Follow by Email

Friday, December 30, 2011


N'eh-Ph'ih-L'ee-M / Nepheeleem
Zacharia Sitchin (July 11, 1920 – October 9, 2010)  wrote the "Nephilim" (נְפִילִים) is derived from “nafàl" and means “fall".

The term Nephilim occurs in Genesis 6:1-4, describing the point of time when three things began: men began to increase in number, came into existence the daughters of men , and the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.

Is the "nephillim" really only a Hebrew word? That question is very subtle, however I think it has been more a limit of thinking for linguists rather than a serious argument.

Let's begin first with the probable meaning the linguists think it is.

We know that the "fall" in every language means moving downward from a higher position involuntarily, usually by an accident, which maybe was the reason why Michael S. Heiser, PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies , University of Wisconsin-Madison wrote a letter to Mr. Sitchin, in which he asked the question: Can you explain how your interpretation of the word "nephilim" is at all viable in light of its morphological impossibility?
Michael Heiser argues that the "nephilim" is not derived from "nafàl" ‘fall’ because its vocalization differs from the usual derivations of these sorts of roots in Hebrew. He analyzed also the semantic aspects of two verbs. Between the "fall" and "come down" exists a huge semantic difference. To the “fall” can not be attributed the intentionality of action that the “come down” brings.
Ronald S. Hendel -University of Berkley – got involved saying the "Nephilim" represents the form "qatil" of the verb, and stating that it is a passive form of "ones who have fallen", the adjectival passives root of [nafàl], it is a sort of adjective conjugation.

Where is the truth? Is it in the  “nafàl" meaning?

Let's read also the Albanian bible. 
 1:1 Në fillim Perëndia krijoi qiejt dhe tokën.

Albanian Bible


  Translated:  Albanian Bible, Genesis:                                                
             1:1 In the beginning God created the 
        skies and the earth.                                                                                                                                                                             
Në fillim  are two Albanian words for "In the beginning"

Let's check the Latin dictionary as well:
Main Forms: Filius, Filii                                                                    
Gender: Masculine                                            


For the purpose of investigating word meanings we need to find out the meaning for which the essential of “nephillim” is true.

They are many aspects of the “ne fillim” meaning beyond the surface meaning given by Sitchin. Can we dissociate the Sitchin's meaning from others meanings, which probably may stay beyond as well?

What may be hidden in the "nephilim"?
The original text of the Bible was written with a continuous and uninterrupted succession of consonants. The work was to identify the individual words and to add the vowel sounds to give them a definite meaning.
Did Rabbies identify the individual word right?
A very difficult question. I think that they almost found the the word "nephilim", except the " ם " initial part, which is the preposition for "in":
The Hebrew word for the preposition "in"

It is not part of the word. The "n" is the preposition  and you can see the similarity with the intial part of the word  נְפִילִים 'nephilim'. It is the Hebrew preposition for "in", which regards to the "ne" of Albanian and to a cammon word-concept of ם, which corresponds to a "n" sound. The word is "philim".
The “ph” is the “f” sound. It is “ph” like Φ φ, phi, ph in the ancient Greek language (like 'ph' in 'Philip').On the other side, it is also known the phonetic transformation of [ph],[p],[b] into [f],[v], etc, and I think, it is a rule of vocal chords rather than a different phonetic transformation tendency for different languages. The Hebrew letter is the letter “p” but it’s not a “hard” p – it becomes “ph” like in English “phone”- Michael S. Heiser wrote. 

Is the Albanian word "fillim" 'beginning' related with "philim", or is the Latin word "filius" 'son'?

Has the meaning of “filius” been judged with respect to a concrete existence of a small human being by native Latin speakers in the beginning of their Latin language creation, or in it is the 'beginning'  meaning carried by the Albanian word , an older meaning, which was restricted to one son-child on later stages of language evolution.

Is the "filius" , the Latin word for son based on the Albanian word fillim , which means beginning?
Which one is related to the nephilim ?
Were they "Nephillim" because they existed  in the beginning, or because they were sons of the sons of God?
Albanian has another very, very interesting word. The Albanian word for seedling is "filiz" 'seedling", for 'a young plant that has grown from a seed; a new branch of e tree arisen from the trunk, or from the root of a plant'

 Is in the language something else we are not capable to catch?


I. Newmark, Leonard. 1998. Albanian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

II. Michael S. Heiser, An Open Letter to Zecharia Sitchin - Sitchin Is Wrong.

III.Michael S. Heiser "The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy".

IV.Introductory Ancient Greek Language.

V. Latin alphabet. ( )

V. Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi de Troyes), "Peshat".
NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Several Evolutionary Stages

The human language evolved from primitive communication to a language system. The evolution of language passed through several stages until it reached our modern expression of thought.

The relation between stages is due to the fact that language started as a codification, or a reflection of the world outside us (Linguistic Universality). The continuity stands to the outside objects codified. Our receptors  eyes, nose, ears, mouth, received the input signals from environment and brains cells converted them  into a language signal. They were receiving the input information; the brain was creating ways to pass to a final output destination, which after a long time of developing the communication stage was the oral-acoustic organ. If there was no environment, there was no language going to be developed. After a certain time it was memorized to DNA and genes, however it is an infinite process, which it gradually gets partly memorized to the DNA and genes, and the rest is always in evolution until to be memorized completely into DNA. We use language partly from its memorized part into DNA and dynamically by brain cells.The stages belong to a single evolutionary process: the codification of every thing outside us. On the outside stands the unity, what links all languages of the world.That’s why there are universal similarities between all languages, which Chomsky attributed to the innate language faculty. He is right about its existence, but it is a consequence, it is not a cause. The innate faculty is produced by the codification process of one unchangeable outside world. The genetically “universal grammar” of Chomsky, or the universal “word-order” of Greenberg, are due to an “unchangeable outside objects and their movements” the humans have codified. The language structure is shaped by the “the language raw material”, which also influenced on the development of brain language principles in a coo-process.

The differences between stages are only the differences between human’s brains and human needs (Linguistic Relativity). They started to codify, slowly and gradually, the world outside us in a certain way. They put, into the brain, all outside objects their temporary needs have forced to codify in a certain format. These are probably pictures when our eyes were ordered by the existential needs to see, and sounds, what our ears were ordered by the survival instincts to hear. The seeing and hearing were limited to our needs, risks, and feelings. What was being changed during the time was related with inside us because our needs, risks, feeling were, and are in a changeable process, so the languages were and are. In the beginning humans have had almost same physical world. Later some of them developed more specific thoughts due to their specific environment conditions, specific needs and different acceleration of the evolution process. Some of them did not have the same environmental signals. Some human beings started to make a new physical world, the world of product of human mind, building the first homes outside of forests and caves, developing of agriculture, temples building, roads building, etc. Their languages were continuously changing to whatever the new signals were coming into their environments because the new physical world interacted under the same mechanism of the evolution process. The new physical world constrained a new codification of thought. Some languages stopped in the certain stage because their societies had a low level of developing on their physical world; they could not make anymore new thoughts and they got frozen in a resting stage, although they are so complex as most advanced languages.

Those were the system and mechanisms: the outside habitat, our survival needs our sense organs, our brain, our hands-tools, and our output oral-acoustic organ. So, we have had and still have three linguistic worlds.

One is the world outside, the input that stands always unchangeable.

Lepenica cave, Albania
The second world is our inside, changeable, what we make new and improve, our brain; what is created and changed by us and also the processes change the brain reciprocally. The brain,DNA, and genes memorized from one stage to another the concepts, rather than the "words" unities, as it is often hypothesized, and it kept making new concepts mainly following the principles of concepts creation, which at the end of the respectively stages created new language sets. All newer and older words were together being processed in a infinite changing spiral process with cycles. We do not know how the amount of the time for a cycle is, but it is longer than our recorded history, which makes technically impossible an accurate linguistic evaluation.
The third world is our hands-tools‚ which are the major changeable factor of our language stages.If they were not, the process would stop.

That is in general the base evolutionary development of stages.

I am giving you an example of our changeable inside worlds, our inside evolution about the first train made and a modern train. It is what we make, change and after a certain time we forget the unnecessary thing, or in our modern times we are putting it in a museum. We no longer use the first train that was made, but most of its principles are embedded in the modern train. That was a vulgar example, but the same was taking place with the unchangeable-changeable worlds of language. We use our eventual level of knowledge to make something new for our new needs; our infinite creativity, we change it and make a newer better one, no longer using the oldest. This is our universal tendency, in which the stages have significant analogy. Different principles are not involved in the language evolution.

We do not think much about the mathematical properties of human languages, or geometrical proprieties, which are called pictograms, or sound symbolism. We can not define the language as an infinite set of similar objects such as numbers. An object of language has more proprieties that we know. We know and have discovered only its superficial part, the eventual meaning, because of the changeability of the inside process. The truth is we do not understand anything more deeply; how a word was created, how a simple "yes" was formed. But, I think that language also is changed intentionally many times by humans, not only arbitrarily-occasionally as no relationship between the words and the concepts that they represent, no relationship of the linguistic sign to that which it signifies. Also, our ancestor knew exactly how to make new words, which is all the evidence we have. It is not made in one day, or in seven days, and it is not made arbitrarily. The fact that modern humans do not know how to make new words indicates also that our thinking has been completely arbitrary about this argument. This is only an indicator of our limit of thinking about our language

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Medical terms

It is very interesting how Albanian is used for creating new words, for example, the terms of the Medicine. “Vestibular-cochlear ” is created from four roots of Albanian:

#1: *Vesh is the Albanian word for ear.

#2. *Bullar is the Albanian word for a snake. *Bullar is a snake that likes to live inside the houses. In Albanian folklore, bullar was a no-venomous house snake that people used to have at home for cleaning it from rats. It was treated friendly like we treat today dogs. *Bullar was used also as a home guarder. In the south is still in use the fraise: “He sees as a bullar”. Having a bullar in house was an auspicious sign as well.

While "i bullar" is the possessive form, or the genitive of the noun *bullar. The /i/ form is a grammatical category , when it is used before a noun, with the same function that /of/ has in English. In this case the /i/ is used for stating which something belongs to. In this case the *bullar" belongs to the ear.
Another possibility of the /i/. The /i/ is used as a definite article in Albanian. *vesh 'ear', *veshi 'the ear', which is also a very interesting part of Albanian. Just adding one simple "i" at the end of the indefinite ear-noun for referring to a particular ear. If we add *bular after the definite ear, the meaning is going to be *veshibullar 'the snake of the ear'.

#3. *Kok is the Albanian word for head.

#4. *Le is the Albanian verb for leave, which came also from the same strange root, sure it is not Indo-European one, but with the specific meaning in this case "put something somewhere".

The meaning of two words /Vestibular cochlear/ :

1. Vestibular: the part of the ear like a snake, like to say in English “ear’s snake”, or 'the snake of the ear'.
2. Cochlear: put in the head.

What is written about this term?

1839, from vestibule + -ar.
1620s, "a porch," later "antechamber, lobby" (1730), from Fr. vestible, from L. vestibulum "forecourt, entrance," of unknown origin.(

1680s, "spiral cavity of the inner ear," from L. cochlea "snail shell," from Gk. kokhlias "snail, screw," etc., from kokhlos "spiral shell," perhaps related to konkhos "mussel, conch." (


I.  Albanian Explanatory Dictionary-AED 1.0. ( )
BULLAR m. sh.
1. Gjarpër johelmues, me trup të trashë e të
gjatë rreth një metër, mjaft i ngathët në lëvizje, që
ushqehet me kërmij, minj, zogj, etj. 

'Literally translated:
BULLAR m. sh.
1.A non-venomous snake, with a thick body and a length of around one meter, very clumsy in movement, that eats snails, mice, birds,etc.'

KOKË f. sh.
1. Pjesa e sipërme e trupit të njeriut që qëndron
mbi qafën ose pjesa e përparme a e sipërme e
trupit të kafshëve, e rrumbullakët a e zgjatur, ku
ndodhen truri, goja, sytë, veshët, hunda, flokët etj.

'Literally translated:
HEAD f 'feminine'. sh.
1. The top part of human body that stands over the neck,...., round, where is located the brain, mouth, eyes, ears, nose, hair,etc.'

VESH m. sh. 
1. Secili nga dy organet e dëgjimit, që gjenden në 
të dy anët e kokës te njeriu dhe te kafshët e larta; 
pjesa e jashtme prej kërceje, llapa e këtyre organeve.
'Literally translated:
EAR m. sh.
1. Each one of the two organs of hearing, which are located at the sides of the human head.'

LE kal.
2. Vendos diku në një mënyrë të caktuar një gjë që
e kam në dorë, ose që e kam marrë a sjellë nga një
vend; e vë.

'Literally translated:
LEAVE transitive.
2. Put somewhere in a particular way one thing that I have in my hands, or I have taken or brought from one place; put something somewhere.'

II.  Micha F. Lindemans:" The creature is also known as Bullar in south Albania"

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Language Evolution

How humans made language is a very difficult question.

Did they make all language hearing-imitating the sounds of everything in the nature which makes sound?
Did human beings use their sounds for referring to water, animals, wind, storm, scratch, etc ?
Or, they slowly created words for referring to the most important needs of their existence using many ways of words coding starting from the beginning of their conscious.

I think, they probably made first words in this order:

I. Water.(u)

1. River(lu)
2. Rein(shi)

II. Food.(ug)

1. Hungry/saturated.(huhr)/?
2. Fruit available to them.(ho)
3. Eat. (ha)

III. Dangerous/Safety.(lihg-z'ho)

2. Animal predators of the human flash.(hau)
3. Fear.(bhr)

IV. Protection/existence.(hon)

1. Tool/weapons: wood and stone.(hu-ghu)
2. Tree, cave.(ih-oh).
3. Make.(bho)
3. Run. (hihg)

V. Reproduction/Sex.(ghi)

1. Woman-man.(go-gu)
2. Kids.(mi)

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Sy, Syndrome, System, Symmetry, Synonym, Sycamore, Syllogism, Synchrony, etc.

Syndrome meaning. Syndrome is the combination of the two roots of Albanian.
The roots are:

#1: sy 'eye'.
#2: ndro 'change'.

We know already the meaning of change. Being a native Albanian speaker, I am going to analyse the compound meaning of "eye change". It generally means when the eyes change they are different from before, which in Albanian is very clear as concept having *ndryshe, which is Albanian word for different. *Ndryshe has the same root with *ndro, but with a specific meaning. The definition of the concept of "change" in Albanian does not need a dictionary to be explained using "different form before" because *ndryshe 'different' and *ndro 'change' came from the same root *ndro-y. The concept is there, in the words itself.

There are a lot of possibilities. One of them is blinking, when eyelids cover both eyes simultaneously, which leads to a concept like "running them together", which later also can be re-generalized again to a new concept. The eyelids work like a system, they close simultaneously the eyes in blinking. they close the eyes at the same time precisely, which also lead to the concepts * synchronous: simultaneous occurrence; synchronicity, synchrony, synchronism.

Another case could be when someone is sick: “Eyes are a place to look for signs of newly acquired illness. The eyes are the window to the soul — and to a host of travel-related illnesses, according to a new report in a medical journal, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease.” (Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2005; (

Etruscan Script, bronze in the Louvre, Museum.
System meaning: A very important word linked also with the root /sy/ is system.
The general definition of the system is: a set of connected things that work together for a particular purpose, in which the eyes are the best logical example. The term "system" is an intentional enrichment of meaning based to a prototypical case. They are two body parts that do together at the same time the same function, not like the hands, or the legs, which can move differently from each other, and for a particular purpose: only for seeing. When they move for seeing they are also in *synchrony.

The "sy" can produce a very long list of concepts: Syndrome, System, Symmetry, Synonym, Sycamore, Syllogism, Symbol, Sympathetic, Synchronic, Similar,Vision, Visible, etc, which are examples of our internal dimension of language unity.
Why the Albanian word for eye has the original meaning?
Let’s go further back.
Osiris was an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol. Egyptians wrote the hieroglyph as it is shown below:

According to the linguists who deciphered Egyptian, Osiris was an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol.
The hieroglyph meant an Egyptian god. Linguists think there is only a hieroglyphic symbol, however there are in fact three symbols: a seat, an eye, and a seated figure of a man. It has being said by professionals of the Egyptian language that the names of gods are written first in a hieroglyphic sentence, regardless of the grammatical position of their name within the sentence. In the Osiris hieroglyph is a little difficult to be determined which side is the “first” regardless of the space position of the symbols. Supposing that the linguists are right, we have a problem to the three symbols. There is only a man, and he should logically be the symbol of god, but the eye is above and the seat and seated figure are in the same horizontal level. Logically Egyptians were using same principals in writing. Which side was the “first for Egyptian? Was it the above position, on high, or the below position? Was it the right side or the left when the objects are at the same level? We do not know. Linguists only have supposed it was like they accepted as a truth, but I have to say the really truth is not known. We should say “probably” in these cases of research.

I am going to try to find another probable meaning of Osiris hieroglyph. I think the first position is above; and after is the right position. So, from above to the right, form the right to the left. The sentence for me has the meaning: “The eye is seeing you, seated”. There is not any name of a god, but it is a concept of god. The concept is “God always sees you wherever you are placed (seated)”. That god was the eye-god, which came from an older way of thinking about the eye, earlier thoughts, which are based on the eye features, very important for their existence,  and it refers to the eye-god as above all us; as it is the eye of  Horus as well. The Egyptian "Osiris" meaning we know is not in the original meaning, and it obscures the sense. As a conclusion, the really meaning is: he is an eye-god.
The Albanian verb for see "shikoj" stands also for :
SHIKOJ, kal: Kujdesem për dikë a për diçka, e ndihmoj, e shoh, e vështroj; ruaj. ' See, transitive: To take care of someone, or something, help, .. ; or protect.'

  • Albanian Dictionary
^ Sy m. sh.'eye'
1. Organi i të parit te njeriu dhe te kafshët, që
ndodhet në pjesën e përparme të kokës ose anash

"Literally translated:
^Eye m (masculine)
1. The organ of seeing in human beings and in the animals, that is located in anterior part of the head."

Shikoj, kal:
6. Kujdesem për dikë a për diçka, e ndihmoj, e shoh, e vështroj; ruaj.
Translated: See, transitive: 6. To take care of someone, or something, helphim/it, .. ; protect.

  • Martin Camaj, 1984, Albanian Grammar, pg.21.
Indefinite singular sy, Indefinite plural sy, definite singular syri (standart), (my note:in the Tosk Albanain dialect:Si, definite singular:Siri.),  syni(geg), definite plural syt(ë), accusative syrin (tosk), synin (geg).
  • System 1610s,  "the whole creation, the universe," from L.L. systema "an arrangement, system," from Gk. systema "organized whole, body," from syn- "together" + root of histanai "cause to stand" from PIE base *sta- "to stand", ..(
  • A system (from  Latin systēma, in turn from Greek systēma, "whole compounded of several parts or members, system", literary "composition" is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole. (
  • Stephen C. Levisnon-2000, Presumptive meanings: The Theory of generalized conversational implicature.
  • Newmark, Leonard. 1998. Albanian-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.


For a long time the linguists have discouraged the relationships between the languages outside of their family. In our modern days, some great linguists, Noam Chomsky, Joseph Greenberg, Derek Bickerton, etc, deeper than others have confirmed that there is a strange link between the languages classified as separate families. Their confirmations have been strongly opposed, especially Joseph Greenberg’s research, because they are very difficult to be understood. Those reaserches have led to reclassification of languages in a number several times lower than previous classifications. Today, some of their approaches are accepted, but several decades ago it would have been impossible. There is no doubt that the knowledge and the use of new methods of language can improve the linguistic thinking on this point, but I have to say we are at the very beginning of the new linguistic era.

The etymology, or other suspect linguistic branches have in common that they do not have a precise scientific method; neither rational nor methodical about how languages were created. The linguistic of the past still is cited, and it is being taught in today's schools, even though  most of its deductions are guesses. It always tends to rule out other new possibilities of the linguistic research , continues to impact negatively every kind of research in this direction.

Regarding Albanian language, the linguists use the "loan" term, without considering what they do not know about the language, or at least without taking into account some other very old language links , which can rotate the “loan” route.

Unfortunately, who have written about Albanian not only did not know what was not known about languages, which is normal, but also they did not know Albanian too.

Albanian language Wikipedia; discussions;
Unknown #1::In Albanian N.sing.Accus. Def. is also inflected with -n , feminine dative sing nouns are also inflected with -s, the Albanian gen/dative plural -ave or ëve bear a striking similarity to the cited gaulish obo - ebo - ibo inflections. The Gaulish vocative cited here seems to be a bare stem; likewise in Albanian. Compare the uninflected Gaulish subordinating particle jo with the Albanian particle që, also uninflected. Albanian also has pronominal clitics which are tied to the verb and which can be doubled to mark direct and indirect objects. The described analytical sentence structure (SVO pro-drop, genitives and adjectives follow head nouns)could equally describe Albanian.Possible cognates: Gaulish=art Albanian=ari Eng=bear Gaulish=uerno Albanian=verv Eng=alder Gaulish=carros Albanian=karro Eng=wagon Gaulish=briga Albanian=breg Eng=hill Gaulish=bitu Albanian=botë Eng=world Gaulish=gobbo Albanian=gojë Eng=mouth Gaulish=maru Albanian=madh Eng=great/big Gaulish=sapo Albanian=sapun Eng=soap.

Unknown #2:
The short answer is that these are coincidental. To begin with the cognates, some go back to the same PIE root (artos/ari; bitu/botë; verno/verr; briga/breg); maros/madh are unrelated; others are loans from Lat/Romance (sapun < L sapo(nem) < Gaul sapo < Gmc; gojë < Ital gola < L gula; karrë < Lat carrum < Gaul carros); gobbo/gojë are unrelated. As for morphology, që 'that' < *kwṓd, and its behavior is seen in other langs., including Eng. that. Most western European langs are analytical to varying degrees and share these features to varying degrees (Spanish/Italian are like Alb.). The Gaul. vocative is not a bare stem (-e, -i, -u), and neither is Alb., where -o is borrowed from Slavic. Alb def. endings are generally from an old suffixed demonstrative (cf. -i < is; -it < tei; -et < tei/tons), but the is the only orig. ending to be retained (because the demonst. fell off), and it matches Gaul. (and most other IE langs) because they are both from PIE. Similarly, -ës is from an old suffixed demonstrative (ës < āi-tsāi < āi-kjāi). Alb. -ave/ëve is an innovated compound of a/ë < -ā (copied from the other endings) + masc. u-stem -ve < -u̯-ōm, which copies the masc. formation by analogy; it is completely unreleated to -abo/ibo. Finally, the doubling of clitics in Alb. is a trait common to several Balkan langs., but Celtic does not have the same kind of phenomenon. Hope this was helpful. Flibjib8 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC).
Unknown #3:
Every time when the linguists do not understand something they use that "coincidental" word. Your premise is based to a language that the contemporary linguists like to think that it is the ancestor language. No linguist can provide an answer about the amount of the time that a linguistic set lasts. The PIE language is not a fact. It is a supposed language. All its words are not based on measurable and verifiable data. Your argument is not valid, because the major premise is untrue. [(artos/ari; bitu/botë; verno/verr; briga/breg); maros/madh are unrelated]; It is so clear that they are related. Loans from Latin? The Latin word for mouth is not "gula", but it is "bucca" and /bocca/ in Italian. The Latin word for throat is /gula/, and /gola/ in Italian. The Albanian word for mouth is "goj" and the Chinese word for mouth is 口(kou), although somebody is going to say, "It is coincidental", because of the prejudices, or of the lack of a really knowledge on how words are created.

Sunday, December 18, 2011


What does ethos mean?

A common Albanian-speaker will mention the verb /them/: Une them , ti thua, ai thote, ne themi, ju thoni, ata thon(ë) / I say, you say, he says, we say, you say, they say (s), While in the past: Une thash(ë), Ti the, Ai tha, Ne tham(ë), Ju that(ë), Ata than(ë) / I said, You said, He said, We said, you said, they said (s). Or imperfect: Une thoja, Ti thoje, Ai thoshte, Ne thoshnim, Ju thoshnit, thonit, ata thoshnin, thonin /I said, You said, He said,….You said, they said.

Now, the /thosh/ form is so close to the /ethos/ as letters are. Albanian language uses a very interesting way to substitute the grammatical elements. For example, Ai e tha/ he have said that, where the /e/ form is a substitution of the “that”. Albanian is not like English or every other language.

I have to add also the past perfect: Unë kisha thënë, ti kishe thënë,../ I had said, you had said, and the future tense: Une do të them, ti thuash, ai do te thote/ I will say, you will say, he will say, .. We will say. There is another form, which leads more closely to the ethos is the conditional mode: Unë do të thoshja/thoja, ti do te thoshje/ thoje, ai do te thoshte(only one form in this case)/ I would say, You would say, etc.

For example: Si do e thoshje ti ketë? / how would you have said?

The /ethos/ concept is found in the Aristotle’s books. It is about how others believe you because of what you say, and how you say it. So, the way how a speaker talks with other people determines the ethos.

While the Albanians, they are not Aristotle's, /thosh/ is simple understood as a way of using the words, a very important word for every language.

I always have assumed Aristotle has lived and written his books at that time, some centuries before Christ was born.
Thoti is found in Egypt thousands of years ago. He is related with the writing/speaking of the Egyptian language.

And /thos/, it is very interesting how close to the original "ethos" is, not only as their letters are, but they have either monozygotic definitions.

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.

Friday, December 16, 2011

How humans made the words.

How humans have made the words? How they created father, grandfather, great grandfather meanings?.

We have in Albanian and English these forms:

1. *at 'father'
2. *gjysh 'grandfather'
3. *stërgjysh 'great grandfather'

The basic meaning of #1: the root is: at 'father'.  In all European languages the “at” is the unattached particle. Only in Albanian it is a really word, not a particle.  It is so clear the first part of the word father is from Albanian *at ‘father.  In the geg Tirana dialect it is also *tate. Ancient Greek átta ‘daddy’, etc.);

Albanian words for father and grandfather has two basic roots that have the capability of standing alone.  The English word grandfather has the added suffix-grand: having higher rank than others of the same category. It is very clear that the word “grandfather” is created after the word “father”, through suffix grand , adding a new signification to the basic meaning of the first term father. It very clear they are not formed at the same time, even though the father and grandfather exist at the same time for the son or the nephew, and this addition-adjective comes from Latin *Grandis 'big, great', which became a size-age quantifier for the English word 'grandfather' . It is not a original one, but got a new meaning performance in this case. A granfather is bigger than a father in the sense of "length of time that each one has existed".
So, Albanian  for "grandfather" has not in use an “add signification” word, an adjective-suffix, but an original native word: gjysh. English and most languages use the grammar possessive forms adding to a noun an adjective in this case.

1.At>ater>fater>father >grand+father=great+ grandfather, great=grand, grandxgrandxfather
3. Sipër+tër+gjysh=Stërgjysh


The addition #1; prefix: F, V, P
The addition #2; sufix: Her, er, re

Adding signification to a word by a prefix is more complicated.

Albanian has a very interesting prefix stër- as well: semantic enlargement or excess: ultra-, super-, over for
1: stër-gjatë 'too tall', stër-bujar 'too generous', stër-zgjat "too long";
2: stërgjysh/'great-grandfather', stër-gjyshe 'great-grandmother', stër-nip ‘greatgrandson;
great-nephew’, stër-mbes ‘great-granddaughter’.
3. There is also a use with verbs, as in stër-holloj ‘go into excessive detail’ (cf.holloj ‘make too thin; clarify; explain in detail’), stër-nxeh ‘overheat; make extremely hot’ (cf. nxeh ‘heat, make something hot’), stër-mundoj 'overstrain;to force beyond a natural or proper limit.
Is it just a semantic extension of Latin 'extra , or a parallel developments, or is there something else?
The Latin form: preposition + Noun type (pro-auos).
The Greek form:. ék-pappos ‘great-great-grandfather’
• epí-pappos ‘grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather’.

               Is the form *epí related with Albanian verb *hip 'climb, go up'?

Other forms:

• Lat. ab-avus ‘great-great-grandfather’
• ad-nepos ‘great-great-great-grandson’
• Sanskrit: prati-naptṛ- 'great-grandson'
  • para-prati-naptṛ- 'great-great-grandson' . 
We can see here the prefix  *para, which is known in Albanian as = ‘distant, remote’, but it has in Albanian other very interesting performance meanings as: the "‘para" means “before”.
For example, I am making a new Albanian word *para-gjyshi, which would be 'before-grandfather', which is close to the semantic meaning than Sanskrit. The "para" means not only earlier than the particular time, but also is equivalent with the meaning of English forebear, at a time in the past. The Sanskrit para-prati-naptṛ has the meaning of "after-before-son", in which the logical word order is: A great great grandson is a son born after a grandson. (1.before-para, 2.after-prati.)
The new signification of the new compound word I made the *para-gjyshi is based to the time , when the two language elements take place. I made an experiment with my language, However I doubt that someone has made it really in Russian. The Russian word for great grandfather is  "praded ", and for grandfather is "ded ", with the only exception that the Russian word for before is "do". I'm not so sure about when and where the Russian language was formed, but I am sure that prefix "pra" is not a Russian word. Maybe it happened during the period of time when these meanings coalesced their ancestors were living somewhere else.

Where *stër is coming from?

Maybe it comes from others form of Albanian involving emphasis.

Which one could be?

My etymological suggestion for the generational function of ‘stër-:

1. Albanian shows a word *sipër with the meaning of “above”, “ on top of” . So it is someone “above grandfather”. Albanian having the word *hip for climb brings the conclusion that the *sipër comes from the "sip" which is the root and the "ër", which in this case is  a kind of suffix.

2. Albanian shows another word *tër- that means “ over “/ “excessive”.Seen in *tër-heq 'pull', *tër-boj 'infuriate', *tër-kuzë with the idiomatic meaning “too long”, because the specific meaning of /tër/ is all.

            The phonetic transformation rule: sip+tër>siptër>stër

The meaning for *stër- makes sense only understanding the relation between the specific sense of *sipër and the quantifier sense of *tër-, that when the forms were connected to ‘gjysh', it carried along both functions: Sipër+tër+gjysh= stërgjysh 'Above all fathers', which leads to the concept 'great grandfather'.
In this case the new signification of the new compound word is based to the time-position of one element to the whole of the group amount, where all elements are identical, fathers. The language elements "fathers" are considered mathematically equally like numbers by the unknown creator.

I.Albanian dictionary:
Stër- fjalëform.
Parashtesë me të cilën ndërtohen fjalë të
a) që tregojnë se diçka bëhet me tepri, ka madhësi
a përmasa të jashtëzakonshme pse është jashtë
asaj që duhet; i stërgjatë, stërholloj, i
stërlashtë, stërlodhem, i stërmadh, stërmundim, i
stërplakur etj.;
b) që shënojnë lidhje familjare me largësi përtej tre
brezave; stërgjysh, stërnip etj.

I. ndajf.
1. Në një vend më të lartë në krahasim me një
tjetër; në pjesën e lartë të diçkaje; lart; në katin a
në katet më lart të një ndërtese, lart.

II."The Etymology of the Albanian stër prefix"; Brian D. Joseph; The Ohio State University.

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.

What is the language?

The language is the archaeology over the ground. It is the only one that comes from the past and will be in the future almost the same without having on its shoulder any of temporary material objects. The objects, art, tools made in every epoch are made by the human mind, but each of them explains simple stages and they are pretty understandable things for the contemporary humans, but we can not say that for the only abstract thing that comes from the past and stands still alive in our days like it was thousands years ago; it is inside our genes, and it's the only one that makes us human. It is much more complicated compared with any other our science because inside the language is every thing, which unfortunately is the most neglected and we are not still capable to understand its heart. It is the most advanced and complicated thing of the universe. It can not be compared with the archaeology, or even parallelized. The archaeology can tell us only about 0.000001 % of the human's history.

NO commercial use under any circumstances without my written permission.NO publication without my written permission.Please do not re-post or circulate these files. Send interested people to this page.