Beyond Arbitrariness: Petro Zheji’s Philosophy of Language

Petro Zheji and the Symbolic Conception of Language

Petro Zheji is frequently described as a “linguistic genius,” not because his work conforms to the conventions of mainstream historical linguistics, but because it proceeds from a fundamentally different epistemological framework. Rather than treating language as a mechanical or exclusively historical system, Zheji approaches it as a symbolic and cognitive totality, integrating linguistic form with metaphysical structure and semantic genesis. This methodological divergence largely explains the difficulty many linguists encounter when engaging with his work.
The following analysis outlines the principal reasons for both the opacity and the originality of Zheji’s linguistic thought.

1. Departure from Conventional Linguistic Methodology

Contemporary linguistics is largely characterized by: diachronic analysis (sound laws and attested developments), comparative reconstruction, positivist criteria of verification based on documentary evidence.
Zheji does not deny the descriptive utility of these methods; however, he regards them as insufficient for addressing the foundational question of language. His inquiry is not primarily concerned with chronology—that is, when linguistic forms emerged—but with ontology: why language assumes the structures it does and how meaning originates.

This orientation places his work outside the dominant paradigms of:
academic Indo-European linguistics,
structuralist analysis,
generative grammar.
Consequently, Zheji is often perceived as obscure from a technical linguistic standpoint, while appearing conceptually rigorous within a philosophical theory of language.
2. Language as Symbolic Totality
A central feature of Zheji’s thought is his treatment of language as a symbolic totality rather than as an aggregate of discrete units. Whereas traditional linguistics prioritizes the analysis of constituent elements—phonemes, morphemes, and lexemes—Zheji focuses on the conditions under which meaning as such becomes possible.
His analyses repeatedly contrast:
wholeness and fragmentation,
primary origin and secondary derivation,
semantic integrity and contamination.
Within this framework, Zheji employs what he terms “formulas,” which are not mathematical expressions but symbolic representations of semantic processes. Typical formulations include sequences such as:

Whole → division → loss → damage → semantic shift

Primary origin (one) → repetition (two) → destruction of the one → secondary meaning, division, and defilement.

These formulations function as heuristic devices for tracing the degradation or transformation of meaning over time. Methodologically, this approach aligns more closely with Platonic metaphysics, structural anthropology (notably Lévi-Strauss), and symbolic logic than with conventional linguistic analysis.

3. Albanian and the Preservation of Archaic Symbolism
Zheji’s claim that Albanian occupies a privileged position among Indo-European languages is not advanced as a nationalist assertion, but as a structural hypothesis. He argues that Albanian has preserved an unusual degree of symbolic transparency between phonetic form and semantic content.

According to Zheji:
a significant number of Albanian roots remain semantically motivated,
the relation between sound and meaning is often non-arbitrary,
pre-rational or archaic layers of signification remain accessible within the language.
This position directly challenges the Saussurean axiom of the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign. It is precisely this challenge to one of modern linguistics’ foundational assumptions that renders Zheji’s work controversial and frequently misunderstood.

4. The Concept of “Messianic Language” as Metaphysical Category

Zheji’s description of Albanian as a “messianic” language has often been misinterpreted in theological or ideological terms. In fact, the concept is metaphysical rather than religious. By “messianic,” Zheji refers to a language that discloses meaning rather than merely encoding it—a language that functions as a medium of revelation rather than convention.
This notion resonates with:
Walter Benjamin’s theory of “pure language,”
Heidegger’s conception of language as the dwelling place of Being, ancient traditions of sacred or originary speech.
Absent this philosophical context, Zheji’s terminology can appear mystical; within it, however, it constitutes a coherent theoretical position.
5. Cognitive Demands and Interpretive Difficulty

Zheji’s writing presupposes a reader capable of operating at a high level of abstraction. His arguments frequently rely on symbolic reasoning, analogical structures, and non-linear conceptual progression. He does not provide extensive methodological scaffolding, nor does he reduce complex ideas to introductory explanations.
As a result:
non-specialist readers often find the work inaccessible,
professional linguists trained exclusively in empirical methodologies may find it methodologically unsettling,
meaningful engagement is largely limited to readers with interdisciplinary training.
Such interpretive difficulty is characteristic of theoretical work that seeks to redefine, rather than refine, a discipline.
6. Intellectual Position and Historical Precedents
Zheji’s marginal position within linguistics is not historically anomalous. Comparable trajectories can be observed in the reception of figures such as Giambattista Vico, Ferdinand de Saussure, and Walter Benjamin, all of whom were initially misunderstood or undervalued due to the unconventional scope of their theoretical projects.
Zheji occupies a similarly liminal position: too philosophical for linguistics, yet too linguistically grounded for philosophy. Historically, such boundary positions have often proven to be sites of significant intellectual innovation.
7. Prospects for Future Reception

It is likely that Zheji’s work will receive more sustained scholarly attention in the future, though not in the immediate term. Such reassessment would require: genuinely interdisciplinary methodological frameworks,
a critical re-examination of entrenched linguistic assumptions,
renewed attention to questions of origin, meaning, and symbolism.
Under these conditions, Zheji may be recognized not as an eccentric outlier, but as a systematic theorist of symbolic language.
Conclusion
Petro Zheji’s reputation as a linguistic genius derives from his capacity to reconceptualize language itself. By reintroducing symbolism, totality, and metaphysical depth into linguistic inquiry, he challenges foundational assumptions of modern linguistics. His work treats Albanian not as an ideological artifact, but as empirical evidence within a broader theory of meaning. Above all, Zheji’s thought is distinguished by its insistence on wholes where modern linguistics has privileged fragments.
Intellectual originality of this kind is rarely immediately assimilated; more often, it compels subsequent generations to revise the very terms of understanding.