Organization of languages
Author: Igor Pirnovar

 

Structure of languages

Linguistics: Structure of languages
( Old and young languages   or   -- pyramid and flat organiyation ).
The Pyramid Structure Of Languages
Only languages with the "pyramid structure" are truly old.
The emergence of permanent settlements and crafts
cause a revolutionary development of speech.
Sanskrit is an artificial form with artificially maintained pyramid structure.
The Flat Language Structure
A review of language structures with an emphasis
on the flat organization.

Orthogonality
Orthogonality of language organizations.

Miscellaneous
Forced toponomy
Luna (Mesec) and month (mesec)

pomerium
veverica (squirrel)
Word "to call" (klicati)       ( Etr: titi, cles, clet, cleO, / Gr: kaleo )
Word "sebasto" (basilica) ... Sevastopol, Vasilij

Venetic / Slavoc origin of word endings "-ar, -er"
Haemus Mons ... Balkan Mountain

 


 

Linguistics: Structure of languages
( Old and young languages   or   -- pyramid and flat organiyation ).

Pyramid and flat organiyation. As the title suggests, one may conclude we'll be talking here about linguistics, this is only partially true. In fact our main subject of study here will be the taxonomy or more appropriately two basic organizations of complex systems. We will however apply our findings as soon as possible to certain linguistics as well as more general social or societal issues. First of the two organizations is the so called hierarchical or pyramid organization for which yet another phrase often used is a "top down approach/design)". The other is so called flat organization for which a phrase "bottom up approach/design" is used. These two organizations actually represent two different data access methods. While a pyramid structure helps an inquirer with its shape, not unlike a inverse tree (compare to the directory structure in your computer file system), a flat organization, where all files reside on the same level, require the inquirer to utilize his/her memory to remember where an item is located or stored. We say that flat organization is more memory intensive. This can also be seen on the picture here, where the pyramid organization on the right side clearly helps the observer to identify individual pieces or smaller details with the additional visual clues. A more flat image on the left, however requires that the observer obtains a detailed information from his/her own notes, perhaps memorized mental notes. We can imagine a flat organization as if it were a large desk, on which each paper or object sits on its own space not overlapping any other paper or object.

For pyramid or hierarchical organizations typical features are sets of "predecessors" and "ancestors". In the jargon we use when dealing with "organizational structures" we usually see "ancestors" as members of "predecessors". So for instance in certain languages, more than others, words in dictionaries are organized in such a manner in groups or clusters, namely, we can find a stem on top of the group from which sprung branches of ancestors. We may refer to such groups of the words as trees or grapes. For instance in English dictionary we can find such a group of words underneath the stem word boar-: { border, bordered, borderland, borderless, borderline, bordure ... }. However, English as a modern language is not very famous for is words to be organized in such groups, hence, to some, the example just given may not appear a too convincing word group. In fact in every modern (organizationally younger) language we rarely find words in very large coherent groups. Indeed it is often found that semantically similar words with different stems are scattered all over a dictionary. In Slavic languages, on the other hand, word groups are indeed, a common feature. And to a Slavic reader it is immediately obvious that words have a root meaning, from which many other words are derived. Here we have just seen two different language dictionary structures - a younger one, where words are rather independent items or perhaps found in very small clusters, which is typically a feature of a flat dictionary organization, and on the other hand a hierarchical or pyramid organization, for which the words are commonly grouped in tree or grape structures with the root word on top. However, the above differences in language organization do not only hold for dictionaries, but also for grammars.

In modern languages also grammar structures tend to have a "flat" organization, but in the older ones they are often deeply structured. For example compare how many grammatic operators can you find in one of the most modern and organizationally the youngest of European languages i.e. English with any other European language. Indeed, if you dare to compare that with any of the Slavic, Ugro-Finnish, Bask or Breton languages, which are all organizationally and indeed physically old languages, you will find astonishing differences. If we omit the explanation of how a verb, noun, article and alike fit in, we could, albeit not with a totally straight face, say, it is possible to write almost entire English grammar in less than a single line: { -ed, -ing, -ly, -'s, -er, -ern, in-, un-, sub-, pre-, post-, of, to, in, ... }. This eventually translates into a number of different words one can optimally create by applying these operators to an appropriate English root word, providing it has both noun and verb meaning like the word "house" for instance.

Elsewhere, in the topic "Etruscan language" in the article "Etruscan Language Topics Introduction" under the title Introducing Prefix/Suffix rules, I have explained in great detail the difference grammatic operators work in English and in my native Slovene. The difference points out the number of words that can be obtained from the identical root meanings [ east, west (Slov: vzhod, zahod) ] in either English and Slovene. You may be shocked to find out that while in English we managed to create at the most 8 words from a root in Slovene applying Slovene grammatic operators we created 1881 words. Indeed feel free to check this out by clicking on the above link.
Before we continue it is imperative to comprehend, that a modern language organization does not imply, there could be no old elements from the past found in it, or on the other hand that an antique language should by default have an old organization. For instance in English language, which we declared as organizationally one of the most modern among the European languages, we indeed, find numerous elements of enviable physical age, likewise, we figured out that both Greek and Latin are organizationally modern or young languages. All this my seem unnecessarily complicated, even more obscuring already complicated linguistic issues. The fact is, once you get sufficiently familiar with this methodology, you can not miss the obvious flatness of the English language, though there exist quite a few over 4000 years old English words.
Only languages with the "pyramid structure" are truly old. At this point one may ask a reasonable thing, namely, why classify languages as "old" and "new", if then we can also identify them as "new old" or "old new"? The trick is, to be able to differentiate between the physically old and the organizationally old. If one compares the "organization of words" in a language as an element in a particular language system with another element, namely, an individual "word" in the same system, it is obvious which of the two elements will decide or indicate the age of the entire system. This means that the age of individual words carries less weight than the organization of all the words in that particular language. Of course if the majority of the words are of a particular age, the words would carry the day, though there is but a small chance that this would not show up in the "word (vocabulary) organization" too. Though, depending on the segment of a vocabulary one takes into account, which indeed, may have once belonged to a different and so far assimilated language, partial results may suggest different things, however overall picture should be rather clear. As far as I can tell, in every truly physically old language one can find the pyramid structures to be omnipresent, and particularly, I am confident that this is true for vocabularies, which evolved not so much by mixing with other languages but by growing on its own. I believe it is very unlikely that someone will be able to prove the opposite. I do believe that particularly the English zealots will, and by all means should, take this challenge seriously!

The above is theoretically rather sound, in particular due to the fact that it should be impossible to find any kind of deliberate impartiality or bias in it, hence it should be always possible to use it as an argument, when pointing out that only the languages with an overall pyramid structure or organization are also truly physically old languages. Of course, when we get into the ethnic waters, any such "absolute" rules will cause a lot of anxiety, regardless of what they are saying. However, it is generally true that a single item such as a word, which seems to be older than the overall language organization, does not in any way or form suggests that the language or those who speak it are as old as that single element we found. It does not mean, however that some of the ancestors were as old, but the majority is what counts, and the traces of the oldest ancestors are most likely insignificant in either genetic or ethnic characteristics of the majority. If at this point I jump ahead a bit, I may ask you the following: what are the odds that today among the Greeks, the Italians, the French or among the English we find Venetic i.e. Slavic ethnic traces?

Of course, those of you who think that such traces never existed, will not be able to answer this question satisfactory in any way whatsoever, until you change your mind about the base premise of the question; perhaps, your further reading will help accomplishing just that, however, chances are you will become even more opposed to the theories here.
Obviously, the pyramid organization sits more naturally with human beings as a way to organize data. For instance when we receive our biweekly or monthly salary, and then start organizing our financial records, we pull out our shoebox with all the bills for the previous month, we tend to pile the same kind of expenses together in smaller boxes. Hence all the clothes go together, the food and meals we had paid for - together, car expenses,... We soon realize we could use yet smaller boxes within those we already have. Children, sport, winter clothing, and suits for instance may all be different categories of the larger "All clothes" category. We put all the similar bills in these smaller boxes into the larger box, called "All clothes". We say that the smaller boxes (categories) are all "members" of the bigger box the (top) clothes category. Indeed, this is what we call a "pyramid organization".

On the other hand, if one has a small family, they could pull it off with a single storage room, where not unlike a large desk each item could occupy its own place on the desk. The items on the desk are best not to overlap or cover each other, and they are not gathered together into similar groups. One has to search the entire desk every time an item is needed, or alternatively memorize where certain items are. This latest example is the best approximation for a "flat organization". In theory the two organizations, namely the flat (the desk) and the pyramid (boxes) are equally good or bad for that matter. And indeed the same is true for languages, namely one can not say that either organization makes one language better than the other. However, as we shall see we can successfully apply this philosophy to ancient languages in order to determine whether they are modern i.e. whether their organization is flat or if they are older for which the pyramid organization is common.

The emergence of permanent settlements and crafts
cause a revolutionary development of speech.
In order to be able to without too much trouble determine whether a language is "organizationally old" or "young", we have to have at list some idea, why did human language evolution took these two paths. For that, we need to imagine we can return back to the times when the needs for our communications were not at all so high, and one could survive with a rather limited vocabulary. This perhaps puts us back 10,000 years, when man was still very much roaming around in larger groups rather freely, indeed, just before the emergence of permanent settlements. It is important to realize, that human speech and communications started to flourish rapidly when people settled down and started to develop different crafts that helped them realize they could alter the way of life into their own advantage. Learning became one of new trends and with it the need to transfer ones knowledge to the fellow men. This obviously required much more sophisticated communication skills than ever before. That we can claim with certainty our reconstruction of the times when humans witnessed this explosive language development, history proves with the advent of writing. Namely, it must have happened when all these new mental activities became so complex that early primitive symbols and marks turned into the oldest known writing systems we have more or less successfully deciphered in the past two hundred years.

During the time of hunting and gathering economy, before people became skilled farmers and craftsmen, human speech and communications, beyond spiritual concepts, which were as complex as human mind at the moment allowed, there were very a few needs to express complicated abstract ideas, needed later in a economy based on agriculture, stock-farming and crafts, whereby it was increasingly more important to properly convey the evolving innovations to either use or replicate the required processes, or even use the simplest tools in order to either shorten the labor itself and increase or enhanced its outcome which in turn made life more pleasant. Let's think of the time before the changes for the better made a society more productive and more plentiful. What were the needs of the simple on hunting and gathering based society?

When we think about the language in those circumstances, we are guided by the concepts that reflect the society in which they are used. We can therefore think of { a call, a shout, an entreaty, imploring, indignation or disapproval }, and words like { fire, lightning, thunder, water, danger, } etc. Let's think then about the time in human evolution, when words for these things did not exist yet! When the words started to evolve, men memorized and used them in the most natural and the easiest way. If we can assume that the way our mind works did not change in a zigzag fashion but rather consistently improve, the words got created and organized in what we discovered earlier was for us the easiest to handle and manage structure, which we now know is, the famous hierarchical pyramid structure. Indeed I claim that the oldest surviving vocabularies are organized in this manner!

When vocabularies were not yet optimally developed, and many words for less frequently used or encountered objects or ideas were still missing, in early languages evolved mechanisms to ease the word creation processes. We are not talking about simple word concatenation schemes like those found in German and even in Sanskrit, a feature which is typically a signature of a flat language organization, in which such word constructs are formed from relatively well developed often mature vocabularies. Instead we talk about the words that are created as derivatives from existing root meaning by certain prefix or suffix rules that are used not unlike regular grammatic operators. Whereas the concatenated words usually do not fall within certain word cluster or a tree structure with a common root, the new words that can be seen as derived from an existing root do. Note that we are talking about special kind of grammatic operator here, that by all intents and purposes is rarely explained by linguists to be following any grammatic rule (we can only think of it a semantic prefix or suffix).

( Those of you who are not too much interested in grammar I suggest
you jump ahead over the indented text by clicking on [   jump over...  ] )

Sanskrit is an artificial form with artificially maintained pyramid structure. What is important is the realization, that the merged words that is those which evolved by a "merger" or concatenation of a few other words, are not typically found in the old languages with a pyramid organization, but rather in the modern ones. One reason to stress this out is the fact that such words, indeed, are very common in Sanskrit, which some consider an old language with a rather strict pyramid organization. This on the other hand is contradicting an unexpectedly wide presence of the merged words in this language, which as we know is a signature of the flat organization of a language and particularly the flat organization of words groups in its vocabulary.

Likewise, semantically, merged words in Sanskrit indicate that its vocabulary evolved with a merger of more, in fact at least two languages, which makes it a good candidate for a modern language. Why is it that its structure except for the presence of merged words, does not reflect that, or does that? In the matter of fact, Sanskrit evolved as an artificial language, for which the convincing evidence are precisely the existence of a rather large body of merged words, and second, the fact that in this merger at least two languages can be identified! For instance we can find Venetic word ogenj / agny (fire) in a rather large number of the so called "merged" Sanskrit words. In some of them the other parts of the "joined" word are from some, for me at least, unidentifiable language, but in other cases also only Venetic words can be found in a merger. Following are some examples in a table:

Sanskrit Slovene English
agny Bog Agni, ogenj God Agni, fire
agnyagAra house or place for keeping the sacred fire
agnigRha Kopalnica z vročo vodo a room fitted with hot-baths
agnishomIya relating to
agniSvAtta Kar je obliznil grmadni ogenj tasted by the funeral fire
agnihotra Žrtvovanje v ognju; dnevno darovanje mleka
(hotri=žrtvovalec, svečenik)
fire-sacrifice; daily offering of milk
agnihotrin Ognjeno žrtvovanje (hotri=žrtvovalec, svečenik) offering the fire sacrifice, maintaining the sacred fire
agnibhu Obdržati (od biti/je) ogenj keeping up the fire
agniduta Prinešen (podarjen) od ognja (verjetno ognju) brought by god Agni
agnigarbha vzdrževati ogenj containing fire
agnigriha sacred fireplace
agnidagdha Zažgan na grmadi - (dan/predan ognju) burnt on the funeral pile
agnipakva pčen na ognju cooked with fire
agnipraveza Samo-žrtvovanje žene na moževi grmadi, (ognju privedena, privezana) self immolation of a widow on her husband's funeral pile

Most of all, a very large number of "merged" words in Sanskrit and a universal principle of word creation based on concatenation of words from different unrelated vocabularies, may with some certainty lead to the assumption tat those vocabularies which became part of the newly evolving Sanskrit were relatively well developed and mature. One can imagine that then evolving philosophy and religion known as Brahmanism, demanded a creation of new abstractions not needed in everyday speech. If you had an opportunity to get acquainted with a Sanskrit's dictionary, and got a glimpse of its vocabulary's semantic structure, you will appreciate the fact that one can find in it both the existence of word groups or semantic trees, as well as a large number of independent, unrelated and all over scattered words, which are the characteristics of both the flat and pyramid language organizations, which only can be explained if the language did not evolve naturally in a more or less homogeneous environment long before elaborate language and communications existed!

In the above table, we can see that some merged words obtained totally new and to the constituent pars unrelated meanings. In the dictionary they are standing alone, and obviously are not part of any group or a word tree. Wherever they are stuck, they potentially destroy a continuity of an existing word tree. All these are solid indicators that Sanskrit is a language which evolved by a merger of at least two different languages. Moreover, according to at least one of the constituent languages, namely, Venetic, as well as according to the fact that the inventors of Sanskrit grammar developed it as a perfect pyramid structure, supports the idea that at the time the most common or, indeed, the only known language organizations were those with pyramid structure.

  (...coninuation of jump over)     return back       Since English is known to have one of the flattest language organizations, and we wish to see a more typical representatives of vocabulary word groups or semantic trees let's look at an example from Slovene language. For the root "vod" we can find the following semantic tree: { vod, voda, vodovod, vodovje, vodovodar, vodomet, voditi, vodja, vodnik, vodeni, vodstvo, daljnovod, prevod, zavajati, ... }. These words are all different words with some resemblance or semantic relationship to the root meaning. It is important to understand that these derivatives are obtained by standard prefixes and suffices, that are not considered to be the usual grammatical operators.
Again who wishes to explore a more elaborate example should refer to the topic "Etruscan language" in the article "Etruscan Language Topics Introduction" under the title Introducing Prefix/Suffix rules,
On the other hand the derivatives are not the merged words either. Each of the new words obtained by "prefix/suffix rules" are for all intents and purposes brand new words with new meanings, which can now be subjected to normal grammar inflection rules. We can see that for organizationally old or languages with pyramid organization i.e. physically old languages it is common to find among its "grammar toys" well developed mechanisms to form new words beyond mere concatenation.

On the other hand more modern a language is less likely its it would contain standard mechanisms to form new words from common root, and less likely it is we'd find a larger semantic trees in a vocabulary. (Note stem and root are not synonyms.) Sometimes such suffix/prefix rules can be implied in the modern languages, like for instance in English: { proclame, program, provide, ... }, however this prefix does not behave as consistent as in the older languages, and in some cases it does not appear to be a prefix at all! Moreover, there is no trace of large semantic trees for words with these prefixes (exceptions are: { proclame, proclamation; program, programer, programmatic. However, see also inconsistent use in problematic.}). For an evolution of a modern language with the flat organization, existence of of relatively well developed multiple (at least two) unrelated vocabularies is required, which in a second phase of language development by means of mixing and assimilation cause a gradual emergence of a newly created more modern and usually organizationally more flat language. In this process older pyramid structures get flattened, elaborate grammar constructs are either simplified or more often totally dropped, and the language becomes easier to be learnt by either of the constituent ethnic groups which are also emerging into a new ethnicity.

In prehistory, primarily in Hittite, and Sanskrit languages we witnessed that by means of concatenation new words with entirely new meanings can evolve, that often have no relation to the original meaning of either original part of the new word. However, in modern languages such concatenations produce combined meaning, i.e. the word "radiotelephone". To contrast this let's look at the Sanskrit word agnihotra, which is combined by joining Venetic word agni (fire) and the word from another unrelated vocabulary hotra (priest). The meaning of the new word agnihotra has no apparent relationship to either original meaning, namely "daily offering of milk". Indeed, looking at the semantics and a broader perspective one can find the underlying relationships to the original meanings, but in everyday speech this relationships are not obvious anymore.

Let's now imagine Greek and Latin and their respective "merged" words, which evolved in these two ancient languages long time ago by mixing with the indigenous Pelasgian (Venetic) words and the words of the Anatolian and African or Latin newcomers, and where the language of Veneti (Pelasges) has now been long gone or dead. I believe, today no linguist, due to their stiffness and incompetency, sees or wants to see these "merged" words in ancient Greek or Latin languages! Undoubtedly, this situation is aggravated somewhat by the fact, that the migratory foreigners, from the stock of rich Anatolian pirates, who turned into new rulers and assimilated the indigenous populations who, by the way, by these rulers were considered to be "barbarians", out of lack of respect as well as lack of knowledge, deformed the language of the aborigines beyond recognition. It is also easy to imagine that even the old Venetic Pelasges settlers were striving to imitate the prosperous newcomers and/or their masters.

Though the above aspects of a political moment in relevant historical times also support these theories, they are harder to prove. I prefer much more reliable linguistic evidence which, if handled in a scientific manner, is very hard not to consider and indeed accept as a proof. This is why it is so hard to believe there is no appreciation among the leading linguists for this approach. For instance how is it possible that researchers fail to recognize the Greek word Eteocles to be in fact a "merged" word for which the constituent parts could be identified as Slavic and Greek words. Namely it is clear that the first part (eteo) can be interpreted in Slovene as well as Slavic in general, as "otec, oče" (father), and the second part (cles) which is common in all Slovene, Etruscan as well as Greek is interpreted as "kleti, prekleti, klicati" (course, swear, shout)! Indeed, one needs to be acquainted with ancient Greek literature and mythology in order to obtain the proof of true semantic connections between these parts and ancient reality, just as the toponomy can provide proof of relationships between the language and historical geography.

I have provided a number of outstanding examples from ancient Greece and Greek culture and language. Unfortunately I did not have time to translate those pages to English as of yet. You may have a sneak peak to those pages anyway by clicking either:
By now you may have learnt to appreciate that the older languages tend to gravitate towards a hierarchical, pyramid organization in both areas, namely in grammar as well as in their organization of the vocabulary. On the other hand, the younger a language, the more its organization tends to be flat. Of course this division along the so called flat and pyramid organizational lines is not always a sharp one. The antique Greek and Latin are very typical language representatives where this division is rather blurry, and we can find convincing evidence for numerous features belonging to either a pyramid or flat organizations. Such a mixed variety of features from either organization typically means that a language is rather young, i.e. the time since it started to evolve into a spoken language to the time in which the texts we are studying came to existence, a relatively short period of time has elapsed (Note, a thousand years for the age of a language is a short time.) Such languages, did not "live" long enough, to have the opportunity to cleanse itself sufficiently and mature. A good example of this is the Etruscan, which became extinct before its maturity. A rather similar is the situation with ancient Greek, in which we can find certain deficiencies, but its life span is much greater than that of the Etruscan language, which, unlike ancient Greek is a true time capsule. Before we learn how to efficiently distinguish between the two language organizations, let's see if we can find out a few things about the two side by side, with more focus on the flat structures.
A review of language structures with an emphasis
on the flat organization.
Regardless of what is the source of Romanic words in English language, (namely, I am astonished that English linguists actually claim, that over 10,000 French words made it into English language during the 11th century French occupation lasting not much more than a century and a half), we can find overwhelming evidence in English vocabulary that the English language emerged as a result of amalgamation of the antique Greek, Latin and other old European languages. Typically all modern languages with a flat structure have very large vocabulary in which words rarely have many "siblings" or derivatives from a common root, which on the other hand is quite common in languages with pyramid organization, in which words are clustered into "semantic trees" needless to say all derived from a common root.

When a language draws its words from more sources, like Greek, Latin, Germanic and others, as was the case during the evolution of English language, we can expect, that in the vocabulary of the new language there will be more independent and unrelated words for the same meaning, as well as, that all will be of a different root, being scattered all over the dictionary. Contrary, in the older languages the words are rarely duplicated for the same meanings, and since they form "semantic trees" words with similar meanings are usually found on the same page in dictionary. This is due to the fact that in prehistory language was a local characteristics (though in prehistory time and distances were incomprehensibly larger), rarely spreading beyond the borders of a homogeneous ethnic community. Hence, older languages were not subject to assimilation and did not themselves mix or assimilate other languages. On the other hand, also the vocabularies of modern but old languages with pyramid organization, like the Slavic languages, in comparison to the modern languages with flat organization, are noticeable smaller. The foreign words are easily identifiable, in Slovene language for instance they do not appear in the "Slovene-Slovene dictionary" (pravopis) but are gathered in, in size comparable, "Foreign-words dictionary", a concept, so far I have not seen in any other language.

Beside the fact that Slovenian grammar retained the most antique forms of all Slavic languages, which hardly matters here, but is nevertheless a part of the whole package, the fact that Slovenian linguists already for centuries maintain two different kinds of "vocabulary", is perhaps the reason that Slovenians have evolved over time extremely sensible for recognition of what is and what is not a true Slavic word.
The vocabularies in older languages were always less powerful than in their modern counterparts, however this lack of words in older organizations was easily compensated by their grammar. However, these modern but old languages with pyramid organization, are not handicapped because of their smaller vocabularies, they more than make up for the "word deficit" with a deeply structured grammar, which provides tools to augment meanings in ways a "west European language speaker" can not begin to imagine. Remember, in old languages, when the art of conversing was not on such a high level as is today, the highly structured grammar as well as the vocabularies' structure helped to boost the expressive power of any native speaker. Not to mention a number of less prominent grammatic tools, which allow to fine tune different shades and grades of word meanings, the best example of one such feature is declination, which is known to bewilder most westerners. When old languages emerged as a result of a natural evolution of human languages, vocabularies were small, and numerous "prefix" and "suffix rules" existed to help creating new words. Hence, these "pseudo grammatic operators" also are an identifier of an old language which tends to have a pyramid language organization. (A good example of languages that thrive around prefix and suffix rules are Sanskrit, Greek and Slavic languages).

Additionally, in prehistory deeply nested pyramid structures in a language protected the language from foreign influences and served as an identification mechanism making it hard to penetrate the community of native speakers. As such it resisted mixing and assimilation. It forced a foreign speaker to bend or break rather than the language. Foreign words could only be admitted by natives, who knew how to decline and manipulate them in accordance with existing language mechanisms. This kept language clean of foreign influences. The grammar became a second defence line and yet another obstacle for an intruder. (Not at all unfamiliar, albeit natural, concepts of protection to modern computer communications specialists.) A language is at first a local characteristics which spread and flourished locally which rarely effected neighbours (Though there are many examples of such influences, they are mostly modern in nature, like balkanization of Slavs). Moreover it forced a foreigner to assimilate. In modern newly evolving languages seemingly simpler flat organizations, no longer resist foreigners to quickly learn the new language. The defence and identification mechanisms became pronunciation, which does not prevent a foreigner to communicate, but marks them as foreigners almost indefinitely. This philosophy seems to have survived to this day and is as effective as ever in the flattest of all western languages, the English and a bit more complicated and a little less flat French language.

As we have just seen, Modern languages all are very much influenced by the modern i.e. flat language organization and behaviour. Local characteristics are lost. This happened very early in history, and is tightly related to expansion and growth of the hierarchically organized societies. It was always in the interest of the expansionists that the "concurred" quickly learnt the language of the conquerors. As we have seen so far this is reflected in the newly evolving language organizations. These trends are seen in simplification and flattening of the grammar and emergence of twisted pronunciation in Greek, where two or more ways to pronounce a single clear vowel evolved. Greek phonetics influenced most of the western languages but as usual the flattest and grammatically the simplest of them, namely English with the exception of a bit less simple but also very modern French, developed notoriously difficult "pronunciation systems" or perhaps we we should rather say "pronunciation chaos" instead.

Interestingly enough, we can discover such a "twisted pronunciation" already developed in Sanskrit, nevertheless, there it is elaborately defined in what is known as "The Sandhi" system. Indeed, the "Sandhi" is much more than just a pronunciation system, it represents rules for all possible sound transformation in Sanskrit and is far too complicate, to be used in newly evolving languages. It does show us though, where those people, who needed more sounds than there are letters for them, come from! On top of that I find one additional problem when studying Sanskrit, namely the fact, that most often this language is explained and taught by slightly phonetically impaired Englishmen or some other English speaking person, whereby pronunciation of any vowel that does not appear in an English syllable becomes almost an insurmountable problem for a "tutor" to describe, since there is no "Sandhi" system around to help them out.

All West European languages with a few exceptions have a typical flat language organization. The least flat of all is the structure of German language, however it is lagging far behind all those European languages that have true pyramid structure, most noticeable Slavic and Ugro-Finnish languages. Similarly, but less than in German, it is possible to find pyramid forms in Italian language. Interestingly, however, in Italian even more than in German language, the pronunciation of vowels is very clear just like in Slavic languages. On the opposite side of this "linguistic structure spectrum" we find English and French languages, with English at the far front. English also has the simplest grammar of all the languages we talk about here.

Above we have with the help of contemporary, and as far as I can tell, very rarely if ever used methodology, which allows us to manage complex systems, reviewed the two pivotal and in a very important way different structures or organizations of human languages. With the help of this methodology we are able to determine certain characteristics of a language in question, which allow us to see different phases or history of that language development, projection of which into true human history or the history of different cultures in which the language was spoken can then further reveal otherwise hidden features of the pertinent historical reality.

 

Orthogonality of language organizations.
(Linking organization of a society with its language organization)

Let's not forget that this article is as much about the history as is about the linguistics. We can use language to discover things in history that other means failed to detect or properly convey. For instance, we only had hints that Veneti lived in a society of equals where material wealth and political or religious powers did not matter, and indeed, did not exist. However, there is a way to confirm these hints in a very reliable way, with the help of modern science, whereby the language and linguistics enter the scene in a big way. But we do need to explain how this works, and in the next paragraphs we will do just that, and by the end we will be firmly back in history exploring how the ancient social structure of Veneti was different from the structure of then newly emerging Etruscan, Greek and Roman societies.

We have seen, that with the help of linguistics we can determine the kind of environments in which the language was evolving, however, subsequently that caused the social environment to flourish in a new way. This mutual co-dependence is seen in both paradigms, in a societal or cultural, the representative of which is history, and in the paradigm of human language for which the linguistic is our medium or subject of research. Hence, we can see a relationship exists between linguistics and history. All this seems like an introduction of an additional layer of complexity. In fact as we will see, this interdisciplinary relationship can benefit research in both areas. In science the evolution of the methodologies that help us manage complex systems first caused the emergence of information revolution, however, these methodologies can be applied to any kind of human activity, and our example of its use in linguistics and in history demonstrates just that. The consequences of application of this methodology are unbelievable new discoveries and progress we make in our field of research, which before we attempted to utilize the new methodologies seemed to have been prevented by an invisible barrier. For instance based on language organization, with the help the relationship we have just pointed out, it is possible to anticipate what how the society that spoke the language was organized.

Some of you may very well be very sceptical of what may seem to be overzealous and perhaps even unfounded praising of something you have no way of verifying. Let me reassure you all this is not my invention, and could indeed be verified. The methodology, has been used very successfully in IT to manage even multiple parallel systems, and is known to be a relative of what is in mathematics known as "The Mathematical Theory Of Chaos". The two were developed independently of each other almost simultaneously in two independent scientific disciplines in the 60s and 70s in the previous century, and use even similar terminology for features they manage such as concurrency, persistence, hierarchies, inheritance relationships, encapsulations and abstractions which are in both disciplines orthogonal in nature, ...
It is very interesting to discover the analogy between certain organizations this new methodology is defining and using, and the organizations and the relationships within their constituent parts in in languages. In particular, with the help of the theory of the evolution of languages, we can discover the same structures and organizations at work which manifest identical characteristics and behaviour, In languages these structures developed naturally, either in pyramid or flat form occurring in an iterative altering fashion, whereby the so called "geriatric pyramid structure" is followed with a more modern "flat organization". However, the very same manifestation of characteristics and the behaviour of the flat and pyramid organizations, as described above for the languages can also be found in the evolution of societies. And as already hinted above these characteristics and behaviours in either system are somehow related. It is not possible to stress enough, how important it is to realize that these two organizations compete between each other and that they are philosophically different in fact diametrically opposite in absolutely all respects. This feature is such a prominent one that it has its special name for it, namely the orthogonality!   It should be noted though, that in nature this is a never-ending cycle in which according to the so called principle of orthogonality every time transitioning of one organization into the other is completed, the roles are reversed and the cycle repeats in the opposite direction.
As this cycle in nature is never-ending, the term "geriatric" is suitable for any organization being phased out, however in linguistics we are at the point where, under the forces of globalism, all languages are about to be amalgamated into a single one, hence the current winning language organization seems to have certain finality attached to it. To better understand this principles let us look at another rather obvious and also very contemporary example:
In the world of the Internet, where anyone who holds a grudge against the academic credibility, can use this apparently democratic media to expose their perspective, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish what is and what is not credible. No more are there only two sides fighting for an argument. Beside the traditional opponents, on the "yes" and "no" sides respectively, each waiving the banner of "truth", there always appears to be present equally motivated and enthusiastic contender whose intention is not to make it clear which side of the argument is true or false but rather intentionally misinform and confuse.

The likelihood that such misinformation appears twice, once on the "yes" side, and then also on the "no" side, is additionally destroying our perception of the traditional balance and equal opportunity for all sides in the dispute. What used to be "50-50" chances, now become "25-75 or 75-25". This in fact is nothing new, it only very clearly points out to the fact that the unit weight of the argument on the side of "truth and quality", is apparently greater than the unit weight on the side of the falsehood and quantity. As it happens, between these properties also exists the so called orthogonality relationship, which we encountered a few moments earlier in the paragraph above, which means that at the time when one organization is transitioned into its orthogonal counterpart when the polarities exchange their sides, (or as some prefer to say, they change their sign or charge), the quality changes into quantity and v.v., and the truth becomes a untruth and v.v., indeed.

Though, the classifications and particularly the grouping of some of the properties just mentioned may be philosophically in conflict with certain points of views, it can hardly be argued against the propositions tying together into similar categories the terms such as {quality, hierarchy and truth, righteousness, goodness} and into an opposing, i.e. orthogonal, categories the terms {quantity, flatness and falsehood}.

We have already, albeit with no fuss whatsoever, alluded to these competing and opposing trends, called orthogonality, which manifest themselves between the two organizations in a form of constant tension, when we mentioned, that for the "pyramid structure" we sometimes use a phrase "a top down approach, whereas for the "flat structure" we can use the phrase "bottom up approach/design".
Also, when talking about "bottom up" or "top down" "approach (design)", the word design suggests the "analysis" and "synthesis", where during the "analysis" phase we brake the system down into smaller pieces and identify or categorize them (i.e. "taxonomy"), and during the "synthesis" phase we assemble the system anew.
In light of this, we can appreciate that these methods during our research provide a path to new discoveries, whereby new categories of all kinds of events and items appear, all of which are in some way related to the people or the society in which the language was spoken. On the one side we discover strictly linguistic aspects, and the social or cultural on the other, the latter translates or maps into historical facts. One of the more interesting discoveries from the perspective of the evolution of a society, where a language we are analyzing was spoken is particularly the mechanical relationship of a language organization to the society or to a population that speaks a language. Namely, a language with the "geriatric pyramid structure" which linguistically or organizationally are more demanding than the "newer, modern" or "flat" languages, however, in accordance to the principle of orthogonality, they are easier to master, than their "modern, flat" counterparts.
Reasons commoners among Veneti are more educated than Romans
  1. For foreigners it is much harder to learn an older (pyramid) language than it is to learn a modern (flat) language.
  2. Indigenous people have a much better command of a language with the older (pyramid) structure than, indigenous people whose language has flat (modern) organization, where only "high society" converses fluently and knows how to read. All Veneti were equal in status to each other!
  3. The older (pyramid) languages resist the changes far better and much more than, the languages with a flat (modern) organization.
An astute reader may have noticed, that "flat organization", regardless of where it is being utilized, demands from the user to remember the details by his/her own means, which on the other hand in the "pyramid structures" are inherently suggested by the shape of its design, namely the tree structure. This has a positive effect on a user of a structured system, namely, they need not employ additional mechanisms to memorize certain facts, not available in "flat organizations".

Equally important is the fact, that it is much easier to learn to speak a language with a flat organization then it is to master them. Again due to the principle of orthogonality we can predict, in the languages with the pyramid structure we will have an absolute mirror image. (Who does not believe let them check, but I can tell you, we did appreciate the hint where to look!)

Due to the orthogonality we can come to yet another conclusion, namely, that there will be opposing differences in the ways languages are used to protect and identify the communities in which a respective language is used. While the old (pyramid) language structures are resisting assimilation and arbitrary changes to the language, the newer, modern languages embrace foreign additions and "enrichments" to the language. The former are resisting the foreigners and demand unconditional assimilation of the foreigners, the latter embrace the foreigners, by making it easy to learn and start simple conversations, however, they markithe foreigners as such almost indefinitely, with the mechanics of pronunciation.

The changes that naturally occurred due to the newly evolving societies where foreign cultures and languages merged with the culture and the languages of the aborigines had far-reaching consequences! They mark a slow and mostly peaceful transition of monolithic society of equals where there were no "hierarchical social structures", also know as a "flat organization" (which is how Veneti society was organized), into a multi-layered "hierarchically structured" society which, as we now know, is classified as a "pyramid organization" (known to have been the organization either antique "Greek" and "Roman" societies). In the newly emerging modern, (pyramid) or hierarchically organized society, at the bottom we find the lowest "enslaved" populations, next the converted freedmen, and finally the ruling class, to mention just three of the most common layers, but of which many more were possible, for instance the casts, as were known to have existed in the extreme case in Indian "Brahmanism". What is important to notice at this point is, that while the social structures of both the antique Greek and Roman societies were strictly hierarchical pyramids they both developed languages with rather "flat" internal and "flat" vocabulary structures. Needless to say we have a totally opposite situation in the society they replaced, namely the cultures of Veneti or (Pelasgi).

As we can see at the beginning of the development of known European cultures, the principle of orthogonality can be seen in both the societal as well as linguistic domains, and what is even more fascinating, due to the undeniable and natural relationships between the two domains, the principle of "orthogonality" applies to them as a whole, namely, to their respective organizations. In other words we can say that the organization of a language used in a society is "orthogonal" to the organization or the structure of the society.

The mutual effects that the "orthogonality" has on a language and a society, speaking the language in question, binds into the same picture also the history, which undoubtedly, is a result or a bonus we got by embarking on this promising new "methodology" as a tool in our combined language and history research. However, any theory that remains only that is a rather useless proposition, which marks this moment as good as any, to actually start using this "amazing" tool in practise. I believe you've learnt enough to be able to check it out on your own. To this end I suggest you continue reading, because following the next paragraph introducing the issues related to "the toponomy", is an enlightening example of the analysis of two ancient Slavic or Venetic words, namely, "Luna (Moon), and month", which in the context of the above, you may find a truly helpful as well as interesting exercise.

 

M i s c e l l a n e o u s

Forced or Vigilante Toponomy

In the book The History of Rome [1.41], by ancient Roman historian Livy, where he explains the murder of Tarquin, plotted by the legitimate successors to the Roman throne, and sons of the late king Ancus Martius, Livy tells us that after the plot was uncovered the brothers found refuge in the city of "Suessa Pometia". If one looks up the name of this city on the Internet, the search engines return information like the following:

Suessa Pometia
  • Place: not identified, province Roma or Latina, region Lazio, Italy
  • Name: Pometia (Plin.) Suessa Pometia (Liv., Tac.)
  • Etymology: The name Suessa, that is found also in Suessula and Suessa in Campania, may be a recent addition to a pre-existing name Pometia. This is related to Latin "pomus" 'fruit tree', with a collective suffix "-et-".

Let me add here only the following:

Livy (59BC-17AD) in his work mentions this Etruscan city in quite a few places, however, I believe he was not aware what exactly it referred to, since he used different spellings for it - for instance in [1.41] and in [1.55] he spells it as "Suessa Pometia", and in [1.53] as "Pomptine Suessa". Unless Kassius Dio (AD155-229) used Livy as his source, which is possible but unlikely since in his writing we find additional information, he also confirms the location of Suessa Pometia to be in Etruria, near city of Volsci, or perhaps even the city of Volsci itself. "Pometia" sounds very much like general Slavic and indeed Slovene pomniti or Russian pomjat' which in either case means "to remember, a memory". On the other hand "Suessa" could be Slovene Suša, which we also find near Venetic territories in Asia Minor, as well as elsewhere, for instance in the north of Italy in the Alps west of the city of Torin.

Though a vast number of alternative explanations for "Suessa Pometia" are missing, (one of them is also related to another Etrusco-Latin word namely, "pomerium", which also has a very interesting Venetic or Slavic spin, and is also explained later on - in this article) I do not wish to discuss the sanity or correctness of the interpretation for our name (Suessa Pometia) here. The result of the Internet search eloquently does that. I only wish to draw your attention to the methods the so called "linguists" and, the etymologists "approved by the western scientists", use to provide their interpretations of the name. By the same methods any six grader in Slovenia could come up with a comparable if not better results. What we have here is an accidental search for sound-alikes, regardless off any semantic and geological or historic evidence or relationship to the resulting explanations.

These methods the pundits or established academics (traditionalists) use are not much different from the more than 3000 years old methods used by the Greeks who in their attempt to Hellenize every bush and stone they conquered, made up names, as if all the places always had some kind of Greek mythical past. You can see examples of this in the topics "Greek Toponyms". (Unfortunately, I have not had time yet to translate it in English, but you can have a sneak preview in the Slovene language, where I talk about a city on the north coast of Anatolia called: Komna.) In fact we are used to see the pundits employing such methods when objecting to a serious scientific arguments of our well known historian and etymologist dr. Jozko Savli as well as our linguist Matej Bor who they would like to discredit as if they also had used such baseless and groundless searches for sound-alikes.

A good example of such groundless and outright laughable example can be found in the book by Max Vasmer, a famous German scholar of Slavic studies, entitled "Die Slawen in Griechenland" (Slavs in Greece), published in 1941 by the Berlin Academy Of Science, where he deals with a large number of Slavic toponyms in Greece. He managed to embarrass himself with one particular explanation, namely, his interpretation of a whole range of toponyms containing the string of letters "vis, visna, visni" or in Slavic in general, and indeed in Slovene { vis, viš, visnji }. He translated this type of toponyms as deriving from the Slovene or south Slavic word "visnja, višnja", which in English means "mahaleb-cherry". In fact, "mahaleb-cherry" in Slovene is derived from the root "vis which indeed is a stem for the words { vis, viš, visina, višina, visoko } and means exclusively and literally "high, high place". In fact, one has to know that this is a very common Slavic and not as one may conclude, only a Slovene toponym (name), which is often combined also with word gora meaning "a mountain". For instance, in Slavic world allover Europe, toponyms "Visnja Gora (Višnja Gora)" are very common. We have a similar situation here with the interpretation of the name "Suessa Pometia", where these "western pseudo scientists" claim this word {{{ is related to Latin "pomus" 'fruit tree', with a collective suffix "-et-" }}}. Indeed, had we not discovered the true meaning still widely in use, there would be a slim but truly slim chance that theirs was a possible interpretation, especially if they provided a proof there used to be a famous antique orchard in the area... ?:)

There is no quarrel about checking out every possible circumstance, but there are far to many "scientists" who exclude all but their explanations without any proof, argument or reason. It is inconceivable that western "scientists" and "academics" are doing just that for more than a couple of centuries. Even when they can not escape the reality of Slavic presence in history, they try to delay and misplace it for over a millennial, and then to top it all up, they arrogantly interpret the language they barely understand as if it were some "West European" dialect of Germanic, Romanic, or Celtic languages. They spread their incompetency not only between the laymen, but also among the students i.e. their future fellow academics.

However, what we've just discussed in the domain of toponyms is also true for general linguistics, and interpretation of individual words in different languages. In this domain the linguists have invented an artificial form, which at their liberty they can apply to anything they like, mostly so it hides their lack of knowledge and understanding, but yet sounds credible and scientifically sound, and moreover does not jeopardize their, most of the time only on the ancient mythology built structure of European prehistory. Indeed, this conundrum is the famous prefix called "Indoeuropean".

As the matter of fact, we know that there are many words in any number of the European languages, for which exist perfect semantic explanations and for which many other parameters can be found, such as for example location and time coordinates, etc. I have uncovered an excellent example of this kind in the words which are since prehistory in Europe used for our Moon. In this case the semantics of this word and the related words, which we shall see shortly, hide a wealth of such linguistic and other etymological parameters as well as an incredibly accurate description of the pertinent natural phenomenon. I can not understand, that no-one, and I mean no-one, had ever published such a study in the joined linguistic and the historical context! Let's see:

Luna (Mesec) and month (mesec):
Mesec (Luna). Mesec (Luna).
The word "Moon" in Slovene language has two words, namely "Luna" and "Mesec". The origin of the word "Luna" can be traced to Latin, however the word "Mesec" is clearly of a general Slavic origin. At first, this may not seem to be worth bragging about, after all every language is supposed to have its own words for things that most of the time do not show any affiliation to any other known language. What catches our attention is the fact that in all Slavic languages the same word, namely, "mesec" (Moon) also means "a month". We can fully appreciate this fact only if we are aware, that it takes the "Moon" exactly one month to circle the Earth; which would sound in exact Slovene-to-English translation: (It takes the "Moon" exactly one "moon" to circle the Earth). But wait, this is not only a Slovene peculiarity, it is true for all Slavic languages, except for Russian, who believe they had lost one of the two meanings for the word "mesjac", namely, they only have a single word "Luna" for the Moon, but have obviously kept the same word (mesjac) to mean a month. However this is only a half of the truth, since even a Russian will, after we analyze this word, have to admit, they know the word means the Moon.

It should be noted here, that Russian language of all the Slavic languages became the most polluted, with the influences from the West European languages, which resulted as a side-effect of the popular intermarriages between the Russian nobility and West European nobility. Nevertheless, Russian language also retained many old archaic word forms of the so called old Slavic or Venetic languages, which undoubtedly collaborate one of the list know "linguistic secrets" beyond the Slovenian academic world, namely, the fact that Slovene language beside Basque retained not only the most archaic grammatic forms of all Slavic but also other European languages.

When trying to establish the semantic values for the foregoing words in any Slavic environment, one can realize that the meaning of the word "Luna", can not be determined without the help of either some Romanic or, indeed, English language. For the word "mesec" we only need to refer to other Slavic variations for it. I have obtained help from the Russian variation mesjac (месяц), which as any Russian dictionary will tell us only stands for "a month", and as I have already mentioned not for the "Moon". To a non-Slavic reader this case would be closed. However, we can clearly see that this word is derived from the root "sij" with universal Slavic meaning "the shine, brightness, to shine" and the immediate Slavic derivatives "sij, sijati" with identical meaning as the one mentioned for the root "sij". The biggest difference in the word form for the meaning "Moon" comes from Polish language, namely, "ksiezyc". However, in a way this is a blessing in disguise, since the Polish variant is closely related to the same "all Slavic" root and the meaning discussed above. Again to a non-Slavic reader this relationship may not be immediately obvious, and you may try your luck to find out how can we Slavs understand, or if we so chose, do not understand each other!? Nevertheless, this Polish variant is only an additional proof, that the Russian word mesjac (месяц), indeed means also the "Moon".

The confirmation that this Slavic word is indeed affiliated with an ancient "word form" as well as its semantic value for, what is in English called, a "moon" or indeed, the "Moon", comes from both Sanskrit and Greek. In Greek, for example the word Selene (Σεληνη) is obviously related to the same ancient word as are the Venetic, Hittite, and Etruscan words: { sijati, si-ya-an-ti, sius }. However, there is a slight problem, namely, in all Slavic variants of the word "mesijac", or in the Slovenian "mesec", we see an unexplainable prefix "me-". Oddly enough, it, namely the problematic prefix "me-", is again a blessing in disguise. We can not begin to explain how much more it will reveal to us. To explain its purpose and origin, however, we need to look closely into the ancient Greek. But before we do that, let's look at the table, where you will find these words as they appear in some of the most typical representatives of the languages that European "scientists", and shockingly also the linguists, erroneously call Indoeuropean languages:

Luna - Mesec (Moon) / mesec (month)
-Luna - Mesec (Moon) mesec (month)
Slovene Mesec, Luna mesec
Slovak Mesiac mesiac
Czech Měsíc (mesic) měsíc (mesic)
Russian Luna (луна) mesjac (месяц)
Polish Ksiezyc miesiac
Sanskrit akSINa, akSi,
AmAvAsyavidha,
abhyudgata
abhinanda
Greek Selene, mene ( Σεληνη, μηνη ) menos, men ( μηνος, μην )
Latin Luna mensis
French Lune mois
German Mond Monat
English Moon month

In most of the languages we can see that the semantics for the words which designate the celestial object Moon, are related to the meanings "shine, to shine, light", or "illuminate". There are cases, mostly in the Germanic languages where this semantics has been forgotten. It is fair to say that we all in the past, for the Moon had a word for which the meaning was related to some kind of light.

We can say that a slight semantic disconnect for the bright object on the night sky, which is more obvious for the western (flat) languages than for their highly structured Slavic counterparts, is very much in accord with the theory of language organizations, where the words that come from different languages lose their old semantic structures. In all Slavic languages we have discovered that this semantics remained in tact, even in Russian, where the hand of overzealous linguists erased a perfect Slavic word "mesjac" (месяц) from Russian vocabulary and in the name of a more "sophisticated western culture" officially replaced it with a more western sounding "Luna". But as we have seen, the puzzling prefix "me-" stands in the way of the word "mesijac" to be rightfully declared a perfect Slavic word. However, as we will see, the good old antique Greek will provide a very satisfactory answer.

The word for a month in ancient Greek is called menos, men ( μηνος, μην ). In a Greek dictionary, however, we find that this word, namely, "men, mene, menos" also designates both, the "celestial object" and a "time measurement unit" - the "new moon" and a "month" respectively. But there is another thing, that in Greek language was lost, but remained intact in Venetic and indeed in our Slovene language. Clearly the Greek word "men, mene, menos" stands for another very obvious characteristic of the "Moon", namely, its changing nature or so called "moon phases". In Slovene we call this natural phenomenon "mene" or "lunine mene"! This, however is a generic Slavic, hence also Venetic term, which means "the change, to change, changing" (mena, [plural:mene], menjati, menjava, zamenjatva,...). Those of you who remember the discussion about the language organizations, will have no trouble noticing that, in the process of assimilating Venetic (Pelasgian) language, indeed, the "semantic pyramid structure" in the ancient Greek got "flattened". It is no coincidence we have a very similar situation also in Latin, where we find that the word for a "month" Latin "mensis", must have also, directly or indirectly via Greek, originated from Venetic, or as some prefer to call it a "Pelasgian", language. Typical for either non-Slavic language, however, is that neither maintained the original semantic structure, from which it should be obvious that the semantic value of the word "month" in either ancient Greek or Latin actually identifies the most obvious characteristic of the "Moon" - "the moon phases", and the fact that it takes the "Moon" exactly a "month" (menos, mensis) to circle the Earth.

Obviously, in Europe with the exception of a less obvious Greek variation of the original Venetic word "mene", only in Slavic languages we can undeniably see the relationships for all the semantics of the very important natural phenomenon, by which we humans first learnt how to measure time, more accurately than with years or seasons of a year. This semantics is hidden away in the words describing our celestial neighbour - the "Moon" as an object as well as its behaviour which defines time, all of which is hidden away in our languages, and which so impeccably and very accurately defines the oldest clock we ever had, and which hereby gave name to one of the most important time measuring units, namely the "month". The semantics, associated with the "Moon" slowly faded away, after people started to measure time with more elaborate calenders, and devices such as clocks and units like hours, minutes, weeks, etc., pushed away the importance of the fact that it takes the "Moon" exactly one "month" to circle the Earth. Naturally, people forgot about this obviously unimportant astronomical detail, however, the languages as a recording mechanisms of human activities, which in the past were not spoken by a greedy expansionist societies, did not.

Evidently, with the help of the new methodology, which reflects the iterating behaviour of everlasting alteration between orthogonal systems in nature, and which also applies to the cooperating systems of languages and cultures seen in a context of history, we are able to obtain projections from the times in human history, when "the concept of time" was only defined by certain celestial events, but didn't have yet a true meaning or purpose in the everyday life of ordinary people. It is encouraging to know that employing these methodologies we were able to reconstruct the earliest words and their complex meaning for equally complex natural phenomenon that nature packed into a single bright object on the sky, in our language described as the "altering light" which is a literal translation of our Slavic word for the "Moon" or as we call it "menjajoča-luč", "menesijec", "mesijac", or as we Slovenes simplified it even further: "mesec". And, oops, did you already forget - the same word also stands for the number of days it takes the "Moon" to circle the Earth, namely the "month".

This analysis of the words Luna, Mesec and mesec must reveal to the well known "competent" Western linguists, historians and their followers something even more shocking, namely, the fact that Venetic and Slavic languages, indeed, are very much related, but the most shocking of all must be the realization, that they are older than ancient Greek, Latin and even Sanskrit. Naturally, we can assume the same for Etruscan language, which actually died before it was completely formed, or matured. Nonetheless, it is important to remember here, that also in these antique non-Venetic and non-Slavic languages exist prehistoric elements, which had during the assimilating period deformed beyond recognition, just like their constituent Venetic or as some prefer to call it Pelasgian parts. In our discussion above we can point to one such piece of evidence, namely, the Latin name "Luna" which derives from a prehistoric word lumen, luminis which we may believe is from a prehistoric Italic - proto-Latin language. Regardless, of this, all we have said so far clearly supports the idea that both ancient Greek and Latin are, indeed, modern, young languages. For those of you, who have sufficiently acquainted yourselves with the topics about the "Structure of languages" at the very beginning of this article, the recent discussion about "Luna (Mesec) and month (mesec)" is not rally something unexpected, but perhaps just a confirmation, that the theory of the "Structure of languages" and the principle of "orthogonality" may be working as advertised.

This, however, nicely rounds up the topics called "Forced or Vigilante Toponomy", though following this summary you will find a few additional scattered paragraphs about individual words and toponyms, that reveal more of the same, namely the fact that these subjects among most of the European linguists and etymologists reveal the symptoms of the same ills and misfortunes discovered in the above analysis of the words associated with our Moon. They very well define the sickness of European linguistics which prevents unbiased linguistic research, that would finally revile the whole picture of European linguistic space rather than a shadow of a fictive structure built on Greek and Roman languages that hide the true face behind pure academic construct called Indoeuropean theory that masquerades as some "common predecessor" of a selected few who qualify by the whims of those at the helm of the "reputable academic" society.

 


S o r r y
Still under construction!

 

pomerium
(There's no ground for the sugested etymology of latin word pomerium)

"pomerium" je lep primer latinske besede, ki ji zahodni "strokovnjaki" jezikoslovci že tisočletje in več iščejo "zahodno" etimologijo. Zgleda, da so se spustili kar tako daleč, da so potvorili celo Livy-jevo delo. V prevodu in morda tudi v originalu knjige 1.44 lahko namreč najdemo zapis, ki zgleda kot bi bil Livy-jev, čeprav močno dvomim, da je Livy poznal besedo "e-t-i-m-o-l-o-g-i-j-a"!? Ali je mogoče, da se je našel nekdo, ki si je Livy-ja drznil tako svobodno prevajati, da je videti, kot bi Livy sam poznal vsebino etruščanskih pogodb ali pa napisov, v katerih etruskologi tolmačijo pomene stavkov, ki govorijo o mejah določenih z obzidji, ograjami vrtov in na sploh zemeljskimi razmejitvami, natanko tako kot naj bi jih opisal Livy iz "etruščanskih virov"?

  1. Lat: pomerium: "mestno obzidje"; pomerium <= morišče, pomoriti;
    SrHr: pomeriti = premakniti obzidje (povečati mesto)
    Lat: paries: "hišni zid""hišni zid";
    PONEVERBA?[lvy-1.44]: glej: etymology **** (a to je napisal Livy???) ****
  2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomerium]:The pomerium (or pomoerium), from post + moerium>murum (wall), was the sacred boundary of the city of Rome. In legal terms, Rome existed only within the pomerium; everything beyond it was simply land belonging to Rome.
  3. [lvy-1.44]: Looking only to the etymology **** (a to je napisal Livy???) **** of the word, they explain "pomoerium" as "postmoerium"; but it is rather a "circamoerium." For the space which the Etruscans of old, when founding their cities, consecrated in accordance with auguries and marked off by boundary stones at intervals on each side, as the part where the wall was to be carried, was to be kept vacant so that no buildings might connect with the wall on the inside (whilst now they generally touch), and on the outside some ground might remain virgin soil untouched by cultivation. This space, which it was forbidden either to build upon or to plough, and which could not be said to be behind the wall any more than the wall could be said to be behind it, the Romans called the "pomoerium." As the City grew, these sacred boundary stones were always moved forward as far as the walls were advanced.

 

veverica

 

Beseda klicati ( Etr: titi, cles, clet, cleO, / Gr: kaleo )

Beseda klicati kaže zelo pestro zgodovino, ker je pomensko lahko uporabljena tako v navadnem vsakodnevnem govoru, kot tudi v posebnih svečanih situacijah, ki so v davni preteklosti imele čudovit, magični in celo religiozni pomen. Seveda se je religiozni ali spiritualni pomen razvil že zelo zgodaj v času nastajanja jezika, ker je takrat, ko se je razcvetel razvoj govora in jezika, človekova mentalna predstava sveta slonela na v mistiko zavitih naravnih silah in so ljudje bolj kot danes za vse svoje delovanje iskali pomoč tako v naravnem kot nadnaravnem svetu, s katerim so komunicirali v obrednem jeziku, ki ni bil vedno uporaben ali pa razumljiv. O tem se nam zapustili največ dokazov prav Veneti in Etruščani. Jezik slednjih se je namreč ohranil večinoma le na področju iracionalnega, ali v mistiko zavitega spiritualnega sveta, o čemer se bomo prepričali pri študiju njihovega jezika. Kot sem že nakazal tudi v besedi klicati lahko odkrijemo to dvojnost racionalne in mistične ali imaginarne ter spiritualnemu svetu bližje uporabe, kjer klicanje bogovom, duhovom in onstranstvu dobi posebno vrednost in svečan ali bolje sveti pomen. Pri Hetitih odkrijemo, da so v svojih pogodbah med "velikim hetitskim kraljem" in "vazalskimi kralji" (vassal, vezal) vedno naštevali vse bogove obeh strani pogodbe. Torej v besedi klicati v obrednem ali predantičnem spiritualnem smislu lahko vidimo tudi pomene prisegati, zaklinjati, kleti, kot seveda tudi "klicati bogovom, duhovom, dušam".

Etruščansko: titi, cles, clet, cleO
Grrško: kaleo; Ime Diocletian je izvajano iz: [díos kletos ("sky-called")]; omnumi=kleti, zaklinjati
Latinsko: voco , appello, nomino, clamor (shout), vox (zvok, glas - sound of the voice), salutatio, (iuro=prisegati; execror=kleti)
Slovensko: klicati, dreti se, (kleti, zaklinjati)
Angleško: call, shout, (chant, swear)
Nemško:Ruf
The full name Diocletian is derived from the Greek díos kletos ("sky-called").

Etruscan Slovene English Etruscologists
clet zaklet, preklet; zaklan, uničen; Bor:cleva=klical (aorist od clevat) [t=s,S,O=(th)] - cles, cleS, cleO;
gr:[caleO=klicati]; Ime Diocletian je izvajano iz: [díos kletos ("sky-called")]
-- glejTudi:cles, clen; cluetie; municlet, municlat, municleO, munisuleO, munisvleO
you are cursed; you are enchanted - chant, spell is upon you n/a

 

Beseda Sebasto (basilica) ... Sevastopol, Vasilij

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastos
wwwZg/Bizanc/jezik-Sebastos
Vasilius
Basileus (Βασιλεύς) — the Greek word for "sovereign" which originally referred to any king in the Greek-speaking areas of the Roman Empire.
Rimski ekvivalent: augustus

 

Haemus Mons ... Balkansko Gorovje
(Balkan Mountains)

In earlier times the Balkan mountains were known as the Haemus Mons. It is believed that the name is derived from a Thracian word *saimon, 'mountain ridge', which is unattested but conjectured as the original Thracian form of Greek Haimos.

Haemus ... kamen || Thracian word *saimon ???

 

Venetski / slovanski izvor končnic -ar, -er

Končnica: -ir, -er, -ar

-mir ----> -ir, -er, -ar
Chlodomer, also spelled Clodomir or Clodomer (born c. 495) was the second of the four sons of Clovis I, King of the Franks.

 


 

Main Menu ; (Home)       Main Menu (Home)

 


Document:
©2005, 2007 Igor H. Pirnovar
URL:
Last Updated: