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

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.