Against Greek-Centric Abstractionism Generation, Quantity, and the Misordering of Semantic History Greek-centric historical linguistics has long suffered from a systematic inversion of semantic chronology. By privileging abstract lexical forms preserved in Classical Greek—particularly adjectives of quantity such as πολλά (“many”)—it mistakes philological visibility for semantic primacy. This error is not incidental; it is structural. At the core of this paradigm lies an unexamined assumption: that the earliest attestable abstractions in Greek texts reflect the earliest stages of linguistic meaning itself. This assumption collapses immediately when confronted with cognitive, typological, and anthropological evidence. 1. The Greek fallacy: abstraction as origin Greek-centric models routinely treat abstract categories—number, measure, plurality—as primary semantic units, simply because they are lexicalized early in written Greek. This is a methodological fallacy. Writing preserves late c...
The Emergence of an “Engineering Language” from the Symbolic Root di The so-called “technical” or “engineering” forms of Indo-European languages—Latin vidēre, Greek oida, Sanskrit véda, and so on—are not arbitrary lexical innovations. They are the fossilized remnants of a fully articulated symbolic system, still alive and transparent in Albanian. At its core lies the root di / dia, encoding sun, light, visibility, and knowing, combined with spatial or perceptual operators such as ve / vi (“place, position, orientation”) or sy (“eye”). The fundamental equation is simple, elegant, and mechanical: LIGHT → VISIBILITY → SEEING → KNOWING Albanian preserves this semantic machine in its living grammar, while other Indo-European languages have reduced it to fragments—isolated words, abstract roots, and fossilized forms. The “seeing–knowing” root in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Germanic languages is not a reflection of independent invention but a derivative, opaque shadow of what Albanian still a...