Follow by Email

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


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment