A few quick points.
Firstly proto indo means it came from the east towards India way which also happens to pass the NME. You have not shown a source from a completely path.
It does not mean that at all (look up any introductory text). And the migration of Indo-Iranians was eastward to India.
The Europeans copied much from the NME, alphabets, gods and as you shown the entire language has sources from that way.
Has nothing at all to do with genetic relationships. Your premises are wrong.
Again you have only dug back to the Latins which are at the very least 1500 years after El of Canaan. You also mention Greek links. I cant help but see the pattern that your heading further and futher east and closer to the NME.
Your premises are wrong. Some knowledge of comparative linguistics would help here.
Perhaps continuing the search back from those two cultures will find more semetic sources.
There are none for the PIE root in question. And you would be looking for a word meaning "to grow, nourish". There is absolutely no reason to suspect any connection with a particular West Semitic deity (which incidentally dates to a time long after PIE).
Wow because Abraham starts with an "A" and Brahma does not that makes the match impossible, and yet your variations from Germanic and Irish roots which diverge significantly more are perfectly compatible.
There is a consonant there, not just an "a". There is no relationship established between the two different names, whereas there are between genetically related languages (like the Germanic languages). And here an education on comparative lingusitics and sound correspondences would help; the "divergences" are predictable and explicable. There is a ton of material on comparative Indo-European.
Abraham is a very normal West Semitic name. See Thomas L. Thompson, posted above. "Because of this typical character, and the fact that it is a specifically West Semitic form of the name, caution must be used in comparing it with names (even when the resemblence is striking) that are derived from other linguistic groups".
And as mentioned above, I am doubtful there was even a pairing of Brahma and Saraswati in India before the Pentateuchal sources were written (much less the tradents that preceded them).
Your introducing noise and avoiding proofs by continually bringing these labels up.
Trying to explain why your thinking is erroneous is not "introducing noise". So I see no reason to spend hours trying to do just that.
I dont think i need to show that Allah is a moon good. We can see in Arabic with the above example that they honour their God by using a contraction of his name as the definitive article.
More sound symbolism nonsense. This was already discussed a year ago. Here, I'll copy and post what I wrote then, "That is simply a phonological assimilation rule that by convention is named after two very common everyday words (that are related in concept). Its just a grammatical rule that has a memorable mnemonic; why must every reference to the 'sun' or 'moon' have some religious sun-worship meaning read into it?"
We can see this tradition extending to Spansih, French and other romantic languages, where "la" and "el" are also the definitive article. We can see "Ra" also honoured as the source of the word for king in Spansih, Fr and in other forms related to royalty in English, royal, reign, regal and so on.
Again, more sound symbolism.
Another cut 'n' paste from a year ago: "Of course its chance...you are finding meaning in lots of chance similarities. That's what I've been telling you. Etymology and historical roots of Indo-European words are VERY well understood after hundreds of years of study; this isn't a matter of guessing blindly at what might seem like amazing coincidences....it is a matter of linguistic evidence and proper methodology. You can take two random languages and compare them find all sorts of totally amazing coincidences (which of course, aren't that amazing) when you don't have any methodology of determining what is chance "similarity" and what is evidence of actual historical relationships". Also: "As for your premise, you think that there are sun and moon connotations all over the place in English and other languages because you are looking for them and are willing to find them almost anywhere. If one were looking for cat and dog references, one would be equally inclined to amazingly find references to cats and dogs all over the place in English. That doesn't mean they are really there; it means that those words have that kind of resonance with you. And that's the awesome thing about language, that it can carry lots of different meanings for people, but etymology is about word history and the facts show the kind of claims you've made don't correspond to the actual word origins."
Really, this is where an education in linguistics would help. Saussure and everything else.
We can see Japanese often have problems and use L for R because they are both formed in the mouth in a very similar way.
Some knowledge of phonology would help here. I have no idea why you mention shorthand.
Last but not least look up the LPA charts. Sorry the table comes out badly formatted here but the link above shows in clear detail that L and R are clearly grouped together. The chart also shows the consonant pairs that i was alluding too in my previous statement that certain transpositions occur like TD, PB, FV etc.
Those are general similarities in articulation. Those are generalities, I'm talking about specifics of the languages in question. Specifics in phonemic inventories, specifics on sound correspondences, specifics of sound mergers, etc. Whatever is going on in Japanese has little to do with specifics of Germanic, Greek, etc.
Here i am open, receptive asking for proofs and the best you can do is insult me with a lame personally targetted observation. Im happy to read anything, all that i ask is show me, instead of telling me what you want me to think. I never run away, but you have again shut up and gone home because you claim to base your assertions on facts but as soon as they are challenged you cant.
I don't think you realize what it would take to "prove" to you where your thinking is wrong. I don't have the interest and energy to write long essays on basics of linguistics; I would rather comment on things I find interesting. If you wish to learn more about the subject, there are some good books out there, or college courses on the subject.
I fail to see how stating the obvious somehow contributes to disproving my observation. Mohammad is nearly 2000 years after Abraham which is itselfstill after the Hindu traditions. Discussing Islam doesnt help add weight to your argument.
This has nothing to do with your observations, whatever they are. This is a response to PP. Mohammad has nothing to do with Abraham. I was giving an obvious example of how a sacred site can change its meaning or religious affiliation. There are scores of others; this is a more general anthropological phenomenon.
