Follow by Email

Friday, March 23, 2012

I, one, tiny, kid, begin, first, enter and new.

We know the number one is the first of numbers, but we do not understand why the number one is the first of numbers, or why it is in the beginning of numbers. We know the smallest natural number is 1, but we do not understand the why as well.

The linguists’ habit of giving us definite conclusions has all kind of bad effects. The human language is being researched only from the point view of what we got so far, from the superficial side of language, not from that of its sources where thoughts came from. When the linguists' conclusions are accepted as a whole truth, not an accurate truth because there is eliminated the most important factor inside the language, it is compelled to build prejudices. Thus, when some linguists hold an opposite view, whose conclusions have the same importance as the accepted current conclusions, they are condemned to be heavily criticized, such as the Greenberg's mass comparison method, which is not accepted by the majority of linguists, to be more precise: by the most historical linguists; consonance with preconceptions, or to silence. For example, as to etymology, the majority of linguists disapprove them, but they conceal the fact in public because they are afraid of losing their credibility; prejudices also will make up new terms to eliminate them..

The most historical linguists haven’t ever tried seriously to find out a connection between language and the world, with the exclusion of Noam Chomsky and Joseph Harold Greenberg . They anyway have perpetually given a relation between the language and their theoretical objects, which are also a part of the language; Karl Popper puts the language into the world of products of the human mind, the world 3, but the language is a little larger. The language is a combination of these elements: Speakers(society), word-sound, word’s meaning, and the objects-phenomena of physical world; Karl Popper wrote ".. the physical world 1 into the world of non-living physical objects and into the world of living things, of biological objects;..". What is missing in the language theories is just the main element: the objects-phenomena of physical world. I agree with  Karl Popper's view of the physical world of living things, but I will add that it consists not only of plants and of animals, but also of human beings themselves.

Modern humans have a concept for the number one as an independent concept; however the number one has been for a long time a certain concrete object for them. The number one has been entirely concrete for many millenniums. Early human beings were becoming conscious at first of their existence and the nature existence.
Where  did the "I" come from?
How did it develop?
Te "I" started to be formed as a thought from the observation on seedlings. They distinguished a simple seedling from other non-seedling thing. A concrete seedling had for them multi meaning dimensions. There are some space-tempo-size senses, or multi-system semantic values they developed gradually during their evolution.

Seedling language

1. A seedling (or a baby) can not arise suddenly at an empty location. It is going to came up continuously from the first moment to a very definite location, which is also the first time-space-size of itself.

2. A seedling can not be smaller and newer as the first time of rising up

3. A seedling can not occupy more than one lactation at the same time.

Those senses defined many semantic concepts:

Concrete Concepts
New-give birth

TAB1 "I" Semantic Visual  Summary 

The creation of the language was not a static process, when for a second someone, from somewhere invented the word for the number one. The word for the number one came from a slow process of understanding, coping and invention over at least hundred thousands of years. The slow process of evolution had at the same time one multidimensional effect in many directions: shaping concepts, the language, the brain, eyes, ears, the nose, the skin. That process made concepts of what they saw, heard, tasted, touched, and smelled. The evolutionary natural selection pressure shaped first a single mathematical concept, the “I”, starting to build the language organ into the brain. The interaction of the language elements during the evolution process grouped together to the "I" the “seedling”, the “give birth”, the “single”, the “new”, the “enter”, the “begin”, the "one”, the “first”, the “arise”, the “open”, etc, based on how similar as a concept they are, things that form the same type of continuous pattern.

Physical world language
However, it was not the whole picture; they perceived all other proximity elements to each other as continuing all the same path simultaneously with the “I”, such as “small, alone, whole", etc. The "I" was carrying simultaneously many future words, and the initial stage of a sentence. That way was shaped the unity of space-time-size of a physical world into brain; with our modern of grammar terms: as pre-verb, as a pre-noun, a pre-adjective, as a concrete number, etc. Shaping of new concepts by evolution made possible a subdivision or explosion of the "I" family concept, which is what I listed above and I have written previously. Discovering the physical world into which those words were born is important, their family too, but, however, in order to understand completely the process of subdivision, a discovery of other families is necessary.

We knew, but we did not understand why the number one was the first of numbers, or why it was in the beginning of numbers. We knew the smallest natural number was1, but we did not understand the why as well. However, it is not only the first and smallest of numbers. All language starts from that concept.


1.Karl Popper, "Three Worlds", 1978, The Tanner Lectures on Human Values.Section I, p.143.

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.


Saturday, March 10, 2012

Why 'Nephilim' means in the beginning?

Linguists that were and are trying to find out the origin of words have always been under the pressure of the confusion of their relative appearance, and mostly are being tricked by the actual performance meanings they have, which in fact are what we got at the end of the cycle. Linguists always belittle the study of their meanings which is really the primary thing that they are connected, and the relation between words and symbols what they stand for. Linguists haven’t seen other dimensions of the concept itself the words represent and the relationship between words and concepts. According to their views, started by Ferdinand de Saussure, who only demonstrated at his time the ignorance of linguistics, it is not very different from today views, after a century of how mistaken linguists views are, except Joseph Greenberg's and Derek Bickerton's views , there are mostly no connections between words and symbols what they stand for. A wrong orientation is going to create other wrong conceptions about the origin of language.
How to group the words and as a consequence the languages, how to compare them, how to determine the main element which serves as a base to build another subgroup, and how every element of the subgroup builds another sub-subgroup? How the subgroups of a language deviate into new languages?

According to the traditional view, a language contains thousands of different words among which there are no connections. Are there connections between different language units? Are there genetic connections among a group a words inside a language itself?
First of all, all words are created from five sources:

1. Sound (symbolism)
2. Picture.
3. Sound-picture combination.
4. Idea.
5. Sound-picture-idea combination.

Two are main rules:
1. Cannot be compared words that are created from different sources. They could be very similar, but, however their meaning is completely different because the sources are different.

2. Similar words that have the same meaning, or they make part at the same subgroup meaning they are related as for a language itself, so for different languages. If two very different languages have in common only a word for the same meaning or subgroup meaning, that means that they are related. It is not a coincidence. Two identical parameters, the word and its meaning could not be a coincidence.

Most of the dictionaries determine the beginning concept as:
1. The first point something begins.
2. The first part of something: The start of a period of time, an event, a process.
3. Origin.
4. Early period.

In the way the dictionaries are structured , on the surface way it could be just about anything that starts, when it is written down like ‘first part of something’, all billions of cases could be told. There are more, in fact, which are not written because no room in a dictionary, or they are not yet discovered, or there are not still all relationships between words and concepts understood.

What the dictionaries do not explain: All words that have a beginning meaning, such as begin, beginning, one, first, kid, seedling, tiny, etc, are connected into one .There is only one concept which profoundly contains all meanings for all those words, which sounds a little like the opposite direction of modern dictionary explanations, or the linguistic theories about this subject.What is in all words is in it, and what is in it is in all words. This concept I am going to call the 'I' primary symbol.

The primary word itself came from the 'I' idea-symbol. It came from a mathematical concept. It is a number. It is the concept of the number one; translated with modern terms as the "first"; the first as a number, noun, adverb, pronoun, etc. The number one is at the beginning of everything, first part of something: first time, first time of an event, origin, age, early period, etc.

Thus, the 'I' was the primary concept, on which are based a group of words. That’s why the Albanian word for the number one is "nji”, in the oldest dialect of Albanian, which phonetically is a 'nii', which means "ne i" ‘in the [I]’.The Albanian letter “j” is the letter which has the “y” sound (like English "yield"); It came from a long “i” sound, and presented in the Latin alphabet as an extension of a "I" letter into "J" symbol, for preservation of the correct pronunciation of the "i' sound (English “ee” sound). The same thing happened in Hebrew indicated by the arrow, the Hebrew consonant yod.

Michael S. Heiser writes: " ...the letter yod (y), which has two functions: (1) the “y” sound; (2) to mark the long “i” sound (as in “ee”, like in English “machine”). In the case of nephilim (notice the English spelling with two “i” vowels), the yod serves to give us the long “i” vowel sound. Hence nephilim is technically (correctly) pronounced "nepheeleem" .” (

How is possible that the yod—acts like a "i" and the "j" letter of Latin, and j-sound of Albanian?
The primary is still alive as a letter "i", as a word for the number one and as an 'I' sound only in the Albanian language. This fact is supported from other evidence, from Latin, in the Roman numerals. The numbers 1 to 10 can be expressed in Roman numerals as follows: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, except no sound in 'I' because Roman numerals were originally independent symbols. The Roman numeral 'I' descends not from the letter 'I' but from a notch scored across the stick.

Albanian evidence can give an explanation about Etruscan language because the Etruscans used I, Λ, X, ⋔, 8, ⊕, for I, V, X, L, C, and M, of which only I and X happened to be letters in their alphabet.

There is also another interesting fact that in Chinese exists the same identical character for the number one, and having the same semivowel 'y' and the vowel 'ee' so as the "ji" 'yee' of the Albanian language. Is it a coincidence like most of linguists would say? Or, the coincidence is an argument of imitating mechanically without understanding what some linguists before them said.

TAB 1 I's Words Family


“I” symbol
nji 'nyee'
nje,             'yee'
Unë, Una, U    
I (my)
Io (mio,mia)
im, imja
我的Wǒ de
my, mine
mio, mia; +il,la
mea,mei, hic
我們 Wǒmen
jon, yn,ton,son
我們的 Womende
Nostro, nostra
Nostrum (Hic)
filloj, nis
開始 káishί
kid, child,boy
fimia, fëmia, bir( a male child), bij (a female child)
孩子 háizi
Figlio, bambino
rise, arise
lind,  ngrihem
Rise. arise
give birth
give birth
enisus, enixus
unity, to unite
unity, to unite
di unire
similar (si ‘eye'); even

Njisoj,  njësoj                             
i mitur
thin, petit
i imët
嬌小 Jiāoxiǎo
thin, petit
Sottile, fine
i ri,
初級 Chūjí
yī ’yee’
i vetëm
單一 Dānyī 
a, an,
një, nji
yi ’yee’
a, an,
nji here, një herë
yi ’yee’
una volta
each (any,every)
yi ’yee’
時間 Shíjiān
every time
gjithnjë, gjithnji
yi ’yee’
every time
ogni volta
omni tempore
tani, ime
現在 Xiànzài
Gjatë gjithë
yi ’yee’
In tutto
origin, genesis,
創世紀Chuàng shìjì