Follow by Email

Monday, March 19, 2012

New Semantics: Word Meaning-Hidden Families. First family: The 'I' Family.

What is Semantics?

First of all, it is written the "semantic" as a term comes from X-language and has an X-meaning. It is also written as the first use, which is also a surprise because it was used very late in the history of writing.

Today, most of semantics as a theory is based on the objectivists view that the physical world has nothing to do with the language concepts. That view is taken for granted as a being true that requires no proof.

Building in that way the semantics based on what some linguists, or philosophers have interpreted some centuries ago, and giving the base meaning of words based on their views has also brought out the confusion of ideas on crucial questions in Semantics, the most important branch of linguistics.

What is most highly abstract question to me is: Can something meaningless be given a meaning?
For example, how could some meaningless "words" be given meaning in the first stage of the language evolution, and how humans memorized them without having another logical refer in their brain?
How the meaningless words got the capacity to refer to things in a weakness human brain of the first evolutionary stage?

The confusion starts with the word semantic itself. My goal is to discover the meanings of this word in itself. How is built its meaning as a whole sentence because every word meaning has primitive basic roots from which the modern word is derived. The words once were sentences. The semantic came from three roots pieced together to a word, add significations. They are the “se”, which means “base’, the “mant” which means ‘meaning’ and the suffix *i-ka that means “it has”. The whole meaning is: “base meaning it has”. The combination of three oldest concepts brings the new meaning of semantic ‘semantika’.

It is not clear that its meaning stands for "to show, signify, indicate by a sign," from sema "sign" because because semantics has to do with the meaning of words, and there is not explained where is it. There it is and it is not. There is a certain level of knowledge but it is not the whole knowledge. There is only a partial performance of the primitive basic rot, and unfortunately an unscientific knowledge.

Linguists have look for similarities of sounds and meanings to identify derivations, and often they think to be related, when they do not know how those words are made, when they are made, which are the mini-words into a word, which are the oldest and youngest of mini-words, and consequently how to split and analyze a word. In this regard, under the conditions of being mostly ignorant in the main part of language these etymologies are false by a scientific concept, and the experts only guess at their "true" derivations. No one can find the true derivations when is not known the initial language point. They mostly are fallacies and suppositions. The amazing part is when the linguists doubt the words that are similar in a semantic dimension of the sound-meaning axis.

Is there another appliqué?

Yes, but it is not the etymology and you will know it only in this blog.

There are many meanings of Albanian origin in Greek and Latin, such as "zë",  which is not famous as the words known as ancient Greek language, or Latin.
And, there is no etymology of "zë", though it is already being used in the Albanian language for thousand of years, and it is not even a syllable, but just a voiced consonant sound.

The smallest unit of  thought
Many of our linguistic fallacies involve looking for the "true" meaning of words, and sentences by delving into their dynamics-semantics-pragmatics meanings, when those views are based only in one direction, a superficial line of thinking. No one questions what if a word could have been a sentence before becoming a word, or the words could be only a part of a very complex language system underneath. We do not know if the current signification of a word is because of some earlier mini-words, which derived from some earlier mini-mini-words, which derived from some earlier atom-words-concepts. A word may have several layers beneath its surface.

There is a linguistic "prejudice" that the present-day meaning of a word  should not necessarily be similar to its initial meaning. There is also another linguistic "prejudice" that some words can retain their meanings for many centuries, and some not.  Those "prejudices" could be both wrong, or both right because we analyze them by leaving out some other very important group elements they are related because we still do not know as deeply them so we may consider part of analyze . Linguists forget that the language should be understood and used by us in that way because it has only that particular knowledge of our current knowledge level, and not the whole knowledge of it. Linguists sometimes forget we all are mostly ignorant in this topic.

Anyway, that example is not so important for the semantic word itself, but it is a very important example on how the new semantic word was created intentionally and intently by unknown people, how they created a new concept what we know today for semantic without knowing what they were applying. It is too important starting from how a word is composed by smaller units of meaning to a word unit of meaning and on how “smaller” meanings attaches to larger meanings within a sentence and further.

From that sample we can easily understand that the semantics is not about a single meaning but is a process of the meaning combinations. It is a way in which the primary words can be combined by their users in the way to create new meanings capable of creating newer meanings. Thus, the semantics should discover the way the words are created, their fundamental principle of creation , and after to find the appropriate method of studying and explaining it. In this way the linguistics will overcome its eventually non-scientific level, the eventually non-scientific concepts of linguistics and its methods. The linguistics can not arrive scientific approaches of language if the fundamental principle in which is based the creation of words and their base meanings will not be known and well-understood. It is the initial concept of language, the scientific concept which is fundamental of arriving at the truth.

A stop on the language's study will cause a big impact on the quality of human life. If we will not know deeply our way of thinking, the language we use, in fact, they are equal, our evolution will stop. We actually do not understand what is in its deep. The language is a living thing. It needs to give birth, to die partially, to renew and to be improved. That way it is going to go to the perfection point. Our ancestors have created, recreated and improved languages, and consequently we have what we have today, but, however they created the language we are speaking now, not us. They never froze the language. Instead, modern humans have frozen it and they are gradually becoming neanderthalensis. An simple example how new neanderthalensis minds are:
English I originates from Old English (OE) ic. Its predecessor ic had in turn originated from the continuation of Proto-Germanic ik, and ek; ek was attested in the Elder Futhark inscriptions. Linguists assume ik to have developed from the unstressed variant of ek. Variants of ic were used in various English dialects up until the 1600's..... The reconstructed PIE pronoun is *egō, egóm, with cognates including Sanskrit aham, Hittite uk, Latin ego, Greek ἐγώ egō and Old Slavonic azъ, Alviri-Vidari (a Iranian language) اَز (az)[]

So, it came from an "ego", or "ek", and at the same time Latin and Greek had the same form "ego"!!
The relationships between sound change and etymology is the only way how can be combined perfectly the human ignorance with human prejudices. You can read even more also like:
I. Capitalization
There is no known record of a definitive explanation from around the early period of this capitalisation practice.]
Etymology is telling us nothing about language. It is telling us, for example, in spite of the same form and meaning words as Latin deus and Greek theos, their words for "god", they are not related, while words like "ego" that are identical in form and have the same meaning in both languages , a two dimensional copy, which is an extraordinary fact against, they are related. Some words seem to have an explainable "superficial resemblance" with no etymological connections because etymologists do not know a very important thing: How those words are build up. The methodology of comparative linguistic does not have any sens if the sources humans beings used to make words are not known yet. Methods of Etymology are not scientific because the philosophic bases of principles and principles of reasoning that guide them are wrong. 

In semantics there are no scientific methods for the study of the language as well. There is not any method of study of how the primary meanings within a language set were created and how they created new meanings and how they have changed over time creating newer meanings. There is not any serious attempt to get at the truth conditions for any words and fixed rules how primary words were combined into them, to connect language with the real world, its picture, where it comes from. The connection with abstract models is the way where linguists get lost, because they are going to the place where the language source is dead.

nji,  një, nje,  njo, nja
一yī ’yee’
單簡 Jiǎndān
i par

Dì yī
‘from the first point in the past-“I’ moment, and continuing until now or until another point in the past; time counting’
 prej ‘from’
自 Zì ‘from’
dato che
Cuminlim, illim, quoniam.
東 Dōngeast
(first source: sy,si ‘eye’)
Njejten kohe, njëkohesisht,
i njikohëshëm,
i njiherëm
同時 Tóngshí
size(first source: sy,si ‘eye’)


The” I” which can be seen as taking a group of meanings identifying those which combines the initial of something in space-time three dimensional physical world with the centrality of the mathematical concept of one. This process enriched the inventory of meanings. Before what we had was only the “I” logical item, Afterward, a small number of logical items like “n”, "z", etc . Logical meanings interacted until a new meaning was reached. It seems to me that the “I” was created first having a “logical” meaning and which then served as the source for creating more “logical” meanings as reflections of the physical world contents and phenomena, a multidimensional meanings system for every one logical simple meaning like the “I”. At the start of the process, the “I” was fully logical. The “I” had the same substantial signification to the mirror of the human mind. What seems to be different is that the “I” was applied to a concrete multidimensional system of physical world. All “I” meaning dimensions belong to the intermediate “I” categories which had deeply the same semantic content. Afterward they turned into functional meanings and gradually humans forget their first logical meaning. How they turned into functional meanings? What happened is that the meanings of the “I” category were composed from the same logical value were turned to functional meanings gradually combining with other logical meaning families, like the “n” family for example, forming functional meanings. The functional meanings were gradually developed to more complex functional meanings. There was no grammar before functional meanings: In the beginning only logical categories were present. The language got richer when functional meanings got created. The functional meanings brought slowly the grammar.

I. 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.


No comments:

Post a Comment