My theory for language of ancient Asia (ideas)

I have created this new blog site: infyinfo.wordpress and this will work as a buffer to my main site: webmohan.wordpress.com, so I can post here my latest updates instead of twitter or facebook.

Hypothesis: one base langauge was created and every multiletter word was first formulated, by varying the word between various sentences, then these words were taken and cut-off into single-letter words, the various regions had a choice which letter to take. Or the same 1-letter was chosen everywhere but with usage over long period formed various words of present times.

Edited: 19-10-2012; Apply the above to a time 1500 years ago and regions spread across Asia. The same Kings ruling over vast patches of regions in different countries of present. Its not necessary that Kings from present day India went and started ruling over countries elsewhere. Like its told to us “Kings from India went as far as Laos and Viet and Cambodia and established Hindu rules“. This is actually an illusive historical propaganda. Simply one can look at it like a King ruling over various detached regions. But a King does not necessarily move everywhere every month. Since the system was autocracy a King’s name-sake and rights are used in these various places. So its not necessary that a King goes from India and dominates everywhere. If that happens then the reverse happens too. A King comes from Cambodia and rules in India. Back then countries did not exist like they exist today. Back then Kings existed. Religions existed the way they existed back then. It does not satisfy our nationalistic illusions. Such illusions/myths are spread for two reasons and they are both results of present without any connection to past. [Whats the evidence/logic that the contrary is not true?] 1. It runs the machines of modernity: movies, media, capitalism., one produces them the other buys them so its commerce 2. It assuages the nationalistic/cultural fervor of a vast deal of population who do not subscribe to logic for various reasons, but the easiest of them being they do not know howto formulate a question, they know the negation. Again this is commerce.

Edited: 19-10-2012; So the language and culture that we say were translocated from one region to another isn’t true. They just existed in these various places much like Microsoft exists and is used in various countries. It started somewhere but the form in which it exists today wasn’t the form when it started. Now to claim Microsoft is American is an illusive claim. Its international. In that sense the Hinduism and the Gods and languages they are all universal to the extent of their presence in the scope of the contemporary internationalism. Its illusive to claim Hinduism and Indian languages as being Indian in the sense of present. We contributed to Laos and Laos contributed to us.

Edited: 19-10-2012; note: apart from the few words I already mentioned in some recent articles and/or elsewhere such as facebook which I might not have transported here, many chinese words have a cognate-part in Indian languages, eg leg, hand, face, body/region/place etc .. Also note: after this article was written much language research has been accomplished on this website and their results evidence how much mixed is any language from all other languages of present times let alone Indian languages. Also many non-native Indian words are claimed to be sanscrit words much like many English words are Chinese words. Its because science of language was neither studied nor applied well enough previously. But cliams do not take many dimes. So Romanization is one of the reasons of mixing of languages. In other words due to Romanization what we claim to be sanscrit is actually native English/Spanish/Slovak/Chinese/Japanese etc words and we fail to see such. When we fail there is a smart perspon sitting somewhere who is willing to steal. There are also perhaps organizational efforts to hide such acts of uplifting. But this can be reverse studied.

Example: hair is, faa, baa(l) [chinese: faa, Indian: baa(l), additional “l” is just a sound inheritance.

Also one interesting thing is chinese: fu, Indian: Pu [male], it is wrongly in the Indian scenario, maintained that male is: purusa, it’s a tri-syllable or bisyllable with further modifications causing it a tri-syllable. The original seems to be only 1-syllable like it’s in chinese. Note that there are other words in chinese/japanese that have interesting connections. In Chinese and Japanese also they have bi-tri syllables but evidently that formed from mono-syllables. The Pu-ru-sa/sha in Indian the present day multi-syllable merely represents the mono-syllable with additional modification. eg Pu=male, ru=rupa=form, sa=sha=body. It is relevant to point out here that sha may have come from ansha/anga it self to mean body. SO Purusha may have come from “PuRuAnSha itself meaning: male-form-body or male-form-factor. (Interestingly I do not find the fu=male in chinese translation on google-transLAT today which I found yesterday but I take this risk since I haven’t been under alcohol since many months)

Please read other language articles for more information.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.