Saturday, March 10, 2012
Why 'Nephilim' means in the beginning?
Linguists that were and are trying to find out the origin of words have always been under the pressure of the confusion of their relative appearance and mostly are being tricked by the actual performance meanings they have, which in fact are what we got at the end of the cycle. Linguists always belittle the study of their meanings, which is really the primary thing that they are connected, and the relation between words and symbols what they stand for. Linguists never have seen other dimensions of the concept itself the words represent and the relationship between words and concepts. According to their views, started by Ferdinand de Saussure, who only demonstrated at his time the ignorance of linguistisc, which is not much different from today views, after a century of how mistaken linguists views are, except Joseph Greenberg's and Derek Bickerton's views , there are mostly no connections between words and symbols what they stand for. A wrong orientation is going to create other wrong conceptions of the origin of language.
How to group the words and as a consequence the languages, how to compare them, how to determine the main element which serves as a base to build another subgroup, and how every element of the subgroup builds another sub-subgroup? How the subgroups of a language deviate into new languages?
According to the traditional view, a language contains thousands of different words among which there are no connections. Are there connections between different language units? Are there genetic connection among a group a words inside a language itself?
First of all, all words are created from five sources:
1. Sound (symbolism)
3. Sound-picture combination.
5. Sound-picture-idea combination.
Two are main rules:
1. Can not be compared words that are created from different sources. They could be very similar, but, however their meaning is completely different because the sources are different.
2. Similar words that have the same meaning, or they make part at the same subgroup meaning they are related as for a language itself, so for different languages. If two very different languages have in common only a word for the same meaning or subgroup meaning, that means that they are related. It is not a coincidence. Two identical parameters, the word and its menaning could not be a coincidence.
Most of the dictionaries determine the beginning concept as:
1. The first point something begins
2. The first part of something: The start of a period of time, an event, a process.
4. Early period.
In the way the dictionaries are structured , on the surface way it could be just about anything that starts, when it is written down like ‘first part of something’, all billions of cases could be told. There are more in fact which are not written because no room in a dictionary, or they are not yet discovered, or there are not still all relationships between words and concepts understood.
What the dictionaries do not explain: All words that have a beginning meaning, such as begin, beginning, one, first, kid, seedling, tiny, etc, are connected into one .There is only one concept which profoundly contains all meanings for all those words, which sounds a little like the opposite direction of modern dictionary explanations, or the lingustic theories about this subject.
What is in all words is in it, and what is in it is in all words. This concept I am going to call the 'I' primary symbol. The primary word itself came from the 'I' idea-symbol. It came from a mathematical concept. It is a number. It is the concept of the number one; translated with modern terms as the "first"; the first as a number, noun, adverb, pronoun, etc. The number one is at the beginning of every thing, first part of something: first time, first time of a event, origin, age, early period, etc.
Thus, the 'I' was the primary concept, on which are based a group of words. That’s why the Albanian word for the number one is "nji”, in the oldest dialect of Albanian, which phonetically is a 'nii', which means "ne i" ‘in the ’. The primary is still alive as a letter "i", as a word for the number one and as an 'I' sound only in the Albanian language. This fact is supported from other evidence, from Latin, in the Roman numerals. The numbers 1 to 10 can be expressed in Roman numerals as follows: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, except no sound in 'I' because Roman numerals were originally independent symbols. The Roman numeral 'I' descends not from the letter 'I' but from a notch scored across the stick.
Albanian evidence can give an explanation about Etruscan language because the Etruscans used I, Λ, X, ⋔, 8, ⊕, for I, V, X, L, C, and M, of which only I and X happened to be letters in their alphabet.
Albanian language has kept alive the structure of language brain.
Posted by Fatmir Iliazi on linguistic glob, at 12:12 AM .
http://linguisticglob.blogspot.com/2012 ... nning.html
"Moreover, you scorned our people, and compared the Albanese to sheep, and according to your custom think of us with insults. Nor have you shown yourself to have any knowledge of my race. Our elders were Epirotes, where this Pirro came from, whose force could scarcely support the Romans. This Pirro, who Taranto and many other places of Italy held back with armies. I do not have to speak for the Epiroti. They are very much stronger men than your Tarantini, a species of wet men who are born only to fish. If you want to say that Albania is part of Macedonia I would concede that a lot more of our ancestors were nobles who went as far as India under Alexander the Great and defeated all those peoples with incredible difficulty. From those men come these who you called sheep. But the nature of things is not changed. Why do your men run away in the faces of sheep?"
Letter from Skanderbeg to the Prince of Taranto ▬ Skanderbeg, October 31 1460
Diskutim profesional për gjuhën.
1 post • Page 1 of 1