced. He was keenly interested in the possibility of external relations of his native language, and several of his writings addressed these issues. The last of these, as far as I know, was his Sobre
    historia de la lengua vasca, published in 1988, soon after his death. We
    may regard this book as his last word on the question of external relations of Basque. In the chapter “Relaciones de parentesco de la lengua vasca” Michelena only briefly summarizes various theories, singling out two major hypotheses as those taken seriously by “linguists of great authority”: Basque + Afroasiatic (Hamito-Semitic), and Basque + Caucasian languages. Of these two Michelena described the
    Basque-Caucasian proposal as “the only hypothesis that has been the object of serious and laborious testing … The suspicion that the two small conservative islands situated at both extremes of the Mediterranean were the only evidence that has come down to us from a formerly very extensive linguistic family was a perfectly natural one …” But, in spite of some lexical comparisons he found “extremely tempting,” and some grammatical parallels that are “impressive,” he concluded that the theory of “Basque-Caucasian linguistic kinship has been shown to be, up to now, singularly unfruitful.” Nevertheless, he was careful not to rule out the possibility of a fuller demonstration and held out some hope — however dim — for future progress:

    “It is possible that we will always lack certain lost links that would be indispensable in order to reveal the mystery [of genetic affiliation of Basque]. It is also possible, but not very probable, that such links exist although we have not been able to recognize them … Also it is
    possible that an improvement in current methods or the discovery of new techniques might put more powerful instruments in our hands. … We hope that Fortune, always the friend of the bold and persevering, will see fit to smile upon us.”

    One can only agree with the Master’s pessimistic opinion, given the state of the Basque-Caucasian hypothesis in the early 1980s. In spite
    of some valiant efforts by Bouda and Lafon, et al., the definition of terms of the comparison (North Caucasian as well as Kartvelian, or not?), and the comparative material available at the time (no deep reconstructions of the Caucasian families) could only lead to results that are inconclusive for most historical linguists. These are the defects that I intend to eliminate in my current work.

    It is not possible in this venue to address all, or even a few, of the issues involved in this. But, for example, the old comparison of
    Basque ahari ‘ram’ with Nakh words for ‘small lamb’ (Chechen ʕāXar,
    etc.) turns out to be phonologically unlikely, in spite of the surface resemblance, and there is a better NC cognate that is proposed in my model. Neither does Basque haragi ‘meat’ fit with “Circassian l« ‘meat’,”
    and again there is a different cognate in my model. On the other hand, Bouda’s comparison of Basque larri ‘anxious’ with Avar erize ‘be
    afraid’ (actually tl’:eri-ze, with initial tense glottalized lateral affricate) is retained in my model, since there is a regular correspondence between Basque initial l- and PNC lateral affricates, and Basque trilled -rr- with PNC *r, which have been verified by a significant number of etymologies.

    So, in brief, the Euskaro-Caucasian hypothesis is not at all dead, but it has been considerably redefined. The fact that there is little (bio-)genetic support for it is not surprising, since we know, for example,
    that Hungarians are genetically more similar to their Slavic and Romanian neighbors than to the Finns, and in no way does this negate the validity of the Finno-Ugric linguistic family. The putative Basque-North Caucasian linquistic relationship is probably much older than Finno-Ugric.

    • Thank you for your detailed comments, John!

      Very odd quote from Chirikba: the burden is not on the opponents of the unified North Caucasian language family (or any other language family for that matter) but on its advocates. I am not the world’s greatest expert in the languages of the Caucasus (and so I am eagerly awaiting the guest lecture by Johanna Nichols in my course later this term), but from what I understand, the evidence IN FAVOR of the one North Caucasian language family, or in favor of a link between Basque and that one North Caucasian family, is not seen as satisfactory by such experts. I’ll keep you posted if I hear otherwise from J.N.

      • John D. Bengtson

        If the argument against Euskaro-(North) Caucasian is based on Michelena (d. 1988) or Trask (d. 2004) it would have to be regarded as out of date. Neither of them saw the evidence put forth in the past decade. Therefore I find it urgent to get my new book (ca. 400 pages) out there as soon as possible.

        • Again, it’s not the argument “against”, it’s about the strength of arguments “for”. Good luck with your book.

          • John D. Bengtson

            Thank you! We’ll see …

        • Octavià Alexandre

          I’m afraid it will be already out of date before it goes to the press. Most of your Basque-PNC comparisons are flawed and the few they aren’t actually correspond to IE loanwords. For example, Basque hartz ‘bear’ is indeed cognate to PNC *χHVr[tɕˀ]V ‘marten; otter’, but the former is nothing more and less than a loanword from Celtic *arto-.

          • John D. Bengtson

            So you have studied all 600+ of my proposed etymologies? Regarding Basque hartz, how can it be both cognate with PEC *χHVr[tɕˀ]V ‘marten; otter’ and a loanword from Celtic? As to the latter theory, Trask’s opinion was: “Scholars from Schuchardt onward have tried to see this [hartz] as a loan from Celtic, but the probable Celtic nom. *artos should have yielded *(h)artotz, not the observed form.” I did not agree with Trask about much, but I think he was right here. But this word is a poor example to argue from. How about some words that belong to the most stable basic lexicon, like Basque su ‘fire’? In my model Basque su (*śu) is cognate with Proto-North Caucasian *c̣ăyɨ̆ / *c̣ŭy- ‘fire’ (*c̣ŭy- is the oblique stem, reflected in words such as Lak цӀу /ts̉u/ ‘fire’). A close phonetic and exact semantic match. Furthermore, dialectal Basque froms such as surtan, surten ‘in the fire’ [locative] and surtara ‘to the fire’ [allative] bear witness to an archaic oblique stem *śu-r-, with an oblique stem marker *-r- found also in North Caucasian forms like Proto-Nakh *c̣a-ri-, Proto-Andian *c̣a-ri- (reflected in Akhwakh č̣ari ‘fire’), Lak *c̣a-ra-, and Proto-Lezgian *c̣a(y)-rV-. This stem *śu-r- also appears in some archaic compound words, such as Bizkaian surtopil ‘bread baked in embers’, analyzed in my model as *śu-r-t-ogi-t-bil, with *śu ‘fire’ + *ogi ‘bread’ + *bil ‘round (thing)’; *-r- and *-t- are fossilized oblique stem markers, with North Caucasian cognates. All this, and more, is spelled out in detail in my model of Euskaro-Caucasian phonology and morphology. In order to refute a hypothesis it is not enough to criticize one tiny part: you must also come up with a comprehensive critique of the entire hypothesis, including its etymologies, supporting phonological system, and morphology. Then you must come up with a superior hypothesis, that explains the facts better than this one. Obviously you cannot do this since the phonology and morphology are not available to the public yet. To say “Most of your Basque-PNC comparisons are flawed and the few they aren’t actually correspond to IE loanwords” is simply an unsupported assertion, not a fact.

          • Octavià Alexandre

            As regarding hartz, I refer you to Matasović’s Proto-Celtic dictionary: “Basque hartz ‘bear’ is presumably a Celtic loanword.” Of course it’s the IE word which is actually cognate to the Caucasian one. For that matter, Basque has a lot of IE loanwords, both Celtic and non-Celtic.

            And since you quoted Trask, he also said you were cheating with Basque-EC comparisons, shifting between PEC and individual branches, but never mind. In fact, he thoroughly discredited your theory 20 years ago. Also to refute anyone’s theory one doesn’t need to come out with a better one but rather to falsify its parts.

            For example, your segmentation of opil as **ogi-t-bil is incorrect, because we’ve got here the combinatory form ot- of ‘bread’, resulting from palatalization of the velar stop. We can’t simply compare modern Basque with other languages without taking into account the phonological changes the language underwent in early stages, especially (but not exclusively) at word-initial.

            Besides, in long-range comparisons (whose time depths are in the range of several or many millenia) we must take into accoutn semantic drifts. This is why the Caucasian cognates of e.g. Basque etxe ‘house’ or begi ‘eye’ have different meanings (although in the latter case we’ve got Sino-Tibetan ‘eye’).

  • Makhach

    I read this article with great pleasure i am ethnic avar from north caucasus

  • Makhach

    And i am pretty sure that caucasians have no ties with basques we are descendants of ancient middle eastern civilizations like shumers, hattis, hurrits

  • manfariell

    There is not a “Latin cardio”; it is a Greek root (kardio-), from “kardía”. In Latin is “cor”, from root “cord-“.

  • Makhach Omarov

    By the way in avar heart is “rak”

  • Rogério Maciel

    Hi , i am from Lusitânia/Portugal .
    And yes they are. Lusitanian (Portuguese Ancestors)were closelly related to the Vascos/Basks and the Language was identical .
    The only big difference , to me , is that all languages came from The Western Iberian Peninsula in a Proto-Indo-european Great Migration from Western Iberia to the North of Europe and East , to Mediterranian , and Far East . Eastern Iberia was/is closelly related with that and with Us .

  • khkj

    Hi! There might be probability of biased study researcg since the author is from Russia originally(Sant Petersburg)

    • My post (and a great deal of other research) is based on linguistic facts and scholarly arguments. Your claim, on the other hand, is based on purely ideologically-driven agenda. This sort of BS gets you banned from further commenting.

  • khkj

    May I ask you which language would you relate Georgian too? What is your hypothesis? How was the language developed?

    • The Georgian language is related to a number of other Kartvelian languages. Beyond that, there are some attempts to relate it to the languages of North Caucasus (either Adyghe-Abkhazian or Nakh-Dagestanian, or both), but those connections have not been proven conclusively.

  • gufuu

    Well now you have proved your prejudiced attitude towards the study. I’m well aware that the Abkhazian is not in any way related to Georgian This is completely nonsense. There is a high probability that this study is ordered and supported by Russian Politicians. Please make your study accurate and don’t just throw around suggestions/conclusion about scientifically not proved facts. :l I might be wrong certain assumptions, but trust me there cannot be any relation between Abkhazian and Georgian. This proves how loose the study is. Georgia may not be related to Basque which doesn’t matter really that much but there is high probability for bias in the study… This is my conclusion. This is nothing personal and there is no need to ban me! This study is published and is free for anyone to comment so that’s why I think that I shouldn’t be taken away the right to comment it. 
    Why did you choose to study similarities between these two languages? Is it because you from Russia? And you are familiar with the Caucasian languages? This is just a question so you don’t have understand it in any other way. Please, don’t ban me!! 

    Sorry for the language and grammar mistakes. I don’t have much time so I jsut wrote the text very quickly. I sent also this comment to a wrong study so I’m pasting it again here.

    • Apparently, you can’t read as well as being prejudiced. I said that Georgian has been proposed to be related to languages of the North Caucasus, but this connection has not been proven. Which part of this made you think I claim Georgian to be related to Abkhazian?!