Site Section Links
If I grant the Saturn model, I would expect to find clusters of Homo sapiens inventing language for the first time under the most dreadful of situations -- the world has changed around them, and they are desperate to find out why, remember the way it was before, deal with the new conditions, keep it from happening again. I would expect to find what Dave (Talbott) suggests; that most, maybe all, of human language would be connected to the event ... - Amy Acheson
Linguistics: Aspects of the Origin of Oral Language
"The trouble with most people isn't that they don't know, but that
This is submitted in the spirit of realizing that a certain measure of ignorance of a subject is better than knowing things that aren't so.
"I do not believe that the languages familiar to us can be
The above paragraphs of quotes mirror my conception of what happened. The evidence suggests that oral language arose suddenly, not from a previous "mother" or proto-language but from radically new conditions, needs and context, and arose in the context of a crucially dramatic shared experience.
The first major premise being put forth here is that at least some if not most or all "words"* in the various languages were coined during and/or soon after the Saturnian breakup. A second and more extensive premise posits that the main communicational system existing at that time was telepathic, and that oral languages developed at the time of the breakup because the telepathic system broke down, leaving pockets of human beings with each isolated pocket needing to develop a local system based on sound symbols. I am not going to try to develop this latter premise now, but only the first. When we see the extent of the support for the first we may then be more open to consider the second premise.
A major sub-premise to the first is that the extent of the relationship to aspects of the Saturnian phenomena and breakup are so wide and so extensive, that etymologists that don't familiarize themselves with the Saturnian reconstruction are just full of shallow guesswork and fabricated and self-referential "book learning". They are missing the mother lode!
Word origins from the Saturnian alignment
There are certain pronounced word meaning origins that would not be there had not the subject entity, referred to by the words, done the things that are reflective of the ancient Golden Age and the Saturnian Age of Time Keeping. Examples are:
Chronos = Father of time
Word origins from the catastrophic events
There are certain pronounced word meaning origins that would not be there had not the people of the earth experienced the things that are reflective of the ancient planetary catastrophes. Examples are:
Catastrophe - Cata = down, and strophe = stroke.
Word patterns that are universal
There are certain pronounced word patterns that are acknowledged to be almost or totally global or universal. These are the mostly involuntary expressions of surprise and or awe and wonder, such as "ah", oh, "ugh" and "huh".
Word origins from planet god activities
There are certain pronounced word meaning patterns that would not be there had not the subject entity, referred to by the words, done the things that are reflected both by the mythology and the pattern. For instance, in the Saturnian scenario Mars was known as the warrior hero and was associated with violence, force, and excess water. There is a lengthy list of Latin-derived words beginning with "mar" that fit the pattern: mar, mark, mare, marine, marinate, maritime, marsh, marshal, martial, marble, marimba—a percussion instrument—, martinet, marl, margin, etc. Marriage is a word associated with the perfect union of Venus and Mars when they were aligned in the Polar configuration, and the Christian orthodox and Hindu wedding traditions clearly reflect the interactions of the two planets as they are delineated in the mythology. Marvel is another word that would derive from the awesome spectacle in the sky. Various words derived from the Greek names for the subject planet share the same pattern. I am ignorant of other languages as to whether this or other patterns are included.
Some ancient language linguists, in the face of significantly more extensive "Rosetta stone" material—such as the thousands of clay tablets inscribed with three languages found in the library of Ebla—contend that 25% of the Old Testament needs to be retranslated. And these linguists are not even familiar with the Saturnian reconstruction and ancient planetary catastrophe.
Here is some discussion regarding retranslation of Genesis 1 and commentary that took place in an email discussion forum:
Poster 1: Rens van der Sluijs also most convincingly affirms the alternate RSV translation for Genesis 1:1 - as not "In the beginning God created ...", but as "When God began to create ..."
Me: I have no problem with the last claim, and I endorse the involvement of learned linguists like Rens, but linguistics is a swamp with lots of alligators. As you may know, even I over the years in our discussion groups have seriously crossed swords with 5 or 6 of them over their unwarranted assumptions, overconfidence and blind spots. The paradigm behind the origin of verbal language makes a HUGE difference, and is much in contention. The Saturnian Reconstruction has MUCH to say about etymology and a greatly expanded vocabulary if not even being the basic situation for the ORIGIN of sound-symbol communication among humans on the earth, but this is being unwisely discounted or ignored.
Poster 1: In other words, the Genesis creation is not described by verses 1 and 2, but by verses 3 onwards. Verses 1 and 2 describe the situation before this creation, i.e. at its start.
Dwardu Cardona: I could go on and on about this too, but just in case anyone may think I’m splitting hairs, take, as but one example, the split-in-half shard that is said to contain the oldest Northwest Semitic alphabetic inscription that has ever been found in Jerusalem. Seven world-renowned scholars have translated what remains of the original inscribed letters. And, apart from the fact that some have read the verse from left to right, others read it from right to left, what it all resulted in amounts to SEVEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT readings. See A. Millard, "The New Jerusalem Inscription - So What?" BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW (May/June 2014), pp. 49 ff.
Me: Significantly, the commentary of necessity would rupture the foundation of what the Judeo-Christian community has built over the last two millennia (or 1300 years as the case may be). This would be iconoclasm on an all but singularly unprecedented scale. I/we might have a “contract” or fatwa put upon us, if the commentary became publicly controversial. Not that I/we would care that much, but it is something to think about. I already have a website (the IFISEEU.COM site) that challenges the Judeo-Christian-Islamic paradigm of, and thinking about, “God” to an unprecedented extent and engages in what would be considered as unparalleled blasphemy, but hardly anyone knows about that. Some of those that do know, don’t really care what I think, and most of the rest dismiss it on a cavalier basis as being so obviously extravagant or being so obviously contrary to what they think they “know”.
Me: Finally, the commentary would have to start with a radical quasi-translation, and here is an off the cuff very terse sample of how it would go in contrast to the English in the RSV:
Me: Gen 1:1 When God—refers to the most high planet sun-god Saturn, the source of all the energy that then sustained and enhanced life on the earth—began—refers to the beginning of the age of timekeeping, not to the greater universe—to create—means to form or provide the foundation or realm of the system of—the heavens and the earth—heavens means "heavings", so this refers to the flung or “heaved” associated astral bodies including the whole visible celestial volume or territory.
Me: Gen 1:2 The earth—refers again to the huge visible face of Saturn or the cosmic “land” or territory in the sky seen from terra firma by humans—was without form and void,—means essentially plain and blank—and darkness—at least significant dimness—was upon the face of the deep;—the “surface” of the dim sun Saturn was the farthest or “deepest” thing that could be seen at the time—and the spirit of God—refers to the electrical energy of Saturn, which was thought of as a kind of wind, an invisible mover—was moving over the face of the waters—was flowing over or in the plasma fluids.
The above two verses are a small sample of what the Old Testament might look like if it were to be retranslated with commentary by an up to date educated etymologist or linguist.
On a different front, it is high time that we recognized Sanskrit as a root language for English:
“It is very seldom realized that English is as much a dialect of Sanskrit as most of the Indian languages. Almost total ignorance of this fact has resulted in compilers of the English dictionary themselves going wrong. They have either failed to give the Sanskrit origin of their words where necessary or have provided wrong etymological explanations...” - P.N. Oak, English is a Dialect of Sanskrit, "Chapter 25".
One example from the site:
The word ‘widow’ is rightly explained as ‘a woman who has lost her husband’. The next word ‘widower’ is said to derive from ‘widow’ with the suffix ‘-er’ added.
This is a gross etymological error. In English the suffix ‘-er’ as in ‘labour-er, sort-er, lecture-er’ means a person who labours, sorts or lectures.
If then ‘er’ had been a suffix of the word ‘widow’ the word ‘widower’ would have meant ‘one who makes a woman a widow’ and as such it would have signified the murderer of a married woman’s husband, while it actually signifies a man whose wife is dead.
English lexicographers have committed this gross error because they don’t know that the words ‘widow’ and ‘widower’ are the corrupt form of the Sanskrit words ‘widhwa’ and ‘widhur’.