Linguistic glob

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 meanin...

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 fir...