Follow by Email

Monday, September 3, 2012

Anatolian language.



A very interesting new point of view about the origin of the language is Quentin Atkinson’s reaserch of the University of Auckland in New Zeland.
(Science 24 August 2012: Vol. 337 no. 6097 pp. 957-960 DOI: 10.1126/science.1219669).

His group found a decisive support for an Anatolian origin of Indo-European language. According to his research the seedling of the tree of IE began 8,000 to 9,500 years ago from Anatolia together with the agricultural expansion.

Like every research it started with a menu of vocabulary items based on the premise they are resistant to linguistic change like:

X-Premise
English
mother
father
 German
mutter
vater
Russian
mat
отец
Italian
madre
padre
Persian
madar
-
Polish
matka
ojciec
Latin
mater
pater
Albanian
Am
At

Or:

X-Premise-pronouns
English
I
 German
Ich
Russian
Я (ya)
Italian
Io
Polish
ja
Latin
ego
Albanian
Unë



















Is the premise true?

Some thinkers believe that the first speakers of the proto-Indo-European were shepherds from the Black Sea about 4,000 years ago.

Some others believe that the first Indo-European speakers were peaceable farmers in Anatolia, now Turkey, about 9,000 years ago.

The 4000 years of the language history or 9000 are not enough to find the root of a language family because everything has a very beginning, which from the evidence we have is far back away in time and the place is Africa. When they moved from Africa they had already had a certain level of the language. We do not know in our times how to find out it and especially which language items passed to the human branches, when and the quantity of that language to each branch, but it does not mean that it is not inside the Indo-European language, or into any other language family.

Some authors still think that 'our ancestors didn't live in trees, apes never turned into humans…', and consequently “the history of mankind must be rewritten” , which sound like a modern version of Bible.

Some other authors think that around 6 million years ago the ape family split into two branches: pre-chimpanzees and Hominids.

Evidence says it started by hominids in Africa. Hominids had a bigger brain than their ape accentors and distinguished from their ancestors by upright walking, which made possible for the first time for all animal groups to have the hands free, a very powerful biological tool, and consequently to have tools made by them, and consequently from the complex of evolution to posses the language. The first speakers of every language were Africans circa 200000 years ago.

From hominids to homo sapiens, from primitive prehistoric technology based on stone-wood materials for cutting and opening plants and fruits they gathered to the hunting tools technology, from hunting of animals to the tools to strike a human enemy, from food tools to building tools, from building to the agriculture and its respective technology, from the stone-wood tools material to the metal, from primitive language to the modern languages, humans beings constantly are going through sets of evolutional stages being changed and changing their world physically, technologically and linguistically. Along the way, each stage can be ahead or behind the others for different human groups in their timing after they were spread, or some stages can not even be for some human groups, which can be confusing for some thinkers, linguists and scientists.
Some human branches of the Africa group did not survive in Europe-Asia. Some that survived were ahead the others at developmentally. Some human groups made as much progress as the rest creating new ways of making food. Every progress made was directly related to the language. To develop a new way of making food , for example, the agriculture, it is not only related with the new physical world, new tools and action they had to make and name simultaneously, but also it is at the same time a new way of thinking. Every stage developed new ways of thinking. So, there are  8 big stages:

1. First Conscious level under selective pressure to find food: Plant, fruits, and whatever eatable thing. Trial-error era. Africa.
2. Hunting. Africa. France.
3. Domestication of animals. Europe-Vinca-Turdas.
4. Building. Europe-Vinca-Turdas-Anatolia-Egypt.
5. Agriculture.Europe-Vinca-Turdas-Anatolia.
6. A new organizational way of the human society-USA.
7. Industry. Europe-North America.
8. New way of thinking-language: High technology: North America. The Linguistic consequence: English has more words than most comparable World languages.

Any of these stages has its language. The dominated language has been always the language which has accumulated the best of previous stages and it was new developed in the place of a new origin where the human concentrations grow and spread new ways of thinking.

We do not know exactly how it happened, but we have enough evidence that it happened and there was a moment when started a new evolution stage of living world. If humans and their language have nothing to do with the evolution there would be just some modern skeletons, some modern tools like our modern nuclear bomb and a full language like English.

Several branches of science, excluding linguistics that I still do not consider as a science, are looking in this direction to draw a conclusion acceptable to the majority.

As a matter of fact, it is much more complex than some researchers think. The answer about the IE languages origin can not be summed up in one research. It is so difficult because it is pretty connected with the answer of another question how language is built. Without understanding at the same time as one point how language is made and how the human’s development is related with the language we may not fully understand the origin of the IE.

The language is related with the evolution, and especially with the higher developments of some human branches. Some branches developed tools and invented ways of making more food and more comfortable houses which had a major consequence on the increase of the number of population, but at the same time impacted the language having more words, new ways of thinking, more qualitative thoughts, etc. They developed and applied new technologies until there were not anymore room for the increase of the population, and they started to disperse peacefully, in a natural way in all directions where the lands were almost empty, and during other millenniums became those who today have dozens of different names and languages. The evidence says that one of those centers on the vertical axis of the time was Anatolia.Their language has links with all languages, especially with Indo-European languages, but it has especially more tight connections with the oldest one, and the closest with respect to their territory , and especially linguistic connections with the northwest of Europe: Norse, Old German, Hungarian, North French, Basque, Irish, Scottish, Old English, Balto-Slavic.

Do we have linguistic evidence about that hypothesis?

Yes, we have. It is under the skin of all languages. The problem is that our linguistic and scientific level is not so developed to be able to discover it.

During the new researches, all possibilities should be considered, between them also the possibility of hierarchical spread before Anatolian time, and after Anatolian time.

There could be also the possibility of spreading waves of Anatolia's descendants to their land of their origin thousand of years later, which did not change the substantial of their language if there did not take place between a qualitative evolutional stage, however, it may give a wrong direction of the origin of the IE, a distorting influence. We should not limit the factors which are involved. More possibilities should be taken in consideration which forces to increase the methods of analysis and during building up new methods we should not rule out some very important factors, for example, the phonetic changes.

According to Lugi Cavalli Sforza research the Albanians are the only survivors of those who have lived there for thousand of years

Also, there is enough evidence that Albanian and Armenian are the only languages which have survived having a gross intact from the Anatolian language.
Language changec
The language is like a living organism that always has had its parties of stabilities and its parties of changes and new word additions during its evolution. Elements of the stability and change states are ina logical equation as a progress of L=L1+L2+  …+Ln, where Li are the stages until the“n” current time.There is an equation: Li= Si+CHi+NWi, where the set of language is always an evolution of three main elements of it: S-unchangeable parts, CH-changeable parts, N-new parts.

The concepts of language stability, the language items which stay always resistant to the linguistic change, language changeability, and language increasibility are very subtle. Here we have to use some logic tools to clarify philosophically those terms because we never can have data about it, and in order to build a premise as true as possible using the analogy with other concepts we have accepted as a part of the truth about the origin of universe, stars, sun, nonliving and living world, etc.

So, at the same time the language resistances to changes, changes and grows. As the language grows a human group is more able of guaranteeing more and better communication. As the language grows also that factor impacts the human brain in a reverse process as a mechanism making them more human; growing also the brain physically, making more progress; making it easier for development to reach humans objectives more effectively, and making easier for humans to fulfill their needs.

There is one universal law: Everything comes from elementary elements which under specific reactions and interactions become very complex unities of existence. After the first cycle of their very first creation they go through several stages. I used the “very first creation” because every living and nonliving thing after the big creation cycle is always in endless subcreations cycles. Unities of existence after their very first creation give birth sub-first creations ,what I code as to be born a new existence never been before, when old elements are being transformed in new elements, for which the moment of sub-first creation of a mother element into a new element is a very first creation for the new creations, but the mother elements continue to live desegregated on their old forms and at the same time it lives inside new creations in new solid combinations forms.

The language cannot be excluded from the universal law. In our actually level of knowledge we can not know the language universal law deeply.

Quentin Atkinson started with a quantitative method which is seemingly ahead everyone else, only to find out when, and where the  the first Indo-European speakers were living in one of the verges of the Human evolution. His method is reliable, and I hope from that we will understand the origin of the language more.
Congratulations Mr. Atkinson!

Add caption

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Oko and Ochio




Linguists know magnificently most of the language, almost all of it, but they really understand very little how humans made it. My intention is to shake and question the linguistics doctrines, to challenge what I do not agree, and to break down some linguistics prejudices about how humans made language.

I have written in this blog about the old Slavic word “oko” and the Latin word “ochio” which mean ‘eye’, on Friday, December 16, 2011, The Idiocy of the Linguistics.

"/Oko/ is the Bulgarian word for eye, also in Czech, Polish, etc. /Ochio/ is the word for eye in Italian, which came from Latin /oculus/. Has Latin borrowed that word from Slavic language or Slavic has borrowed from Latin ?
The linguists tell us that /oko/ has nothing to do with /ochio/. The linguists have accepted that /oko/ comes from Proto-Slavic *oko, which comes from Proto-Indo-European *h₃ekʷ-.
Are /oko/ and /ochio/  not related?
What do you think?
They have the same meaning, almost the same pronunciation and /oko/ has nothing to do with *h₃ekʷ. It is so obvious that they are related."

What rule do the words for eye follow?

Most of the our current knowledge about this topic is like: x-Language borrowed from Latin, y-language borrowed heavily from Slavic language, z-language borrowed words from French, but they have a Russian origin, Greek borrowed from Hebrew that has "prestige" at the time, Japanese borrowed heavily from Chinese, etc.
And, hypotheses like words are an arbitrary associations of sounds or corresponding object they represent. Words are unreliable. The language emerged instantly in perfect form.                

Are the words arbitrary associations of sounds?
Were the words unreliable for the humans when they uttered them for the first time? Were words verifiable for humans when formed them? 
If Words were unreliable and unverifiable how humans memorized them? Arbitrary associations of sounds are very difficult to be memorized in an initial stage if they are not spoken in perceptible situations.
Did humans speak only in currently perceptible situations for a period of time during their evolution?
Did the language emerge instantly in perfect form?


The word eye as a language unity is pretty easy to be understood that it is apart from its actual existence, obviously we know only the distinctions between language and the physical world, we divide them into two classes, that of the real and that of the language. The word eye signifies either a concrete eye that is the essence of it; it is not a word, and the spoken word itself, a language property common to all eyes of human and non-human beings. As a concrete object it signifies something what is, its existence regardless the spoken sounds we have put on it. The word eye is at the same time a concrete “eye” in our brain, in contradistinction to the word eye as a language unity: a combination of spoken sounds, but it appears to our mind, that the relation of the concrete eye to the word eye is not a reciprocal one. The concrete “eye” is an eye, the word eye is not. Linguists do not accept that the concrete “eye” causes to begin the word 'eye' as belonging to the same thing. It is a goal therefore for linguists to try to find the rules of “the language-world" – accounting for the presence of the concrete objects over the language unities.

There are different types of words for eye in all languages of the world. Excepting the corrupted words from heavy phonetic transformations, they seems to me to have evolved parallel to each other. It also means that the word for eye do have a common ancestor.

Was it a a single proto-language?

No. It seems to me that they parted from the same primary sources of what objects concretely are. The concepts were based only on the same concrete 'objects-actions' of physical world regardless where human groups lived for thousands of years. They lived apart but they evolved first concepts into a language using the same concrete source of them. What do I mean with a same source? Codifying the same object or action of physical world gave the similarity which makes us to think wrongly for a common human language ancestor. The common ancestor is there, but it is not a language, or a human group. It was the same source of physical world they codified.

Are *oko and *ochio nouns related with the shape "o" that the concrete object of the eye has?


The humans before having the writing systems had languages which were fully of sounds and meanings. They did not have a writing system, however there is a fact that they had a very complex spoken sound-meaning system . Linguists think the spoken language was not the initial point of the written language as its creator, as a main factor and its source. Linguists think the written language was a invention from nothing without having any other source regard to the process of its creations. A spoken word conveyed its meaning through its sounds, but the sounds linguists say were decided illogically by humans and they are senseless to themselves. Sounds separately do not have any meaning to a physical object at all. Linguists think also the writing systems letters do not have any relation with the sounds they represent and/or any other common logical source. They are just some independent characters from their sounds and they do not have any meaning at all as well. The sounds are not a "x" resemblance to a physical object. Did all writing systems come from a sound-shape resemblance to a physical object by spoken language memorized to their brain generation to generation?




Did the primitive Humans have a visual mental imagery ?

Did they pay great attention to object details when it comes to relating to the language when they trying to utter its meaning?

Using logical tools, one way to create a meaning spoken sounds-words is to pay great attention to the eye. The simplest form of eye is a circle. In some ancient pictures there is enough evidence how important an eye was for them, however our modern belief is the eye's picture is not related with the word itself and we do not not know exactly the ancient pictures were only pictures for them or the pictures were words as well . Anyway, when they started to draw pictures they must had already had the spoken word for eye.

The problem is that after primitives humans saw an eye, did they later saw the eye in their head? 

Naming for the first time an object does not need an evidence to be determined as a voluntary act, but before spoken language the reality inside their conscious control could have been mental images of the external world. 

Have humans successfully evolved the language slowly by building patterns of mental images to explain it?

How do they create the word for eye?

Looking at the eye they tried to figure out how to make a spoken word for its characteristics. I think they did use its simple circle to build up the world. They modeled the word for the eye based on it’s physically appearance which is a simple circle, an “O” shape. How they put the “o” sound for the “o” shape. A very important thing to remember is that the mouth makes a rounded shape when it produces the “O” sound.



The Eye Word Family Tree

Reference:

1. Joseph H.Greenberg, Meritt Ruhlen. An Amerind Etymological Dictionary. 2007. Eye-words.

2. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran: The Emerging Mind: 2003. Bauba/kiki effect.




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.


Thursday, July 12, 2012

Capitulate: Lowering the Head



The word meanings are encoded in human brain by the non-living and living physical world content and its actions, included actions into the physical artificial world made by humans as a part of it. The complex relationships of the two physical world actions shaped first word meanings and with the language use of them by speaker-listeners in group affected concrete actions. Two processes were happening and took place simultaneously and they were in a space-time unity because the biological instinctive purpose to intend to achieve the surviving which created them does not logically have any priority to their space-time content. Speak to find a food and eat it. Speak when predators are coming and escape. It is like a breath: two very distinctive elements, the spoken sounds and the physically actions worked as a system for only one purpose. First human generations created meanings pressured by biological instinctive needs of food and surviving.

What occurred in the words with their first functional meanings in their usage though time? Did they change over time? Was their change minimal?

The logical sense of a word is its basic functional meaning. Words have a fundamentally different status in the semantic hierarchy. What is sure is that the words did not remain constant as a number during their evolution.

We know that CaputCapitis are the Latin words for head. The Caput’s diminutive is capitulum which is the base for capitulateCapitulum means “heading’, however is not clear why its meaning gave capitulate. The current “Capitulate” meaning is to stop fighting in a war and agrees to what your enemy wants usually because he is stronger than you, or to stop opposing what someone wants and agree to it.

Why it is related with “heading” concept?
We may think when a person, or a military capitulate they surrender under various “headings’ of the agreement, however it is not semantically clear to us which “headings” Romans exactly meant and which gave a new meaning.
Capitulate is a derived noun, but it has a new meaning. The entire new form changed completely the first meaning for head. In fact, the new word is not a simple amalgamates in a higher level function of the old word Caput. Capitulate Semantically it is a new word, but it is not a new unity.

Some new words were made using two ways:

a) Amalgamating older words and their meanings to new functions.

b) Creating completely new words by new points of views of physical world source, particularly the new artificial world in endless construction by humans.

In the process of making something that was not made before which was at the same time a process of learning that was not known before for Humans. There was a parallel language development: new constructions, new things, new verbs, new nouns, and new meanings to describe new events-phenomenons which were not in existence before. When there is linguistically  a need for a new word people have a universal tendency to make them, same as in our days.

I’m taking two functions: a A, a function from “head” to “heading” , and the new meaning given by B, a function from A to “capitulate”, a new completely different meaning::

A=(head>heading)

B=(head>heading)(?)


One language element is missing there. Which is it? Is there a body language, a signal that we still use today which has the same meaning as a sign of defeat. It seems to me that it is “lowering the head” body language sign. It is the function A from “head” to "heading" , and the function B from "head heading" to “lowering”of body language, two older language elements, regardless they come form different language sources, one is from spoken language, tho other one from the body language. A very important logical point is that they both carry meanings which gave the function B “lowering the head”. There is a “lowering the head” as a meaning, but there should be also the language concrete element inside the word Capitulate that may represent that meaning. Is it the “ul” particle?



What does *ul mean? Are there any languages which can tell us the semantic of this very small language particicle? I tried to find it in Latin, Ancient Greek, etc, but it was nowhere to be found. It exists only in Albanian as a verb.



English Senses for the Albanian verb *Ul:

UL

I. Logical sense:
to move something down from a higher position, to reduce something in number, amount, value, or strength..
*Ul koken 'to bend your head forwards so that you are looking down'

.II. Semantic senses:
1. Active:

a) to defeat a place or group of people and force them to obey you

b) to deliberately make someone seems less important.

2. Passive:

a) surrender (verb), give yourself up.

b) to deign-accepting something that they do not want, or not willing, to let someone to do what they asked to do




Capitulate combines two old words to create a new word. Capitulate is a compound of the noun capitus plus the verb ul. Interesting is the fact that the verb ul does not exist in Latin and ancient Greek. Ul exist only in Albanian. That simply means that Latin borrowed it from old Albanian language. It is simply formed as a compound: a person or group of people, who lost  a battle after being attacked by someone, they lowering their had,a  noun as the object plus a verb as action. The language source is simply a body language which is still humans use instinctively it when similar events occur.

A lowered head in the cases of the capitulation may come from an earlier body language humans do as a result of any perceived threat.

Albanian Dictionary:

UL kal.

1. E zbres nga lart poshtë, i pakësoj lartësinë; e vë të mbështetet diku, e zbres në tokë kund. ngre, çoj. Ul flamurin. Ul aeroplanin. Ul barrën (drutë, kovën). Ul vigun (tezgën). Ul shportën në shesh. Ul dorezën e telefonit. Ul përdhe (përtokë).

2. Përkul teposhtë, anoj ose var pjerrtas; e drejtoj poshtë; kund. Ngre. Ul kokën. Ul kurrizin (shpatullat). Ul vetullat. Ul duart (krahët, grushtin). Ul degët. Ul strehën e kapelës. Ul sytë (vështrimin).

3. E kaloj nga qëndrimi pingul në gjendje të shtrirë; e bëj të shtrihet teposhtë diçka që është e kapur nga njëra anë, lëshoj; kund. ngre, çoj. Ul kapakun. Ul perden. Ul jakën e palltos. Ul mëngët. Ul pëlhurat e barkës mbledh velat.

4. E bëj të rrijë; të vë të rrijë diku. E uli në karrige (në tryezë). E uli në prehër. E uli në gjunjë. E uli në karrocë (në veturë). E uli pranë (afër) vetes.

5. E bëj më të vogël, i pakësoj madhësinë, vlerën, masën a shkallën, zvogëloj; kund. rrit; ngre. Ul temperaturën (shtypjen, trusninë). Ul ngarkesën. Ul fitilin. Ul çmimet. Ul shpenzimet (koston). Ul rrogën (pagesën). Ul qiranë. Ul shpejtësinë (ritmin). Ul prodhimin (rendimentin). Ul moshën. I ulën një notë (notën e sjelljes). Ia ulën dënimin.

6. E bëj të ndriçojë ose të dëgjohet më pak, e bëj më të ulët, dobësoj. E uli dritën (llambën). E uli zërin. Ule pak radion!

7. Pakësoj vrullin ose shkallën e shfaqjes a të zhvillimit, e bëj të bjerë, i zvogëloj forcën e dobësoj. Ul forcën (vrullin). Ul ndjeshmërinë. Ul dhembjen. Ia uli inatin (zemërimin, gjakun).

8. I pakësoj rëndësinë, cilësinë ose vlerën, e zbres në një shkallë më të ulët. E ka ulur stilin (mjeshtërinë). E ul nivelin e shfaqjes (e veprës).

9. E zbres një shkallë më poshtë në detyrë ose në përgjegjësi. E ulën në detyrë (në përgjegjësi).

10. I cenoj vetitë morale ose i zvogëloj meritat në sytë e të tjerëve; poshtëroj. Ul veten. Ul autoritetin (prestigjin). I ul nderin. E ul përpara të tjerëve (në sytë e botës). * Uli (dorëzoi, dha, hodhi, la, lëshoi) armët,~A. E uli bishtin thjeshtligj. hoqi dorë me turp nga kërkesat e tepruara, u tërhoq me turp; e uli hundën. Ul e ço (ngre) thotë vazhdimisht të njëjtën gjë. E uli flamurin hoqi dorë nga qëndresa, u dorëzua. I ka ulur flamurët libr. ka hequr dorë nga mendjemadhësia e nga krenaria e kotë, nuk mbahet më me të madh, i kanë rënë pendët. I uli (i ftohu, i shoi, i shtroi, i zbuti) gjakrat . E uli (e vuri) në gjunjë dikë shih te . E uli hundën iron. shih te HUND/Ë,~A. S'e ul hundën keq. shih te HUND/Ë,~A. Uli kokën (kryet) a) u nënshtrua, u përul;

b) u bind, u shtrua, nuk kundërshtoi;

c) e ndjen veten ngushtë; u turpërua

d) hoqi dorë nga mendjemadhësia ose krenaria e kotë. Nuk e ul (nuk e kërrus, nuk e përkul) kurrizin (shpinën) edhe poh. shih te KËRRUS. Ule (përkule) mesin! shih te MES,~I. I uli pendët (puplat). E uli (e shtroi) qafën (kurrizin) . I uli ( vari) veshët shih te VESH,~I. Uli zërin (fjalët) nuk e kërkon më diçka më të madhe. Ia uli (ia zbuti) zërin e detyroi të bëjë lëshime, e detyroi të ulë kërkesat e veta. Uli kokën (kryet) në punë u shtrua mirë për të punuar, punoi pa fjalë, pa nxjerrë kërkesa të tepërta. Ka ulur pak hundën, por ka ngritur sqepin iron. s’ka hequr dorë nga krenaria e kotë, vazhdon të mbahet më të madh përpara të tjerëve.

Friday, June 8, 2012

Renew, rebirth and resurrection. I and Z.





The whole of linguistics is pseudoscientific because it ignores semantics.
For example, we can observe a very strange phenomenon. I'am going to make a simple list with words that I think their semantics are related. The list is:

renew
rebirth
resurrection

Etymologies:
1833, from re- + birth (n.).
early 13c., from a Scandinavian source, cf. O.N. *byrðr (replacing cognate O.E. gebyrd "birth, descent, race; offspring; nature; fate"), from P.Gmc. *gaburthis (cf. O.Fris. berd, O.S. giburd, Du. geboorte, O.H.G. giburt, Ger. geburt, Goth. gabaurþs), from PIE*bhrto pp. of root *bher- (1) "to carry; to bear children" (cf. Skt. bhrtih "a bringing, maintenance," L. fors, gen. fortis "chance;" see bear (v.)). Suffix -th is for "process" (as in bath, death). Meaning "parentage, lineage, extraction" (revived from O.E.) is from mid-13c. Birth control is from 1914; birth rate from 1859. Birth certificate is from 1842.
late 13c., from Anglo-Fr. resurrectiun, O.Fr. resurrection, from L.L. resurrectionem (nom. resurrectio) "a rising again from the dead," from pp. stem of L. resurgere "rise again" (see resurgent). Replaced O.E. æriste. Originally a Church festival commemorating Christ's rising from the dead; generalized sense of "revival" is from 1640s. Also used in M.E. of the rising again of the dead on the Last Day (c.1300). Resurrection pie (1869) was schoolboy slang for a pie made from leftovers of previous meals. Resurrectionist, euphemism for "grave-robber" is attested from 1776.
renew 
Late 14c., from re- "again" + M.E. newen "resume, revive, renew;" on analogy of L. renovare.

An empirical significance is attached to those etymological analyses that fail to follow the semantics of those words. Since those words are two words-combined, it’s needed to divide them in a second list:



From Latin
From Norse
From PIE
From old English
re
re 



birth

byror bher

new



neowe, niewe
surrection
surgere 














Etymologies as of the compounds:

new 
O.E. neowe, niowe, earlier niwe, from P.Gmc. *newjaz (cf. O.Fris. nie, Du. nieuw, Ger. neu, Dan., Swed. ny, Goth. niujis "new"), from PIE *newos (cf. Skt. navah, Pers. nau, Hittite newash, Gk. neos, Lith. naujas, O.C.S. novu, Rus. novyi, L. novus, O.Ir. nue, Welsh newydd "new"). New math in reference to a system of teaching mathematics based on investigation and discovery is from 1958. New England was named 1616 by Capt. John Smith; Newfoundland is from 1585. New World to designate phenomena of the Western Hemisphere first attested 1823, in Lord Byron. New Deal in the FDR sense attested by 1932.



Resurrection is a compound verb from resurgere "rise again". Re is a Latin prefix and it means "again". In this case re- is used with a verbal root surgere "to get up, to arise", but in Albanian re is an adjective-adverb and it means "new". Zura(e,i) is a verb form of Albanian. Zur- has a very long list in the Albanian dictionary; in one of them it means “to make".

In Albanian the gender is too important, and it has some bearing for the language semantics too. In linguistics the notion of gender is distinguished from the gender of the physical world and the plurality. In linguistics, plurality as a concept is being limited only to the concept of quantity. To definite the two concepts the linguistics bases on a arbitrary one-dimension selected criterion, but the feminine and the plurality concepts are semantically related. It is possible for words pertaining to the gender to be consistent with their respective semantic gender: producing other things, the "feminine" makes the plurality of persons or things as well, changeability, and portability.


In general, in gender languages the concepts related to the general concept of "give birth" are feminine. Most of the language gender concept is so subtle and it needs a long term to be explained. Anyway, I will determine it shortly: In the language every thing that is similar with the woman concept is feminine. For example, the earth is feminine because it gives birth to plants, animals, and every living thing. In Albanian toka means "earth" is feminine, and if it is "new" should be used the adjective re which is the feminine gender of the adjective for "new". So, there are also feminine in Albanian some trees, plants which bear fruits and flowers such as molla 'apple', lulja 'flower', dardha 'pear', kumbulla 'plum', vegetable food, etc. There is also a very interesting semantic fact about seasons. The seasons that are producible to the plants are feminine: pranvera 'spring', vera 'summer', vjeshta 'autumn', except dimri 'winter' which is masculine because it is semantically the season of nature dying, when the life is in abundance. After death the nature always resurrects. The mother earth will birth new life of physical world. That was the language-mind point of view of our ancestors about physical world gender and language gender and it is not meaningless.
Other examples from Albanian may illustrate the gender concept relates also to the space-time reproduction of the language objects such as drita ‘light’ as a feminine, ralated to a feminine dita ‘day’ and a feminine nata ‘night’.

The semantic of gender in Albanian can lead on these generalizations for the feminine class:

1. Sex- based genders of humans and animals.

2.  Producibility : The Objects of the physical world that can produce, or can be producible infinite times: trees, vegetables, fruits, flowers, etc. Plural and "give birth" concept class.

3. Changeability: The phenomena of physical world that change their states repeatedly: day, night, light, dark, moon, etc. Changeable and Plural concepts class.

4.Portability: containers in general and kitchen equipment such as: cup, spoon, plate, mess tin, tray, etc.

A renew, rebirth, resurrection is a feminine language concept.

However, there is a common surrogate traditional accepted etymology: It comes from Latin fēminīnus, from fēmina 'woman' that Curtis and other philologists referred to"she who suckles," from root of felare "to suck, suckle".

There is also a common surrogate with the traditionally accepted etymology of the Hebrew noun for “woman” אשה ‘isha’ comes from איש ‘ish’ “man”.(Some think like the first recorded human sentence was a written sentence, not a spoken one, moreover that sentence included an etymology. Very interesting!)

Re-zure, Re-ber, and re-nje ( nji, njo, nja, një) are the Albanian combinations completely different from Latin and the supposed PIE theories, or whatever.

It is pretty simple to find out the semantics of the resurrection, renew, and rebirth distinguishing the complex whole of those words into their elementary before-words, which came from a previously language stage. For the resurrection they are: "re", "zure", "rezure" which fortunately exist today in Albanian. Their Albanian semantic combination is "make new". The "rebirth" is  as easily to find its roots from Albanian "re" 'new' and "birth" 'made, is done'. Their Albanian semantic combination is the same as the word resurrection "made new" . Also, the "renew" would be pretty elementary to break down it if you know Albanian to the "re" and "nje" which you know already , which mean "a new one".


Unities
Peshat
Albanian
re
re (feminine)
new
zure
zë, zuri, zën (r>n)
to make,  being made
birth
bor, ber, bër
“bër” ‘made’ or 'done'
new
nii  (masculine),
one

nie (feminine)



In contrast, the “re” ‘again” of Latin and the “re” ‘new’ of Albanian have a huge difference on their meanings because every “repetition” does not have the new “concept” on it. The “again” meaning is for saying that something happens or someone does something one more time when it has already happened or been done before. While every new is recently made, and never happened or used by anyone before. The "new" never is an “again” or a “repetition” Such accepted etymologies are pseudoscientific because they arrive at their conclusions without follow und understanding their pretty elementary semantics.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Z abstraction and concrete comprehension.



Z-Semantic
Meanings are shaped by physical world. Humans have formed their meanings based on the content of objects of physical world. A certain meaning is an unity of subjective-objective physicality of a certain object of physical world. Human beings built that inner-outer duality of physical world objects into symbols and memorized it gradually into brain. The process caused first an evolution of brain creating a proto-linguistic organ which passed to a very complex linguistic organ during 2-3 millions years of evolution. One of consequences of the linguistic organ evolution was the increase of brain. Linguists, philosophers, and scientists still are discussing that the mind and the brain are not the same. Using logical thinking, their relation is a tridimensional logical equation:

M(mind)=L(language)=B(linguistic organ of brain)

1. You can not have a language if your brain does not have a linguistic organ.
2. If you do not have a language you can not think.
3. You can not think if you do not use the language.
4. If you can not think you do not have minds.

If you do not have a language organ into brain you can not have a language, you can not think and consequently, you do not have minds.

In fact, all this is between abstraction and concrete comprehension, between material and non-material world.
Is the knowledge part of physical world?
What is the meaning?
The linguistics is reduced to empty answers like: ‘the thing one intends to convey especially by language or the logical connotation of a word or phrase’ (Merriam Webster).

Yes, it is a thing, but a thing that a theory of the semantics must give a better clarification.

What kind of knowledge about the meaning of Z do humans have?
Prishtine, Proto-Albanian Culture
This strange alphabetical symbol which is a word in Albanian could simply be a fossil word from the language that was spoken in Balkan land from ancient times before the writing took place. There is also another fact of Old European script which is a very important point of the codification of the spoken language, which is unfortunately neglected because it opposes all theories about writing and collapses the whole eventually knowledge about this topic.

The semantic of the Albanian "z" is very difficult to be explained in foreign languages. The main meaning which the “Zë” stands for in Albanian is: 'Causing a state of being limited by the action of someone, or something; the passive sense: the person or thing is affected by the action of the verb; in the active sense is "to limit someone, or something ' (Albanian Dictionary)
Z Evolution 

There is archeological evidence that Caves have been occupied for thousands of years by humans. Why early humans decided to live inside a cave?

It was an evolutionary adaption: Their decision to live in a cave came from the survival instinct: to be protected from dangerous animals and nasty weather.

Early humans who started to live in a cave had to be adapted to the new habitat physically and mentally-linguistically. There were two kinds of adaptations which are part of a linguistic multisystem as well.


Physically, their bodies had to be adopted with constant temperatures and high humidity, a passive process for them which changed them. The adaptations included lacking of pigmentation of skin, changing the color of eyes, increasing of sensory organs with exclusion of eyes, etc.

Mentally-linguistically, the point we are interested more, they have already understood the difference between a cave and an open natural ambient as they used caves. They have already understood that a limited natural object is better for them than a natural habitat. They understood that a cave has only one way open towards the outside. In a cave animals cannot get in through three directions: Above-below and behind them: at the back there is no outlet- a “x” direction, above and below- an “y” direction- no outlet. Animals could get inside through the only way a cave has- a “z” direction- the open way.  Animals were prevented by the cave to encircle humans from different points. Between humans and the predators were only a way; a wood wall built along that way may have resolved forever all humans fears in a natural open ambient.

And they were able for the first time to converse with one another without being anymore under fear.

That thought further a limited ambient had a positive impact to their life. This was a passive concept humans understood for the first time when an object of physical word protects them. The object does not act, but helps them passively with its favorable configuration

“Z” Old European Script evolution between 28000 and 7000 years ago.
Humans were released from the fear for the first time. They were liberated and not compelled to stand up and to turn their necks around to look for dangerous animals all the time. They were able to see some new realities of which in their former state they couldn’t. The new habitation had a wisdom which facilitated the linguistic change.

New realities required to name them. That cave they named “Z”.


First of all, there is a need to be determined the concrete term.

The concrete means a real object, event, movement, their combinations-interactions of physical world of living and non living things: the physical world of earth, stars, planets, stones, plants, animals, humans beings, etc which can be seen, touched, heard, smelled, and tasted.

It appears in the process of thinking as a point of the language reality. It is also a point of departure of the abstract language conceptions. The first path of meanings was a concrete conception. The full conception of a concrete thought was developed to an abstract concept; in our case the “z” is a generalization of caves concrete concept to an abstract determination of similar objects of physical world: a closed ambient form three directions and open only in on one direction is a "Z". The real is the truth of what we see, touch, hear, and taste which exists independently from us. Words exist because the concrete physical world exists. Abstract thoughts are the generalized language objects of concrete thoughts based on physical world. The prove of the truth about something is only unfolding the abstract word out of itself to the concrete of physical world. It is only the way in which thought works and appropriates the abstract, having thousand of years of evolution of their concrete in the linguistic organ in the mind.

It’s the base of the English word house. The cave itself gave rise to the letter 'Z' through an early Old European Script symbols depicting a closed ambient with only one way opened. The symbol was called “Z” in proto-Europian language and became shtëpi, kasolle, kështjell, hus, hous, house before the proto-Semitic alphabet came in Europe. All of them do not have accidentally the “s”. The “s” sound is pretty known that is a pair sound with “z”. That’s why the house (Engl), Haus (German), shtëpi (Albanian), casa (Latin-Italian) are of unknown origin. It is the meaning of the Albanian word “zë” which tells us the secret, which on the other hand indicates that the Latin alphabet was made before Greek and proto-Semitic alphabet. The Latin alphabet descended directly from the Vinča alphabet. What is written about its origin contains only our current ignorance about alphabets.The proudction of the new concrete words, meanings and concepts and subproduction of their content to new abstract words, meanings and concepts came directly from the source of the first  written language concepts made by humans. The Vinča script was so strong, creative, and so abstract from its very beginning, but it was all the time in an endless  improvement and new concepts addition, and it was the only source for Etruscans. It so simple to understand at least that Vinča, Etruscan and Latin are related from the formal point of view, but  all researchers of the alphabet origin are misled to think statically about the Vinča alphabet, Vinča culture, and the Vinča people. The researchers also never do the question where did the Vinča people spread after the boom of overpopulation because of the agriculture.

English
(Z-S-SH-C-K)
Albanian
(Z-S-SH-K)
Chinese (Z-X-TZ-H)
German(Z-S-SH-H)
Italian
[Z-S-CC(k)-K]
Latin
(Z-S-C-K)
cave
Shpellë1, gux3
洞穴
Dongxue3
Höhle
Caverna
Spelunca, Cavamen
cage
Kafaz
Lóng
Kafig,
Zwinger
Gabbia,
Caveam, cavea , carcer
castle
Kala, Keshtjellë
Chéngbǎo
Schloss
castello
castrum
cabin
Kabine, Kasolle2
cāng
Zelle, Flugkanzel
Cabina, Cappana
Cameram
Casa, Cellula
Shack
Kasolle
Wōpéng
Schuppen
Baracca, capano
Canaba
Shelter
Strehim, strehë
Strukë
hù
UnterschlupfShutz, Zuflucht
Rifugio,
Ricovero, asilio
Absconsio, causea
Save
Shpëtoj1, shpëtim. Mbroj4
4Băocún
Speichern, schparen, sichern, schonen
Salvare, conservare
Nisi, sospito, seduce, salvo
Shanty
Kasolle

Shanty,Seemannslid
baracca

House
Shtëpi1
Fángzi
Haus
Casa
Domum