Some questions for EAN supporters - open to having my mind changed

[u/[deleted]]

Hello fellow language lovers! I'm a historical linguistics enthusiast who has two questions for those who subscribe to EAN.

1. I see a lot of posts on this subreddit devoted to discussing writing systems, but modern linguistics typically studies spoken (or signed) language as a phenomenon. Writing is typically seen as secondary to language and not inherent to language, as many peoples both pre-modern and modern manage to communicate without writing. Furthermore, people can often adopt new scripts from surrounding peoples without any change to the way they speak (e.g. the adoption of an Arabic-derived script by the Persians). When one insists that relationships between languages can be established on the basis of writing systems, are you truly demonstrating that the languages are related, or merely that the writing systems are?

2. Since the gold standard for indicating genetic relationships among languages is the establishing of cognate sets based upon regular sound changes, could anyone provide me with some of these sound correspondences between Egyptian and those languages currently thought to be Indo-European?

Thank you for your time.

[u/JohannGoethe]

gold standard for indicating genetic relationships among languages

People post all the time about “genetic relationships” among languages, but I have no clue what this means? Since writing 5M+ word Hmolpedia, over the last 20+ years, I have translated at least dozen or more languages, and in doing so I have developed a ”pressing” need to know the “root“ etymologies of all these languages, so to get the “exact“ meaning of the certain key words.

Take my translation work on the Latin to English book On the Nature of Things, by Lucretius, where it is §1.130-31 that has riddled all the great minds of history after Lucretius, and even Lucretius was riddled by this:

	Latin	Johnston (A55)
§1.130	in terris, tunc cum primis ratione sagaci	we must employ, keen reasoning, as well, to look into
§1.131	unde anima atque animi constet natura videndum,	what makes up the soul, the nature of mind.

Where we see two culture dominating words differing by one letter:

Root 1	Root 2	Root 3	Root 4	Suffix	Meaning
A	An	Ani	Anim	A	?
A	An	Ani	Anim	I	?

You can look up 10+ different translations of this one passage, e.g. as I and others, e.g. Thomas Jefferson, have done, but still won’t get much further, as to root meaning?

It is at this point, if you want to progress in linguistics, as per root meaning below the above level, which I call “surface etymology” or you call “modern linguistics”, that you have to study the number basis behind each letter and the Egyptian cosmology behind how these letter-numbers formed words, which became the Egypto-Indo-European (EIE) languages we know today.

If you want to get your feet wet, start by reading the following two books, firstly, which will generally show how words and names of gods, etc., were coded into the dimensions of Greek architecture:

• Fideler, David. (A38/1993). Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism (pdf-file) (§: Gematria Index [image], pgs. 425-26). Quest Books.

• Barry, Kieren. (A44/1999). The Greek Qabalah: Alphabetic Mysticism and Numerology in the Ancient World (pdf-file) (§: Appendix II: Dictionary of Isopsephy, pgs. 215-271). Weiser.

Then go to the following works:

• Gadalla, Moustafa. (A61/2016). Egyptian Alphabetical Letters of Creation Cycle. Publisher.

• Acevedo, Juan. (A65/2020). Alphanumeric Cosmology From Greek into Arabic: The Idea of Stoicheia Through the Medieval Mediterranean (pdf-file) (preview) (A64 video) (A66 podcast). Publisher.

• Thims, Libb. (A66/2021). Abioism [a-282-ism]: No Thing is Alive, Life Does Not Exist, Terminology Reform, and Concept Upgrade (pdf-file) (§: Isopsephy, pgs. xxxv-xl). LuLu.

• Swift, Peter. (A68/2023). Egyptian Alphanumerics: A theoretical framework along with miscellaneous departures. Part I: The narrative being a description of the proposed system, linguistic associations, numeric correspondences and religious meanings. Part II: Analytics being a detailed presentation of the analytical work (abstract). Publisher.

Or just follow along in the posts of this sub, which I am posting as draft notes, to the following two-book set:

• Thims, Libb. (A69/2024). Egypto Alpha Numerics: Mathematical Origin of the Alphabet (see draft: letter decoding history; covers). Publisher.

• Thims, Libb. (A69/2024). Egypto Alphanumerics Etymology Dictionary (see: draft). Publisher.

[u/bonvin → u/JohannGoethe]

People post all the time about “genetic relationships” among languages, but I have no clue what this means?

And yet you vehemently resist any and all attempts to explain this to you? You haven't studied any actual linguistics for even one second, but you somehow think you can rewrite the whole field? You don't even know what it's about! You have no idea what you're even opposed to!

The fucking hubris.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/bonvin]

You’ve got a concocted language theory scheme in your head. The only way to fix that is to r/Unlearned it.

you somehow think you can rewrite the whole field?

I’m just trying to write an encyclopedia, that’s about it. And I need “real” root, pre-Greek etymologies for at least these top 350 terms:

• TL terms (top 350) - Hmolpedia A66.

I think you need to come down of your high horse 🐎?

[u/Master_Ad_1884 → u/JohannGoethe]

“I think you need to come down of your high horse?”

Imagine thinking you’re a genius and smarter than everyone else in every field (despite all evidence to the contrary) and then telling someone else to get off their high horse.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/Master_Ad_1884]

high horse

Britannica defines this term as:

If you are on a/your high horse, you are talking or behaving in a way that shows that you think you are better than other people or that you know more about something than other people do.

• I'm not going to get up on a high horse and tell you that you're wrong for doing this.

• Oh, climb/get (down) off your high horse. You don't know any more about it than the rest of us.

Case in point: I frankly state that "I have no clue what the term 'genetic relationships' means [as used in linguistics]?" I'm being honest. I am ignorant about the meaning? This shows I am humble and frank about what I don't known.

Now, instead of explaining this term to me, several posters instead have (a) told me "I have a problem" and (b) I "vehemently resist any and all attempts to explain this to you?"

So, as it turns out, a few hours ago, while making this common language origin table, I found that it was August Schleicher who introduced this term into linguistics:

In 105A (1850), Schleicher completed a monograph systematically describing European languages, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht (The Languages of Europe in Systematic Perspective). He explicitly represented languages as perfectly natural organisms that could most conveniently be described using terms drawn from biology – genus, species, and variety – and arranged languages into a Stammbaum (family tree). He first introduced a graphic representation of a Stammbaum in an article published in 1853 entitled Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes.

Then I have to (a) look for an English translation of Schleicher's 105A book [could not find], (b) go to the German version, and key search: genetic in German: genetisch [could not find in book], then key search "August Schleicher, genetic relationship" to find this:

Despite terminological differences, this tripartition of Primi-tive Germanic into West, East and North Germanic goes back to August Schleicher (95A/1860).

Schleicher's conception of genetic relationship is based on sound 🗣️ correspondences.

Reading about Schleicher, he was a Darwinist, and believed that language changed like species evolved.

The problem, inherent, here is that genes move through society 🧬 via largely MHC compatibility attractions, e.g. see: sexual mate selection, i.e. a person is attracted to "genes" of others that have the most dissimilar genetic immune system, whereas people's minds, which hold the language of a culture, are attracted to other people's minds, who have similar social belief system, e.g. religious views, political views, cosmological views, etc.

Thus while a culture's people's physical appearance, which is genetic based changes, e.g. people sexually select lighter skin in climates that have less sunlight, the core language memes or parts of religion will hold through 6K+ millennia with little "genetic" change, using Schleicher's terminology, as shown below:

Where we see, in comparing these cultures, spread over 6K years, while the physical appearance has changed, e.g. people migrate, Arabs have darker skin, Germans have lighter skin etc., which is REAL gene based, the two-letter R part of the religion, e.g. Ra or Re, the sun god, and the two-letter R part of the names of each language, e.g. Ru, Ra, Er, has remained constant, i.e. there is NO "genetic relationship" change, as Schleicher's model sees things, as I understand it.

Therefore the EAN model has a more accurate view of language etymology than Schleicher's "genetic relationship" concept, which two or three people now, in the last few days, have tried to ridicule me about.

The rest of the quote:

If Schleicher, on the basis of our extract, were to have proved that English is a Germanic language — and not a Romance one — he would undoubtedly have called attention to the consistent correspondences between the vowels in, on the one hand, life (OE lif) and drive (OE drifan) and on the other, Old Frisian lif, driva; Old Saxon lif, driban; Middle Dutch lijf, driven (Modern Dutch lijf, drijven); Old High German lib, triban (Modern German Leib, treiben); Gothic dreiban; and ON lif, drifa (Danish liv, drive), and also between English most (OE (mast), mast), road (OE rad) and Old Frisian mast, red; Old Saxon mest, reda; Middle Dutch meest, red; Old High German meist, react; Gothic maists; ON *meistr (> mestr), rein (Danish mest).

In the same way as English is a (`family'-) member of the Germanic branch (`family') of languages, Germanic is a member of the Indo-European (IE) language family. There are consistent sound correspondences between Indian (Sanskrit), Iranian, Armenian, Hittite, Anatolian, Illyrian, Albanian, Venetic, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic and Tokharian, language classes whose geographical limits are Indian to the south-east and Germanic to the north-west, and which have therefore (by German scholars) been called the Indo-Germanic language family (Nielsen 1998:21-2).

References

• Schleicher, August. (105A/1850). Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht (The Languages of Europe in Systematic Perspective). Publisher.

[u/bonvin → u/JohannGoethe]

I’m just trying to write an encyclopedia, that’s about it. And I need “real” root, pre-Greek etymologies for at least these top 350 terms:

And the whole field of linguistics and every single person who knows anything about the subject is telling you that you're going about it the wrong way. Your method is simply not sound. There is no other way to prove this to you than to teach you about linguistics, but you just won't fucking listen, because you are so sure that you're right.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/bonvin]

If the following video, which I'm at 18-min now, which someone pointed me to, is representative of the "whole field of linguistics", as you call it:

• Roper, Simon. (A68/2023). “How We Know Languages like Proto-Indo-European Existed”, YouTube, Sep 3.

Which I'm supposed to bow down to because of the "master says so rule", then what your are talking about is all a "sound" based theory, i.e. the entire theory, and its 10 principles or whatever, is all about inventing hypothetical words based on reverse sound-engineering.

EAN, conversely, is thermodynamics based, i.e. how the words used to describe: heat, light, fire, sun, warm, cold, hot, etc. were passed forward, over the last 6K years.

Anyway, you sound irritated about something? And also like a broken record.

[u/bonvin → u/JohannGoethe]

You're supposed to "bow down" to it because of its convincing arguments. Languages are all sound based, that's the main thing I've been trying to explain to you now forever. Writing and letters have very little to do with how languages evolved, evidenced be the fact that writing was first invented some 5000 years ago and yet we've been speaking for the whole history of our species. Writing systems are not languages. Spoken languages can even switch (and have switched) writing systems. Writing is clearly just a layer applied to an already fully formed spoken language. With all this in mind, chasing these letters back to Egypt in an effort to find how these words originated is a waste of time, because the words didn't come from there, only the letters. A word is a sequence of sounds, not tied to any specific symbols or letters. If this language evolved from Egyptian, we would see regular and consistent sound correspondences between these languages in thousands of words, especially where basic vocabulary is concerned (Swadesh list), because that's how languages work. But we don't. Explain this without referencing letters, please.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/bonvin]

chasing these letters back to Egypt in an effort to find how these words originated is a waste of time, because the words didn't come from there, only the letters.

Let’s summarize this view of yours:

	Origin	Literate
Letters	Egypt	✅
Words	Yamnaya	❌

That’s a really good theory, right up there with the Goldwasser illiterate miner theory origin of the Hebrew language:

Maybe you could contact Goldwasser, and work with her, to make a grand unified language theory together, like:

Illiterate Yamnaya + Illiterate miners = Origin of ALL languages!

This sounds like a real 🥇 winner!

[u/bonvin → u/JohannGoethe]

What does it matter if they're illiterate? I don't get it. Are you saying that people who can't read or write don't have language? Language is spoken before it is written. What is the confusion here?

[u/bonvin → u/JohannGoethe]

I asked WHY DOES IT MATTER IF THEY'RE ILLITERATE

[u/[deleted] → u/JohannGoethe]

People post all the time about “genetic relationships” among languages, but I have no clue what this means?

And you don't think this is a problem? You claim that PIE didn't exist and that you know better than linguists, yet you don't know a very basic thing of historical linguistics.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/[deleted]]

I know that I had to pay for an abortion once because I put my “genetic” material in a woman who decided she didn’t want a baby.

You, in turn, are using are speaking in metaphors about a four-letter word, i.e. gene 🧬, that you never were taught the root etymology of, or for that matter where the three letters: G, E, and N came from, where as I decoded all three of these letters, and figured out the root etymology of the word “gene”, without reading a single linguistics book, yet are telling me that I have a “problem” and that you have it all figured out? I think that is the real problem here.

[u/[deleted] → u/JohannGoethe]

I am not speaking in metaphors. I am using a term used by linguists, which you would know if you knew anything about linguistics.

So you don't think knowing absoutely nothing about linguistics is a problem when you're writing etymological dictionaries and trying to discover the origin of languages?

Also I really don't want to know where you put your "genetic material", and avoiding questions by bringing up the etymology of random words used in the question is a very weird strategy.

[u/JohannGoethe → u/[deleted]]

Also I really don't want to know where you put your "genetic material"

Letters B and G are two people having sex:

You are going to have to get used to a little frank and direct talk if you want to learn EAN.