Superficiality

/Lumor/ is an adjective and comes from the noun /lum/ that means river, both Albanian unities, native ones. And so, Romul the first king of Rome occasionally means River, which is also the backward of the word Lumor, or if you read it from the right to the left, the same as the Etruscan writing was.

L U M O R

R O M U L

Yes, well, but Romul came from Ruma, or Rumon...not from Albanian /lum/....

To be a little bit more precise, does the linguistic know why the word lum means river, or why the word river means river? I have read Noam Chomsky, Joseph Greenberg, Dereck Bickerton, etc, and they do not tell us anything about this. Bickerton wrote that there is one of the most important questions not answered yet.  At least until at this moment I am writing this post we do not know. If some linguists are capable to answer that question, especially when they doubt the backward method, which could be happened for thousands of reasons: the natural phonetic transformation, which is not only about changing of sounds, or about their tendency to be changed, but also the alteration of the sounds , or the intentionally changing because could be just about anything when it was made by intelligent creations, humans, I will admit they have discovered the main issue of the linguistic

We do not accept we do not know it, and we always want to give an answer even though our knowledge is still low about it, however what is the most important thing we need always to remember is that we do not know most of the language origin. For example, /Burro/ in Spanish means /donkey/, in Italian it means /butter/, in Albanian means /man/. We can not answer any kind of question about this, the minor possible why, because we do not know how words are created.

Nermin Falaski: "FEMIA HYINERON HAIRE" 'The child is deified'
Child temple of the III century B.C Apollonia city, Albania

So, it can not be said also the opposite, or can not academically ignored that  Albanian language does have to do with Etruscan language, because that way only can be eliminated a possibility of knowledge about Etruscan language. What is more, the assumption that Etruscan and Albanian share a central core and differ very slightly in many words is developed in an interesting way by Nermin Falaski, in the book “Linguistic and genetic heredities", and deeply by Niko Stylos in the book "Etruscan - Albanian Tosk". Furthermore, to a greater and greater extent, their work show very clearly a hopefulness of the attempt to understand Etruscan language.

But, the linguists use two standards of evaluation, when Albanian words are in discussion they do not accept any kind of analyse, even though Albanian, Ancient Greek, and Latin are under the same shadow about how they are created.

And, to get an accurate conclusion we need to know that big answer. It is important because if we know that, not only we may answer what in Latin is really Latin, or whatever, which is not so important for us, or better to say it does not have any value for the modern humans, but also we can build a new language, which is what we need. The values for the science is how words are created, so we can use that knowledge in the future for our new computer languages, brain diseases, or for the unification of all languages of all  the world, etc. We are spending a lot of money only because we have so many languages, a lot of problems, wars, translating expenditures between nations, second language education. We need to know that for our future. That way we can fix our hangs up that continue to pass to our kids, from generation to generation about the history and greatness, and the ignorance that we modern humans do not know how the language was created, the only one which makes us human. The superficiality starts when someone says who made it, not how it was made.

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.