science of language

Can we have only one language for the world?

Can we have only one language for the world?

See the following German words, (… and corresponding Indian words).

You would think Indo-Europian theory of language is valid. But still such a theory might be adhoc and simply a manipulation of what we see in a few instances.

In my years of analysis of words and phonetics (and alternation of elements etc) this is what I observed.

There are two categories.

The first prefers Sanskrit as a language, or even any source.

The second one prefers arbitrary factors, what I call sun theory, it can be called as a Sanskrit hypothesis, that is analysis can lead to matching + unification, but not any particular language. I am for the latter.


“I can’t believe” !

These tricks are not exclusive to Japanese alphabet. I also used them to match with Odia alphabet and south Indian alphabet to remember. Check this out !

い ଇ ಇ ఇ

The “i” [said as e, as in english] has a component which is partially same (two circles, if extrapolated) in Japanese, Odia, Kannada, Telugu. That is actually how I remembered. Even in Odia, Kannada and Telugu the “i-symbol” is same.

Check: ଦି ದಿ ది [I have written phonetics di as in “the” in Odia, Kannada and Telugu] The vowel “i” which is written as a symbol on top of the letter is same in all cases, so that helps to remember what the letter is reading. [I already know my native speak Odia, so its much easier for me to remember this way]

A passing remark on the status of my thoughts on language theory.

So when we add asa+koro its still close to usa+kaala. That is to higher conjugated level of phonetic elements (read super-syllable-level) different language can retain the exactness of linguistic objects. A fact which makes it much more interesting to study to know exactly how different are our languages, perhaps they simply sprang from each other. That is if Japanese originated from various tracts of Chinese,so did Indian languages. The underlying conceptual pinning as exist today may be offset in this way or that way but most similarities are preserved by the nature of parentage. Also the external attributes could be offset because of place holder rules being evolved in present context but all this can be studied quite effectively.

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}

The origin of the word “nemesis” ..

also see the slight difference in shichi [7七] and the symbol in 死. The latter is used as a symbol for person asif one is sitting. 7七 is used anywhere there is nature’s elements present: eg 花hana=flower、脂abura=fat/oil、 指yubi=finger. One might be tempted to say in finger and fat the “sitting person is used” although my opinion is just think “7” = 7 elements of nature. Also note how English: 7 is a upside down Japanese [7七].

Languages like English/Indian in modern times derived vastly from Chinese/Japanese

This means 5 elements were stolen from Chinese system. The Chinese 7 system is amply evidenced in Japanese culture, eg 7 layered Pagoda. Also this analysis is remarkable: 七+名=死, which says shichi+mei = shi, 7 + name = death. Once a person has met its 7 [七] elements [person = name 名] its death. death is shi which goes into Indian words: shesh. But note the mouth [square on 名] is missing in 死 because nomore the person’s namesake will be in use. This shichi = 7 is the origin of words shiven, shipat [seven English and sapta Indian]. Also you will find 七 in words which denote natural elements, eg hana 花 and abura 脂. [flower and fat]

How did a primitive man speak?

primitive man goes “nah just teasing you cos you think everything was so well developed even 5000 years ago, I usually spea
k like this grrr kkllrrr iimmn gggdddd s s dsjkjdejekedknkejdjedkduh which some smart people understood to be the first alphabet, they have developed everything from them to what you have now. See there were no full sentences or phrases or even bisylables or even monosylables in our time

How to recognize words in various languages … a magic formula

1. the languages are “read” into Roman. Roman without any particular rules not defined is arbitrary. That is it becomes neutral, devoid of biases from language rules. It unlocks the languages into their neutral forms.

The languages are basically a rule or lock defined to capture particular meanings from a vast arbitrary tract of phonetics and noise. eg roman: t corresponds to 4 locks in Indian Language system and two locks in Japanese. t as in tatami, t as in taberu are the soft t and heavy t in Japanese. But in Indian t as in tumhara, t as in tenis, t as in thoda and t as in beithak are 4 different locks, 2 soft and 2 heavy.

But in Roman they are all but t. Note that English is not Roman. English is simply a hidden phonetics where you know what the lock is, but you do not show it explicitly. eg time is English, but in Indian lock its thaim, with t in thaim same as the t locked in beithak.

If you want to see what Indian alphabet system is all about

ନା N+aa = Naa [or Na if N is vowleness_1 also written as N+a-bar in Hepburn]

ହିଁ iHn [i-vowel or as I said i-f’la, i-don + H-consone + n-special, n is a bowl witha dot or simply dot on top of consones or vowles, on top always, or top-right as a small-circle. This special-n is called anusar and the bowl-dot called chandra-bindu, chnadra=moon, bindu=dot/point] One must avoid special-m also represented through these same symbols. Its a fallacy. Since you have m-n alternation it does not mean you introduce the m-f’la or m-matra or m-dons into the alphabet. This has come up because there is no strict sense in Indian alphabet …

Whats the meaning of a vowel?

A vowel is a set of Roman letters [aeiou] which are assigned the lesser perceived or spoken voice/phonetics. These are analytical approaches of Language, where a small voice can gradually become very heavy and prominent due to social usage. Once they become so they actually lose their vowel nature from the analytical point of view and they must be studied again for their implications if one is to see how they are changing our epistemology [study of knowledge] without which they will produce falsified knowledge. Infact Vowels can alternate between them or into consonants like consonants alternate between them. Its the trickiest affair of Language.

My theory for language of ancient Asia (ideas)

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)

The pseudo-science of language !! #mdashf #kanji4

Neither is San like Ji a particle in Japanese as pointed out by the author of this “wikibooks” article linked above. A particle can combine to verbs, nouns, adjectives etc not just a namesake, it has infinite partners therefore in an invisible language space because it works on or gets worked by true linguistic constructions not just a name or a person or God!! (God Ji)
True examples of particles in Hindi are

1. “to” ( i. to me-i-ne u-se de di-ya, ii. aa-o to, iii. aa-e-gaa to de de-n-ge)
2. “se” (me-i-ne us se li-ya, tum se naw-hi-n)
3. “ne” (tum ne mu-jh-e 5 baw-je mi-l-ne ko kaw-ha thaa) NE of Hindi is like WA of Japanese Language.

4. “ko” (ji-s ko bo-laa jaa-e waw-hi kaw-re-ga) It’s counterpart is Japanese particle “ni” and in some cases “e”, Odia Particle “ku” and “e” represent Japanese “ni”and “e” (which can sometimes be used interchangeably)

Not just Hindi, in NO Indian Languages particles have been studied (or even defined so far as I know, so far) extensively, as far as I know. Perhaps zero substantial research has been done. But a point in making is how congruently Odia Particles are equal to Japanese Particles ?, I have given examples in the long article I wrote on translation from Japanese to Odia.

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Skip to toolbar