Linguistic glob

The language does not only consist of what we think, but it also has a huge impact of what we do and make. Thoughts consist of endless rotations between language elements in interaction. Unfortunately, their eventual level of links with their origin is on a tumor stage, when thoughts start to lose their vitality. Always, when that level goes on the verge is necessary a language renaissance, which came from "re"'new', "nai" 'one' and "zan"'make', which gives the meaning of 'make a new one'. Thoughts need to reflect the new social-physical world human beings are making and to do that the human beings need to understand better the ancient origins of thoughts. And, new thoughts are in a dual existence with new words. The origin of language is indispensable to be known , accepted and realized, otherwise the human beings will never be able to create new words, and to pass the endless neanderthals levels during evolution. Di...

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 m...

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...

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 w...