The approach to unify Language.

The thought of Sun theory of language is “äny word is an alphabet.” Therefore there are infinite number of languages and infinite number of rules of language and infinite number of alphabet. Therefore humanity has only learned to produce new alphabets, and a word is the way to do it. If I say damn, it says: d, a, m, n is an alphabet. alphabet; literal meaning is miniaturization. {therefore quantization} because alpha means less/ap/ab {ap as in apapsis, alpa as in Indianic: alpayu} and bat/bet is adjective-suffix of alpa. {as English: LY in nicely}

A few paragraphs are too long. I need to review again to sparse them better. I have sparsed a few paragraphs already and added two more in quoted texts, shown as hanging text, so its gonna be a really long article, I advise you to refrain from continuing any further, here, if you do not consume anything  longer than a particular size.

If you have been reading or trying to grasp the various different aspects of my language analysis over the past couple years, mostly over my website here or on social network of Face Book, which are many times plain analytical and given to precedence of the logical discourses made by me on prior occasions hence cutting grass right away without much fanfare, or recapitulation hence might sound terse at times but for those who kept a good student’s eye or a good Hawk’s eye that would not constitute any problem. So all in all many people do understand my language analysis, if not all, I would safely presume. As much as I wished I could write all details and methods of all the analytical remarks I made, I haven’t been able to for various reasons.

One astounding blockade was the failure of my indigenous modem router ISP system.  I call it indigenous since it was under my privilege.  Therefore take a hint and define whats indigenous for you. A technology that you buy becomes indigenous and then a myth can be created as to who owns the privilege. Then that person or group can own the privilege and the credit that indigenous methods and technology were developed by such and such. In short I would call it industrial mal-practice.

But now that I have been able to install a modem which I fear might get undue electric coverage due to cyclonic and rainy conditions and have a nice computer if not too much space in my home based office, I might be able to get back to pending work and also pursue my own interests of language, Physics and mathematics research. There are  many other blockades but lets not talk about them as of now.

So here is a kind of summary of what valuable methods I have learned from my language analysis. I am tempted for very obvious reasons that such a scheme or rather finding may be called as Sun Theory of Language. And mind it there are no other theories of language. All other approaches will become eventually a sun theory, if you match them conceptually. One of the reasons and perhaps the only reason would be all philosophies and cultural thoughts have been created from such underlying facts and observations as are directly or indirectly related to sun, over all millenia humanity has seen. Its sun which has been believed to be driving almost all phenomena we see around us. Scientific information notwithstanding such a scheme can be a storehouse of what humanity has learned and what of it shall be unlearned so that scientific information can only refine what we shall know further.

eg I have given an example of how Hanuman is believed to be moving faster than speed-of-light was philosophically fine since Hanumana was formulated to be Sun or Sun’s form. but so are all Gods, Lords, Kings, People, animate and inanimate objects and processes that humanity has ever known. But since we grow our base today from what we have grown ever until yesterday there are merely more dependent or interwoven connections than would be if you look at everything from a purely unification view. If details are not carried out unification might become a mantra or a religious ritual than a powerful scientific  tool. This tool therefore must always be refined. But perhaps this is the first time such a realization has occurred in a very refreshing way. I have been getting more and more insights, so much so that I need to streamline or take the torment of infinity or is it unfinity? Also its a grand effort hence only consistent and focused efforts can bring more readily useful knowledge in language theory.

So why sun’s form has to be moving at the speed of light? There is a degeneracy here. One: sun moves at 365 days a rotation. Relativism: heliocentric view says only earth moves around sun in a 365 day period not the other way round. Thats what I said above: whats learned has to be unlearned so that scientific information can refine it further. But for philosophy and on which is based the construct called language its fine to realize a concept such as sun moves for 365 days to complete a rotation. One must remember this precinct and not violate science, then conceptually there is no trouble. two: Sunlight thats emanated from Sun travels at speed-of-light.

Hence Hanuman a form of sun must travel at that speed. But thats before scientific info for speed-of-light wasn’t available. When its available there is no need one would think, to redefine the concept. But from a language theory point of view, to understand the concepts on which several milenia age-old languages are based and formulated technically, if not realized explicitly as of now, one must again redefine the concept, or remember the scientific concept can’t be violated, only a philosophical concept was formulated when there was no scientific info available about a process. Everything we now have must be redefined and refined properly and this is the scientific goal of humanity as well as the responsibility of society. Society can’t allow spurious concepts or impressions to be imparted to its members. Its detrimental to everyone as a whole.  Its a bit far more difficult to redefine eg Hanuman to be not Sun, it would cater to infinity’s supremacy hence we would fail in that purpose. But to refine the concepts is what we are really good at. We no longer pay bribe to someone who is in jail. Because there is no fear of consequences of not bribing. Its a refinement. This is also called correction. We must correct what we know not correctly. 

Hanuman is philosophically therefore a form of sun. Hanuman is therefore Rohit and Lohit and from there Light. These are then evidence of language theory, because it instantly due to usage of language gives R/N. Thats a very subtle point of all languages.  Then you shall write R and N together and in all possibilities. eg RNohit and NRohit. You shall see that O or hito not withstanding RN can give rise to all of language {Sun theory, unification etc}. But for auxiliary purpose only RN can be supposed to be present in occurrences of many words which then split. eg RNohit was one of the original words that split into both usage, Rohit and Lohit. One can also do further analysis to see what words R and N form together or what R and N may stand for , from a Sun-philosophy point of view. You will see that Ray and No etc are valid and effective tool. SO you can say RayNo is a result of sun-philosophy. Lohit automatically evidences RayNo. RayNo is then Ray+No. That represents Light=Day and No = No light = night etc. You have to gradually do such deeper detail seeking and you will get more knowledge than is available to you from your history or mythology texts. You will then see that Hanuman Philosophy is present in all major civilizations. Its because its worldly philosophy that existed. ***

* Note for above paragraph. I said R/N. But I gave example of R/L. That was a typo that led to an unmatching analogy/analysis. I should have said R/L and do the consequential analysis. Then R would give Ray and L would give Light. OR RL would give RuLe, DeLi etc. {and therefore Delhi, Raleigh etc} !! But then we have Lohit {a valid Indianic name, also used for color, color-red and so on} and NOT Nohit. So N had to take another path, but not imminent here. What we could though realize; R/N, M/N, L/M, L/N are valid alternations. Hence we would get R/L=M/L = N/R {therefore R/N}. SO having M/L would mean Mohit and Lohit. These are both valid usable names in Indianic, apart from Rohit. So due to M/N Mohit is good enough to substitute Nohit. Or you can understand it as Nohit = Not/Night. 

** Also another point that I can add to the end of this article or as well say here, a point or approach of language or a properties of alphabets is this. There are infinite number of alphabets in any language. We are taught a convenient little part of it and all our life we believe in the veracity and efficacy of such, unmindful of the scientific basis that like these little 40, 26 or 46 or 56 alphabets there are in a mathematical space literally infinite number of alphabet renderings, in other words we need to know infinite number of rules for us to properly understand even what we call OUR OWN LANGUAGE. So what the ancient people did when they had only say 10 alphabet elements is some of them were seen to be found together. lets say c and p. {Not English or Roman but the underlying information association of these letters with any hypothetical language say Greek or Trick. } Then there is a prejudice in the language. Since c and p occur together they will often alternate and people in ancient times learned to put them together other wise they will be lost. So the practice of forming words with doubling of letters. Since doubling or adding can occur in many ways to form words, eg after flipping one part, and sometimes arbitrarily without any formal thinking, this preserves the words from getting wrongly understood and so on. But then one notes that when the size of the alphabet grows and that reflect the size of a language grows, any two letters are to be found together, in the abstract mathematical space, even if a 46 or 26 lettered alphabet shows s to be with t, or l to be with m and n. In other words the English/Roman alphabet is a modern knowledge base that says its understood that s and t are valid alternations, since they are so close together, which is how one must read stone = sone+tone {sonic=tone} and som = ton {sun and any rendering of ton are same, also nose = not=nost=nasa etc}, any two letters are to be found together, hence they are alternations of each other. An astounding finding of the underlying unified structure of language theory is therefore x is an alternation of m, t is an alternation of z, and any of the 26 letters, and so on. Hence XM = MX = xama theory. Or M-theory of language or X-theory.  If any two letters can alternate then they form an alphabet in an infinite way rather than a 26 lettered alphabet way. Also check this point of all letters alternating into each other as the method that allows changing any consonant into any other or any vowel into any other , described at the end of the article. 

*** “continued from above before quoted paragraphs” Here Hanu comes from H+N where again if H represents one possibility then N represents its contrasting possibility. eg H can give you Night, then N must give you day in some sense or other. Thats how all words have to be analyzed. Here one must add everything one knows from all languages. eg Hai is Yes in Japanese and Nai is No in Japanese. There is more detail here, and from your extended analysis you will see that H represents Sun {as are all letters and phonetics} H is Helio. One can also alternate the phonetics and read that H/P/B/Y etc are immediate alternations. Hence  Pine is a cognate of Hine, since i and e etc can alternate eg e goes to a which goes to o and a can go to u, you have easily, pine >> hanu/hinu/inu {and even saru}. Japanese culture eg its temples are modeled like Pine trees facing towards Sun. Its the same philosophy, that today people are calling Hindu philosophy. But there is nothing called Hindu Philosophy as is there is nothing called Buddhist Philosophy. These are merely convenient namesake for what Humanity has gathered over its existence. This is the reason why Manji is called a Budhist symbol and swastika a Hindu symbol, but they merely both represent the same thing, 4 sides, which therefore is a symbol for Sun. Manji and Swastika are complimentary, they fit into the same square which is sun. These are merely symbol of humanity rather than Budhist or Hindu. Cross is for the same reason is not Christianic, although conveniently taken to be. I will show you trishul symbol in Judaism and Hinduism as well as Chinese symbols.  These are merely conveniently taken to be so but are universal. You will also see Pine gave inu which is dog in Japanese. Hence it caters to the avatar philosophy. Dogs, humans, lions, fishes, tortoises, monkey they are all avatars of Sun. There are not 10, obviously but as many as there are, animate life forms. Its like speed-of-light, do we not need to refine our concepts?

More on Pine: P+inu {also P+one/une/ani etc} where one is evidently Sun. There is only 1 sun that drives us. ani is sun, as in anirudha where ani means: sun, fire, shadow {as in Japanese: in}, ain {as in Einstein} which means law/practice/guide/manual etc. Rudha means Radha, closed, door, hold, etc. Its for this reason niyam is fire as it is law/practice. Hence niyam easily gives nian {Odia for fire} and neon {neon light}, nipon {p is silent, nipon is Japan: sun/law/fire/practice/kingdom etc} and even 9 {nine}. Which is why Hindus go around Fire during marriage. Its a Niyam=fire=law. They becomes in-laws. noticeably giri is law in Japanese. giri is also so in Indianic. eg Gandhigiri, dadagiri, babugiri. Its the same word: giri = practice/law/rule/raj etc {see how due to y/i/l alternation rule = raj, same origin} . Giriane therefore means sister-in-law in Japanese because ane is sister and giri is by-law. Then check out Niyamgiri, its an oxymoron because niyam {agni, ain, ainum >> num/nium=niyam} and giri both mean law/fire. So niyamgiri, a place in Odisha. Giri is sometimes translated as mountain. But thats because mountains are laws of nature or occurences in nature. Hence niyam-giri is law-law, a stressing/doubling. Also niyam being fire and giri being mountain: a law of nature, niyamgiri is the mountain that receives the fire: Sun.

Also for this reason: Himalaya , you can see alaya as lawya = law or house or palace/resting {alasya} or alok = light/flame/sun. Again Himalay can be him-law or hin-law or hanu-law. It does not matter. They all unify. Also see hinomaru {Japanese flag} is a cognate here, because hi no maru {Sun’s round/circle} This then produces due to alternation: hanumaru = hanuman. {again see: r/n/m} You can also see maru as mere {subtle/small/Lord}/mora{mine}/Rama{Ray-man}/Rome/Ron/Rond/Round/Roundvouz. Therefore not only Hanuman, but my round, my place, my resting, my region, my jurisdiction, my law etc.

One therefore is led to recover every word from any word. Its like traveling in a patterned space where there are rules that take you back and forth as in a snake ladder or astronaut, throwing you back off to where you come from if there isn’t a right rule. Mathematical space of language is just like that. If you do not have a r/l alternation you are stuck with one and not both. In other words you are restricted to one language or even no language. eg Japanese say r to l. This is true about all languages. They don’t capture all rule and are restricted. This is a digitization of language. You have 0 {null=sun} you have 1 {uni=sun}. You are stuck with 0, 1 or alternate between two and make a DNA helix and go from one place to another. Because 1 can unite with 1 and form 2 and then 3 and 6 and 18 and so on. What that means? If you start from one of 26 letters you reach at L starting from say C. Which is why you see all sorts of alternations in Language. y>l {write as: y/l} m/n and so on. Once that is so, its an infinite ladder-snake-astronaut-whatnaut space.

All languages were created this way. Starting from null and unity. Its like a Universe which does not have a center. You can start anywhere and literally go anywhere else if you have the right rules. Find the rules then, find all possible alternation. Easy: Change any consonant to any other. Change any vowel to any other. Delete a vowel. Delete a consonant./ Add a vowel, add a consonant. Add/subtract/multiply any number of vowel/consonant. Take a common factor, eg if you have paranormal: Parnoml, then alternate and take common-factor {n/m}: Parnol, do that again{r/n}: Panol, do that again{n/l}: Pano, alternate vowel: Pine, drop P/consonant: ain, Ein{stein} etc. You gradually see that Sun, law, pine etc are recovered. You can also see P+anol = P+fire. P can then give you Pi or hi which could mean angle, part or organ, limb or leg or hand or day or energy and so on.

The challenge is to see what you want to see in a valid way. eg you can’t violate a scientific principle  If you do the language would only reflect lack of efficacy. {group-arrogant people want just that, its like taking a gun and shooting people}

But thats all about language theory. I thought I would enumerate the points, such as mentioned in the above paragraph: alternate vowel,  consonant etc, but more needed to be said. But I have written within a year or so an article  on language where I showed how to check cognates. Its based on the rules described above. Just take the letters and alternate and or drop/add and see if they are cognates or not. Then you need a computer programming and/or great deal of interest to check on words. In-any case you can show any word to be any other word. But the idea is to keep a record of all the alternations and methods. You can write 1000s of papers in language theory based simply on this article {and to compliment those other few articles, that describe the spirit behind the methods} .. One can simply put these methods into c++ classes or something , eg r/n/m and show only the methods utilized to arrive at a particular hypothesis. Then from those methods one can prove the efficacy of any philosophy, religion or history.

Of course one also needs evidence in nature, eg Mughal Emperor Akbar lived between only so and so. If you can recover a good philosophy and evidence it to be belonging to certain preceding timeline you can generate more epistemology rather than fake it. It needs scientific methods which anyway have to be based on substance: eg the architecture elements. You can show Greek architecture in Indianic heritage and you are done. It evidences that there was a great deal of Greek establishment either in the local community or there simply is no difference between who the Greek were back then and who the Indians were. They were the same people to as much extent as was true.

I don’t think Indian culture has ever been seen in a very detailed way using the tools of modernity.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s