A Symbolic–Semantic Approach to Etymology: Methodological Considerations for Deep Comparative Analysis

Etymology, properly understood, is concerned with the origin and development of the constituent elements of a word, not simply with the word as a fixed lexical unit. Consequently, a comprehensive analysis requires consideration of multiple perspectives—phonological, semantic, symbolic, and comparative—rather than relying on a single comparative explanatory framework.

The current approach seeks to trace the origin of words through the partiality of elements in place of the basic symbolic element, rather than through later administrative or functional partial meanings of the word that may represent later historical layers. From this perspective, primordial symbolism constitutes a generative substrate from which multiple lexical forms have emerged, subsequently changing in meaning over time and across languages. Within this framework, a limited set of archaic phonetic-symbolic units - such as bhë, bho, bha, bher, al, el, ar, ol, oi, oia, ui, ul, i, o, zë, zhër, zhor, zhur, za, zan, da, nda, di, among others - can be understood as elementary semantic cores. These units seem to underlie a wide range of lexical formations in all European languages, functioning as fundamental markers of verb perception, movement, becoming, presence, division of possession, and appearance. Over time, these primordial elements have been recombined, resemantized, and institutionalized, producing the diverse vocabularies observed in historical Indo-European languages.

Accordingly, etymological analysis should not be limited to linear derivation or superficial lexical attestation, but should also consider deep symbolic continuity, where ancient conceptual structures persist beneath later phonological and semantic transformations. Such an approach does not deny established historical linguistics, but complements it by addressing the symbolic and cognitive dimensions of language formation that precede and inform documented linguistic history.

Comments

Word creation. The "D" letter origin and the "D" pictogram rule of the word creation.

In this article I will cover the origin of the letter D letter, and the pictogram concept of the word creation. It was my first discovery of the word creation. In this blog I will give my discoveries, the rules of word creation of the European languages. Multiple theories exist as to how language first originated. Nobody is sure which one is true. Certified Translations Get Pricing Order Translation What is the Oldest Language in the World? There are over 7,000 languages in the world. Could there have been a time on the earth that we all spoke one language? If so, what is the oldest language in the world? So what was the first language? Discovering the first language that people spoke is difficult because so many languages died and were considered lost in history. However, ancient languages still survive until today; these languages may have been transformed a lot but their old origins may be traceable. Written languages existed but this does n...

Nephilim

N 'eh - Ph 'ih- L 'ee- M / Nepheeleem Zacharia Sitchin (July 11, 1920 – October 9, 2010) wrote the " Nephilim " (נְפִילִים) is derived from “nafàl" and means “fall". The term Nephilim occurs in Genesis 6:1-4, describing the point of time when three things began: men began to increase in number, came into existence the daughters of men , and the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. Is the "nephillim" really only a Hebrew word? That question is very subtle, however I think it has been more a limit of thinking for linguists rather than a serious argument. Let's begin first with the probable meaning the linguists think it is. We know that the " fall" in every language means moving downward from a higher position involuntarily, usually by an accident, which maybe was the reason why Michael S. Heiser, PhD candidate, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies , University of Wisconsin...

Total positional tolerance at material condition

Total positional tolerance at material condition (Hole) Suppose the Ø 1.005 / 1.010 hole is inspected and there are six parts with different ID dimensions. Their actual sizes checked with run out methods give that their actual axis is to be .006” over and up from the true position even though they have different actual ID’s. We want to know which part is within true position tolerance at MMC. Parts to be acceptable require some calculation when is used the run out method. In GD&T, maximum material condition (MMC) refers to a hole that contains the greatest amount of material. To understand and memorize simply and logically the concept, I suppose that you have a part designed as a square with one hole in the center, Ø 1.005 / 1.010 . You have produced just 5 parts and measured their holes. The hole of part #1 is on the low side of its tolerance Ø 1.005" and the hole of part #5 is on high sid...

Linguistic glob

Search This Blog