6. Hypothesized Primordial Phonetic–Symbolic Units and Their Reflexes in European Languages
This study further proposes that a limited set of primordial phonetic–symbolic units, associated with the mouth, sound production, and articulated speech, underlies a broad range of lexical formations across European languages. These units are not presented as directly reconstructible Proto-Indo-European roots in the strict comparative sense, but as pre-lexical symbolic elements that may predate formal linguistic differentiation and later grammaticalization.
6.1. A / HA / FOL / FIAL / ZË, ZO, ZA: Mouth, Consumption, and Sound
The vocalic element A, together with related Albanian forms such as ha (“to eat”), fol (“to speak”), and zë (“sound, voice”), is interpreted here as encoding the mouth as both an organ of intake and articulation. Symbolically, this cluster represents a nexus uniting eating, breathing, and vocalization—core biological functions mediated by the oral cavity.
From an anthropological and cognitive perspective, such an elemental symbolic unit plausibly belongs to an extremely early stage of human semiotic development. Hypothetically, it may extend into deep prehistory—potentially on the order of several hundred thousand years—corresponding to the emergence of anatomically and behaviorally modern vocal capacities. At this stage, sound, nourishment, and breath would not yet be conceptually differentiated but experienced as a single embodied function.Lexical group associated with Z(ë) / ZA
The following forms are interpreted as symbolic reflexes of this Z(ë) / ZA nucleus, without implying direct historical derivation:These parallels are proposed as symbolic and functional convergences, not as outcomes of regular sound laws.
6.2. AL / OL: Speech as Articulated Oral Movement
The elements al and ol are interpreted as symbolizing speech as dynamic oral motion—that is, the mouth in active articulation rather than mere sound emission. Conceptually, these forms encode a transition from undifferentiated vocal output to structured, repeatable speech patterns.From a heuristic chronological standpoint, this layer may correspond to a later phase of symbolic development, when human vocalization begins to stabilize into patterned phonetic sequences capable of sustaining grammar and discourse.
Reflexes of this symbolic cluster appear in verbal roots associated with speaking across several European languages. These are presented as structural correspondences, not claims of direct phonological descent:
Lexical group associated with AL / OL (← LA / LO)
Albanian fol / flas ← ol / la
Latin loquī ← lo
Italian parlare ← al
English talk ← al
The shared semantic focus on speech and articulation supports their inclusion within a common symbolic field.6.3. GOL: Mouth as Physical Organ
The form *gol is proposed as a symbolic marker of the mouth or throat as a physical locus of sound production. Within Indo-European languages, comparable forms may be observed through phonological adaptation, such as Greek καλέω (kaléō), interpreted here as reflecting a velar shift (g > k) rather than a direct derivation. This interpretation is offered as a symbolic parallel rather than a genetic explanation.
Albanian *klith:verb, meaning to shout, scream, or yell. (with velar shift (g > k)Armenian *khosel ← gol + zë, with velar shift (g > k > kh)
6.4. ZON: Sound and Resonance
The unit *zon is interpreted as encoding sound, resonance, or voiced presence, conceptually linked to vibration and audibility. This element may be associated with a broad class of lexical items referring to sound, voice, or auditory perception across European languages. Again, the chronological depth proposed is heuristic and symbolic, not archaeological or genetically reconstructible.
6.5. Illustrative Derivations and Parallels in European Languages
Within this symbolic framework, the following lexical items may be viewed as later institutionalized realizations of earlier phonetic–symbolic cores:
Italian parlare (“to speak”), reflecting the mouth as an articulatory instrument
Greek καλέω (kaléō, “to call”), interpreted symbolically as a vocal activation rooted in oral sound production
English sound and voice, preserving conceptual links to resonance and vocal presence
These forms are not presented as direct descendants of the proposed primordial units, but as cognitively aligned outcomes shaped by later phonological, morphological, and cultural developments.
7. Methodological Caution
All chronological estimates associated with these symbolic units are theoretical and illustrative, intended to reflect relative stages of cognitive and symbolic evolution rather than empirically datable linguistic periods. The proposed framework does not replace historical-comparative reconstruction, but seeks to complement it by exploring deep symbolic continuity underlying the formation of speech-related lexemes in Indo-European languages.
8. Mainstream Indo-European Position and Methodological Objections
From the standpoint of mainstream Indo-European historical linguistics, the reconstruction of linguistic prehistory is constrained by strict methodological principles, most notably the comparative method, regular sound correspondences, and attested morphological patterns. Within this framework, linguistic reconstruction is generally limited to the Proto-Indo-European stage, conventionally dated to the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age (ca. 4500–2500 BCE). Chronological claims extending hundreds of thousands of years into prehistory fall well outside the evidentiary scope of linguistic methodology.
8.1. Objection 1: Chronological Limits of Linguistic Reconstruction
Mainstream scholarship maintains that language change proceeds at rates incompatible with the survival of identifiable lexical or phonological units over spans of 300,000–500,000 years. Any proposed “primordial” phonetic units predating PIE are therefore regarded as non-reconstructible and methodologically unverifiable.
Accordingly, forms such as A, AL, GOL, or ZON cannot be accepted as linguistic ancestors of Indo-European lexemes in the technical sense, as they lack regular sound correspondences, morphological integration, and independent attestation across branches.
8.2. Objection 2: Symbolism vs. Genetic Relationship
Indo-European linguistics draws a strict distinction between symbolic resemblance and genetic derivation. Similarities based on articulatory gesture (e.g., mouth-related sounds), sound symbolism, or onomatopoeia are generally considered insufficient grounds for etymological connection, since such patterns may arise independently in unrelated languages.
From this perspective, parallels between Albanian zë, Greek καλέω, Latin loquī, and English sound are interpreted as typological or functional convergences, not as evidence of common origin.
8.3. Objection 3: Alleged Lack of Phonological Regularity
The objection that the proposed segmentations lack phonological regularity requires qualification. It is correct that the comparative method demands systematic and predictable sound correspondences across multiple cognate sets. However, the claim that alternations such as pa > pe, al > ol, or gol > kal- are inherently irregular is not, in itself, justified.
Vowel alternation between a and e (a ~ e), as well as a ~ o, is well attested in Indo-European languages, particularly in the context of ablaut and morphophonemic variation. Such alternations are widely documented and form an integral part of Indo-European verbal and nominal systems (cf. Meillet 1925; Fortson 2010). The alternation pa ~ pe, for example, is structurally compatible with inherited Indo-European patterns of vowel gradation and does not, in principle, violate phonological expectations.
Similarly, the correspondence g > k represents a well-known voicing alternation within velar stops and is widely attested cross-linguistically, including within Indo-European languages. The sequence gol > kol > kal may therefore be interpreted as involving regular processes of devoicing and vowel adjustment, rather than as an ad hoc transformation.
Accordingly, the following alternations are not phonologically anomalous per se:
al ~ ol (vowel alternation)
pa ~ pe (ablaut-type alternation)
gol ~ kol ~ kal (velar devoicing with vocalic variation)
That said, it must be emphasized that phonological plausibility alone does not constitute proof of genetic relationship. While these alternations fall within the range of known Indo-European phonetic behavior, their etymological validity depends on broader corroboration, including recurrence across independent lexical sets, semantic stability, and morphological integration.
The present study therefore does not claim that these correspondences, taken in isolation, establish admissible reconstructions in the strict comparative sense. Rather, it argues that they cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of phonological irregularity, and that they merit consideration within a symbolic–semantic and comparative framework that operates alongside, but not in place of, conventional historical linguistics.
8.4. Objection 4: Cognitive and Anthropological Speculation
Claims linking specific phonetic units to stages of human evolution (e.g., Homo heidelbergensis or early Homo sapiens) are viewed as interdisciplinary hypotheses rather than linguistic arguments. While cognitive and anthropological research may inform language origins, Indo-European linguistics restricts itself to documentable linguistic data.
9. Response and Clarification of Scope
The present study acknowledges these objections and emphasizes that the proposed symbolic–semantic framework does not claim genetic reconstruction beyond the limits of established Indo-European methodology. Rather, it operates at a different analytical level, investigating conceptual and cognitive continuity rather than demonstrable phonological descent.
The proposed primordial phonetic–symbolic units (A, AL, GOL, ZON, etc.) are not presented as proto-forms in the comparative sense, but as heuristic abstractions representing recurring articulatory and perceptual patterns associated with speech production. Their value lies not in reconstructing unattested languages, but in illuminating how basic human sensorimotor experiences may have shaped lexical formation across time.
Furthermore, this approach does not contest the PIE roots *spek-, *kelh₁-, or *bher-, but proposes that such roots themselves may represent historically stabilized codifications of older symbolic schemas.
10. Methodological Positioning
In this sense, the study situates itself adjacent to, rather than within, strict historical-comparative linguistics. It aligns more closely with:
cognitive linguistics,
sound symbolism studies,
anthropological semiotics, and
theories of embodied cognition.
By explicitly delimiting its claims, the study seeks to avoid category error while offering a complementary interpretive model for understanding the deep symbolic foundations of Indo-European lexical systems.
Comments
Post a Comment