Carme Jiménez Huertas on Language


FOTCM Member
Hi everyone,

Recently I finished about mental illness and while there's a lot in that book, one of the striking concepts personally was that our behavior/symptoms could be understood as a form of language. A few weeks later, a very good friend of mine mentioned that he had run into an author that spoke about romance languages not really having a Latin origin, this was of course quite a shocking idea yet, it made enough sense for me to give it a shot. I ordered the book my friend mentioned and have started reading it.

While the book was on its way, I decided to do a bit of digging into the author and see if I could get more information on the subject and on the author herself, I ran into several interviews and debates that she has on her youtube channel and I must say that I am quite intrigued by this person.

Her bio in amazon reads:
Carme Jiménez Huertas is a philologist specializing in linguistics. Her passion for language led her to investigate cognitive processes and behavioral patterns. She trained in social skills, communication and language. She is a writer, researcher and lecturer. She is the author, among others, of the essay "No venimos del latín" translated into English (Romance Did Not Begin in Rome) and Romanian (Nu venim din latină), in which she defends the antiquity of Romance languages.

On her interviews and debates, she delves into several interesting topics that I feel deserve a discussion here, but there's so many that I think it'll require several posts to be able to do them all justice. I decided to start one here for others who may be familiar with her or interested in the subject, to participate and expand on her ideas. I will be adding more to this thread as I keep on digging through the ideas she presents.

As a small opening summary, from what I have been able to gather so far, Carme suggests that the way we are taught language stories is deeply influenced by 18th century darwinism, that is the study of languages has been mostly ideological and not scientific. On that note she also seems to be making the case that languages seem to emanate from a morphic field that we all can and do access and that's where languages come from, for this she points to the contradiction of the evolutionary idea that languages today are a devolution of a perfect mother tongue, that was at the same time spoken by the most primitive or unevolved of beings.

She also points out that human beings do not wait to have a grammar to speak, which sounds rather logical, but when looked at from that point of view it makes sense, that in essence language predates writing or the declaration of grammar. Linguists articulate the existing rules of an already spoken language and not the other way around. And these languages are spoken by people who are maybe unaware that they're using a complex set of rules to communicate.

She also speaks about the origin of romance languages, and seems to even be suggesting an Atlantean connection to what people spoke in Europe way before the roman empire made Latin a widespread form of writing. In this same interview her and a few other people she's having a debate with have an interesting conversation about sounds and the meaning of them, the sounds we can create and how those became the syllables and how those syllables became words. Adding an intelligence to the development of languages as opposed to an accidental evolution of grunts into deep concepts.

She also ascribes to the idea that we need language to think, and also has a lecture where she analyses the current state of the world and how it came to be and how it was so easy to make everyone comply with silly norms, from the context of language and how broadcasting certain messages "speak" to a certain part of ourselves and this generates a certain reaction that makes us predictable.

She speaks about water and its intelligence, genetics, vibration and emotions, and a lot more.

All in all, she's working with several interesting concepts that I will try to develop further below, so allow me to ask for your patience and let's hope I can do the ideas she's working with some justice. Stay tuned!


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you Alejo, I am happy that you brought this topic here. I have seen a couple of videos of Carmen Huertas and I agree with you that her observations and hypotheses are extremely interesting. Having said that, I must say that although she speaks on a variety of topics, IMO her greatest strength is in the topic of languages; it is in that field where she seems to excel, although she does, as you mention, lucidly relate the topic of languages to other topics.

Personally, I find this subject fascinating. I think that the history of mankind can be reconstructed (or can make a great contribution to this reconstruction) from the study of languages, their grammatical structures, their similarities and their differences.

Just yesterday I was having a discussion with a group of friends on this subject, and during this discussion a very interesting idea emerged: languages might not simply be the result of an evolutionary process that started from guttural sounds made by individuals who were little more than monkeys, then went through a process of assigning meaning to those sounds, then establishing collective consensus on usage and colectives meanings, and finally, after a long process of "evolution", developed a complex grammar with innumerable rules and exceptions.

The hypothesis that emerged as a counterpart could be divided into these basic ideas:

1- Languages could be the product of intelligent design and not an accidental by-product of human interaction.

2- The ideas, abstractions and even symbols that make up languages may exist as such within the information field. These ideas can then be received by the "antennae" of a group of individuals who, subject to their own abilities/characteristics/limitations, convert these ideas into a more or less structured language, which over time undergoes a series of micro-evolutions that do not make it totally transmute, but incorporate a series of gradual changes that do not completely destroy its essential features (an equivalent to the small evolutionary changes that occur within the same animal species in response to its environment).

3- Languages may have been delivered to humanity as "packages". This process could have been done in indirect ways, for example by altering our "antenna" so that we can only access certain aspects of these languages and are inaccessible to others. The Cs have said on several occasions that our 4D-STS predator limited our capabilities in various ways, so it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that part of this limitation could have been achieved through language manipulation, since language determines the way we think, the ideas we can schematize in our minds, and the way we can express those ideas.

On this same line I was thinking for example about the word "love" ("amor" in Spanish, my native language). In general, for lack of more adequate words, we use this same word to refer to an infinity of emotions ranging from a simple sudden eruption of hormones, through love for our parents, children, siblings, friends, pets, ourselves, money, etc... to the most sublime forms of platonic love. It is really difficult to be able to express ourselves and transmit clear and precise ideas if we do not have an adequate language.

Well, for the moment I will refrain from commenting further because I am really interested in doing some more research on the subject.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
There is another author who defends the same idea, Yves Cortez, in his French-language book "Le français ne vient pas du latin!" (French does not come from Latin).

The difference is that while Carmen Huertas points out the origin of Romance languages in the Iberian language, Yves Cortez believes that Romance languages come from "ancient Italian".

Regardless of the origin, I think that the examples that these authors show to defend this idea are very revealing. The Romance languages are all very similar, and yet Latin has more differences with them than similarities.

It is clear that Latin had a great deal of influence throughout Europe as the only written language for many, many centuries, and the Romance languages acquired a lot of vocabulary from Latin, but this happens constantly in all languages and that is not why we claim a mother-daughter relationship between them.

I attach an amusing conversation between a Spanish linguist (outraged by Yves Cortez's theory) and Yves Cortez himself, which I think illustrates this point very well:

Some Spanish linguists have criticized my thesis without even bothering to read my book. Here, as an example, I present the text produced by one of them who pretends to prove that Spanish comes from Latin:

"No (non) conozco (cognosco) este (iste) nuevo (novus) libro (liber), pero sospecho (suspicor) que la tesis (thesis) no (non) tiene (tenet) mucho (multum) futuro (futurum). Sólo (solum) el enunciado (enuntiatio), salvo (salvo) error (error) u omisión (omissio) periodísticos (in periodicis), de que "El latín (lingua latina) era (erat) una (una) lengua (lingua) muerta (mortua) ya (iam) en (in) el tiempo (tempus) de Augusto (Augusti)... y (et) sólo (solum) era (erat) usada (usa) para la escritura (scriptura) y (et) la redacción (redactio) de documentos (documenta)..." -dice él (dicit ille)-, ya (iam) permite (permittit) ver (videre) que el Señor (senior) Cortez ignora (ignorat) o desprecia (depretiat) los miles (milia) de ejemplos (exempla), escritos (scripti) sobre (super) piedra (petra) o papiro (papyrus), que (qui) demuestran (demonstrant) un (unus) uso (usus) continuo (continuus) de una (una) escritura (scriptura) latina (latina) popular (popularis), espontánea (spontanea) y (et) cotidiana (quotidiana), empezando por las inscripciones (inscriptiones) funerarias (funerariae) más (magis) humildes (humiles), de todos (toti) los cuales (quales) tenemos (tenemus) testimonios (testimonia) durante (durans) todo (totus) el Imperio (imperium) Romano (romanus), y (et) más (magis)."

To show that this "reasoning" lacks seriousness, I have written this little text in English full of French words. One could just as foolishly conclude that English comes from French:

"I (je) suppose (suppose) you (vous) have (avez) no (non) idea (idèe) regarding ( au regard) the main (maint) linguistical (linguistique) problems (problèmes) . I (je) regret (regrette) you(vous) are unable (inapt) to conceive (concevoir) an (une) other (autre) theory (théorie). Is (est) your (votre) intelligence (intelligence) limited (limitée) ? Drop (dérapez) the lessons (leçons) that you (vous) have (avez) studied (étudié) at (à) the university (université) , open (ouvre) your (vos) eyes (yeux), adopt (adoptez) a (une) new (neuf) mentality (mentalité) . It is (c’est) difficult (difficile) to change (changer) one’s point of view (son point de vue),but my (ma) theory (thèse) gains (gagne) ground in(en) private(privé) circles (cercles)."

Indeed, the above illustrates the true nature of Romance languages.

In the same way that English is a Germanic language that has absorbed numerous French words, the Romance languages come from an "ancient Italian" totally different from Latin, which on contact with Latin has been enriched with numerous Latin words, giving the illusion to careless analysts that the Romance languages come from Latin.

Dear Spanish friends, I know that the shock is hard for you, but read my book and you will discover new horizons.

Cordially yours,

Yves Cortez


FOTCM Member
Romance didn’t come from Rome

Allow me to start here, as the ideas were presented to me. In the following video which is in Spanish subtitled in English, Carme presents the thesis for her most known work, namely that Romance languages (Spanish, Italian, Romanian, French, Portuguese, and others) do not have a daughter-mother relationship to Latin as it has been presented to us by academia.

She does not deny the importance that Latin did have on the Romance languages, and I think this is clear, however she goes deep into the linguistics of all these languages to make the case that there are structural, stylistic, phonetic and several other similarities that Romance languages have amongst themselves that aren’t shared with Latin.

One of the key differences she attempts to make is that Latin was the written language of the middle ages, but a written language is not the same as a spoken one.

She then posits the question, if these were all degradations of Latin into romance, and considering the vast distances separating them, shouldn’t the result be several different languages that are disimilar to one another but similar to Latin? The fact that the similarities occur on the supposed daughters of Latin amongst themselves and not with the mother, indicates that said daughters have a different mother, and that following that analogy, Latin would be more of a cousin language.

Specially if one considers, as she says, that in scholarly texts used in universities today, the idea is that the vulgarization of Latin was such that people had literally forgotten how to speak and were gesticulating to one another in order to communicate, something she says is ridiculous, and it kind of is.

At this point she speaks to the ideological approach that the academic circles have taken on the romance languages, and she compares it to the cultic acceptance of the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin, where linguists seem to be looking and twisting facts to fit the existing notion rather than dig deeper and see what the evidence actually suggests.

If a word sounds like it may be related to a Latin word, then it must come from Latin, no other explanation is allowed, she gives as an example the world “Slave” which is understood today as coming from the slaving of the slavs that the romans practiced, the word for slave in Spanish is “esclavo”, missing only one “C” sound which is explained as a degradation from the latin, but then she compares it to the word “Sklav” in German, that does have the “C” sound that spanish and french have (“esclave”) and she proposes a different origin for the word and its meaning: Ex-Labor, someone who does not do honorable labor. This to illustrate the lack of critical work being done by the linguists of today.

She delves deep into the structure of Latin and how sentences are constructed, how syllables and a lot of other linguistic components fit within the Latin and Romance languages and the differences seem striking, although I must admit that it’s academically a bit over my head as I read through the book.

Latin, she posits, came into Western Europe to replace the writing and not the spoken languages, which is an important distinction to make. Latin was the written language of the church and high society, so the people adopted the Latin alphabet, but used it to write their spoken language.

Much like it happened in America for instance, where languages like Quechua do not have a form of writing as we understand it, instead they write by tying knots on twine, and these quechua peoples adopted the Latin alphabet, but still spoke Quechua, and may learn the phonemic sounds of the symbols in the alphabet and thus find a way to write their language to sound as they speak it but in a way that someone who understands the symbols in a similar way may understand it and read it.

The best example of this I can think of is the Hepburn romanization of Japanese Kanji with systems like the Hiragana and the Katakana. It would be a mistake to assume that just because the Japanese have adopted a Latin alphabet, Japanese was evolved from it.

One of the myths she speaks of, is the idea that through conquest, roman soldiers would have spread Latin through Europe, but she says that most of these soldiers were mercenaries who spoke each their own language and not Latin. Many of them would have spoken languages closely resembling one another but not Latin.

At this point the question becomes, then what is the origin of all the Romance language if not Latin? Being a Spaniard her focus is mainly on the Iberian peninsula, where she points to the fact that once the peninsula became part of the roman empire, Latin actually helped spread the speaking of Iberian language.

There’s another debate where she speaks strictly of the origin of language in Europe that I think would require a separate post, so, stay tuned.

I hope I’ve made her work some justice, and if someone else happens to watch the interview and catch any mistake on my part, please feel free to point them out. Thanks for reading.


The Living Force
Watched the videos, did not read the books. One aspect that stood up for me is the underlined, by Huertas, vast amount of archeological written ancient material in a language not yet desciphred. It is encouraging that work is being done but it is just a begining. There is much more to do in order to uncover the ancient history of european territory preceeding the Greek and Roman empires.


FOTCM Member
Origins of Language

On her channel she also has a debate (unfortunately in Spanish), although is more of a conversation, with two other participants, Jose Luis Alman and Javier Goitia.

This is a semi historical, semi philosophical conversation that is actually packed a lot of very interesting concepts.

They start off mentioning that Wikipedia establishes the origin of language at about 6.000 years ago, something they say it’s impossible. There’s artifacts that were created by human beings that have such complexity that it would be impossible to craft them without communication, communication of a large complexity, so language is way much older than accepted by academia.

One of them even puts the evidence of language, as far back as 400-500 thousand years. Carme herself points out that the brain structures associated with language leave marks on the skull, and that the bones of very ancient people that have been analyzed show sings of an active language region. We have spoken ever since we’re human they claim.

Their conversation takes on two branches, one of them is more historical, trying to shed light on the possible timeline of languages, the similarities and differences between ancient and modern spoken languages across the world, I’ll come back to this point as it relates to something that msante pointed out above.

They speak of the incredible fact that the Ibero language has not been publicly translated and studied, not even in Spain, specially when one considers that there’s thousands of written pieces that have been ready to be studied for a very long time. This leads to a conversation about power plays, ideology and lack of will and perhaps even an intentional hiding of the information that the iberian language could provide.

They posit that it’s rather possible that the origin of the Ibero and other european languages may have been Atlantean, although they did not expand on this point very much. But I think it would actually make a lot of sense. They speak of very ancient very complex languages that would allow mankind to work with iron and beasts and communicate and transact amongst themselves. I would think that this would be a sign of an ancient advanced global civilization, that would have been cataclysmically decimated by cosmic encounters.

The conversation gets rather interesting on several points, os they continue to push back in their search for the origin of language in humanity in general, they pointed out that writing comes after speech, and before speech comes the idea, but ideas need a language to be conceived as we use language to think.

Not only to think, but to be able to relate to one another and the world at large, and they propose that it’s not only to describe the world around us, and inside of us and amongst us, but to attune ourselves to the meaning of the universe, more or less.

I liked something they said at some point : The base of language is an idea with a symbol that has a Phonetic tag. Or put another way, the process through which an ethereal idea takes material form. Which made me think of the passage of Genesis, and the word, and how things came into existence as they were spoken into existence.

This made me think of things like spells, curses and so on, but also of prayers and advice, the words we use, and how we speak those words and even the intent behind those, really matters.

They mention that studying language as a mere system that we use, as a tool, misses the human component of language itself. They explain that when studied, languages have several levels of complexity that express more than just a concept or describe an event.

As an example of this they gave the words “Su” and “ie” from the Basque language.

Su: is fire, the phonetic sound of the “S” would be like active energy

ie: Is passing, or traveling

Suie is Soot in French, with they point out is the idea of fire passing through matter. So you’re not just describing the thing in itself, but you’re also utilizing a way to describe an idea of the motion of fire through an object with a specific result.

They speak, not at great length, about vibrations and sounds and the possible meanings and ideas behind certain sounds. Some of which sound very interesting but they remain a bit theoretical, it does however add a lot of depth to speech and writing.

At some point they also mention that, in romance languages, the notion of a sexualization of words because of the vowel in which they end (either “a” or “o”) is an invention of the 20th century, making anyone who sees gender in language, someone who needs special help. This was refreshing

I’d like to invite other spanish speakers to take a listen and perhaps see if I’ve missed any information from their conversation.

But it made me think and connect a few ideas, specially after they said that the spoken languages on earth could not all have the same origin as they differ tremendously from one another, it made me think of something the C’s said once about 4D STS planting several genomes on several parts of the earth, and that there were several different purposes for this and what features each was somewhat designed for.

I seem to remember them saying once also that thinking in a specific language has a different effect on you and how you perceive the world, or something along the lines of this. And this is what connects to what msante was alluding to above.

Beyond the historical timeline of language and its travel across the globe, the possibility of an Atlantean origin to the European peoples, which is fascinating in itself and worth exploring in my view. There’s also the hyper dimensional dimension, once one connects the idea of the language spoken, with the thought process of an individual within a group, and this to behavior and the idea of a genetically specific placement of a people on a specific region, for a specific purpose, the possibility that emanates, is that perhaps part of this genetic profile included access to a specific language, that would allow access to certain parts of reality that would accommodate the purpose for which the genetic profile was designed.

I hope the above makes sense, and if I am going too deep into it, please do let me know. Put another way, If Native Americans, for instance, were designed to be more attuned to the earth and nature (as I vaguely recall was mentioned in one of the old sessions), this necessitated them to possess a specific language that facilitated this process.

As I said before, I hope I did this some justice, I'll keep on digging and sharing whatever else I might find.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I’d like to invite other spanish speakers to take a listen and perhaps see if I’ve missed any information from their conversation.

Thanks, Alejo, I think you have made two good summaries of the two videos, I don't know what else to add. Perhaps provide some more examples that are discussed in the videos and in Carmen's book that I think help to see all these points more clearly.

Regarding the metalanguage or the deep meaning of words that all languages share, beyond Romance languages, Carmen gives an example with the word "night", she does not explain the meaning, but many languages form this word with two symbols: the letter "N" and the number "8":

N+eight= night

N+ocho= noche (Spanish)

N+huit= nuit (French)

N+acht= nacht (German)

N+otto= notte (Italian)

N+oito= noite (Portuguese)

N+atte= natt (Norwegian)

N+opt= noapte (Romanian)

N+vuit= nit (Catalan)

N+octo= nox, noctis (Latin)

Or the example of "forgiven" (perdonar in Spanish) in both languages follows the same idea of "for" + "give" which according to carmen "what a great knowledge of life the culture that understands that to forgive one has to give oneself, to surrender. This is giving us a very deep knowledge of the way of thinking and feeling of these people."

About gender in language, I don't know if it happens with all Romance languages, but at least in Spanish I think the following example is a good argument against all these defenders of the abominable inclusive language. I, at least, am looking forward to meeting one to tell them this. Also, it brings out again this idea that letters have a deeper meaning, OSIT:

Carmen explains that the vowel "a" at the end of the word often has the function of a generalizer, words ending in "a" are "more big" categories:

“more big”: cubo/cuba; huerto/huerta; palo/pala; leño/leña.

Generic of animals: tortuga, jirafa, araña, ardilla...

Category of professions: policía, tenista, pianista, dentista…

Category of plants: herbácea, briofita, pteridofita, angiosperma

Those who study the sciences are written with a generic "o" (matemático, médico, biólogo…) and the sciences (more big) are written with "a" (matemáticas, medicina, biología...).

Basque Seeker

Padawan Learner
As an example of this they gave the words “Su” and “ie” from the Basque language.

Su: is fire, the phonetic sound of the “S” would be like active energy

ie: Is passing, or traveling

Suie is Soot in French, with they point out is the idea of fire passing through matter. So you’re not just describing the thing in itself, but you’re also utilizing a way to describe an idea of the motion of fire through an object with a specific result.


Beyond the historical timeline of language and its travel across the globe, the possibility of an Atlantean origin to the European peoples, which is fascinating in itself and worth exploring in my view.

My two cents wrt these interesting points. Some time ago I came across with few things that captured my attention. First was the astonishing resemblance of multiple key words related to some Basque funerary text fragments discovered compared with the correspondent words of, in principle, completely unrelated languages like Etruscan, Minoan and pre-Romanic Iberian/Tartesian . This can be found in this picture (sorry it's in Spanish):


Then there is evidence of this common pre-Romanic & non-Indo-European origin indeed!

The second thing was related to the Basque word for 'water' which is 'ur', and which turns out to be of major importance in Basque language.

Words like:

-'Year', being 'urte',
-At least two of the months' names of the calendar (urtarrila & urri) being January and October,
-'Season' which is 'urtaro' which could make reference to the cycle of water (or to repetition every year like in 'urtero').
-'Far' which is 'urrun'
-'Blue' being 'urdin'.
-Even one of the most important pre-Christian Basque 'gods' was 'urtzi' which could be created by mixing 'water' (ur) or 'rain' (euri) and 'lightning' root (txi/tzi), the god of the Storms, lightnings, etc.

There are literary thousands of words in Basque starting with 'ur' and related to a 'waterish' concept. You can find many more here:

And that is only for those starting with 'ur'!

Well, the shock came for me when I was looking into names of rivers and lakes in Europe, when I found a plenty of them with the Basque water root on them! Some examples:

-Ural river
-Urmia lake
-Ure river
-Eure river
-Turia river
-Segura river
-Ebro (Euro) river
-Enguri river
-Kura river
-Samur river
-Burgas lake
-Durankulak lake
-Burtnieks lake
-Lura lakes
-Turjača lake
-Buresø lake
-Furesø lake
-Urajärvi lake
-Uurainen lake
-Gurrida lake
-Misurina lake
-Turchino lake
-Bucura lake
-Urlea lake


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I was looking for the reference of the Cassiopeians to the Basques and I came across @shijing thread on Kantek, which is a marvellous one. It covers a chronology of 80,000 years, from the arrival of the Kantekkians, compiling what the Cassiopeians have said in their sessions, and focusing on languages.

I have compiled what can be related to the Iberian peninsula, and the truth is that after reading this thread, this discussion has become a bit insignificant. When you take into account the general framework, 2,000 years is a minutiae, but well, the mystery about the origin of Romance languages is still open.

Q: What was the connection between the Hyperboreans, including the Celts of Britain, I believe, and the people of Delos?
A: Northern peoples were responsible for civilizing the Mediterranean/Adriatic peoples with the encoded secrets contained within their superior extra-terrestrially based genetic arrangement. Practice of which you speak was multi-trans-generational habit.
Q: (L) Okay, what about the Semitic and Mediterranean peoples?
A: Each time a new flock was “planted,” it was engineered to be best suited to the environment where it was planted. Aryans are the only exception, as they had to be moved to earth in an emergency.
Q: (L) Where do the Basques come from?
A: Atlantis.
Q: (L) Is their language the Atlantean language?
A: Derivative.
Q: The Atlanteans were Celts?
A: “Celts, Druids,” etc... are merely latter day designations.
Q: When the philologists track the language roots, they arrive at the Kurgan region, north and west of the Caucasus. Is that where the Celts went when Atlantis was destroyed?
A: Close.
Q: When did the Kantekkians, or Celts or whatever arrive on the Canary Islands?
A: 12,000 years ago.
Q: Did they arrive there from Atlantis directly?
A: Close.
Q: Where from?
A: Confused by trauma.
Q: What does that mean?
A: Guess.
I have been surprised to find several Spanish linguists and historians mentioning that the Basque language comes from Atlantis. Many of them say that the Basque language is the Iberian language and the truth is that they have many similarities, at an official level this is only recognised as a hypothesis. I also found similarities between the Basque language and the aborigines of the Canary Islands, even between the Basque language and the Dogon (Mali, Africa).

I found the image shared by @Basque Seeker in English:


The similarities between Iberian and Basque are evident, as they are with other pre-Romanic languages, and they all seem to come from the same source: Atlantis. And yet Spanish and English are worlds apart.

So I don't think Spanish comes from Iberian, I think Basque comes from Iberian.

Romance languages must have another origin that explains why languages that are so similar are spoken from Portugal to Romania, if we discard the official version of Vulgar Latin as the origin of Romance languages.

I don't know, I'm really ignorant about languages, I still have a lot to learn to find the answer. Any ideas are welcome.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I have been surprised to find several Spanish linguists and historians mentioning that the Basque language comes from Atlantis.

The similarities between Iberian and Basque are evident, as they are with other pre-Romanic languages, and they all seem to come from the same source: Atlantis. And yet Spanish and English are worlds apart.

There is a well-known book among the many that narrate the history of Atlantis from an esoteric perspective, which includes a very small chapter on language: A Dweller on Two Planets - Wikipedia

The 13th chapter of the book, The Language of the Soul:

''Zailm, my son, thou heardst the narration of the Saldu, Lolix. As thou knowest, it is from things arisen out of the occurrences by her related that thou goest on a mission to Suem. It is not a hard task, merely to make return of acknowledgment for the gifts presented and disavowal of our intent to keep as prisoners the people whom Rai Emon sent hither. We will give them asylimi, but Rai Emon must not think that we permit their presence for any purpose except to do him a favor. Concerning other business, on the morrow it is Rai
Gwauxln's pleasure that thou attendest at Agacoe. But wilt thou not remain here this night?"

"My father, I fain would stay; but is it not duteous that I go imto my mother this night and set her at ease? She hath an infirmity of nervousness that can not well withstand my absence at night."

"Thou art right, Zailm. Yet soon it must be arranged that thy mother be domiciled in some pleasant part of this astikithlon, 80 that thou shalt be imder thy father's roof at night."

I then departed from the prince and from the sweet girl who had been with us during a part of the evening, and went forth into the night. The rain had ceased, and the clouds, rolling across the sky in sullen blackness, had but one rift in their gloomy mass. In this single rent shone a great white star, which at times flashed red. As I looked at it, down close to the horizon, seeming that moment risen from old ocean's phosphorescent waters, visible from Menax Heights, I thought of the past; for this star had flashed brightly upon me while I awaited the sunrise on Pitach Rhok. So many years it seemed since that mom! To-day this star is called "Sirius,'' we named it ''Corietos." As I looked upon it, it seemed an omen auspicious of success, past, present and to come. Raising my hands toward it, I murmured:

"Phyris, Phyrisooa Pertos!" which is: "Star, O star of my life."

It seems a little singular that the language which is translated thus should have a similar sound and import as to-day used by the people of my home planet. At that old day I raised my hands aloft and exclaimed: "Star, O star of my life!" Today I turn awhile from precipitating this history in astral word-things, turn to my Alter Ego, and say: "Phyris, Phyrisa." This is her own dear name, and signifies "Star of my soul." Peculiar, is it not, that twelve thousand years should pass, and I, member of another race of human beings, in another mansion, find so little change in the language of the soul?

I have marked in bold the words that were supposedly used in the Atlantean continent. The book has its dictionary.

The simplest example: Rai = Emperor or monarch.

Other words whose phonetics can be found in the languages of the Incas and the Aztecs and others seem more related to those we can find in ancient Greece, because of how they sound.

Note the word Phyris. If you separate it into Phy-ris. Phy can be found in e.g. Physis: Physis - Wikipedia

Physis (/ˈfaɪˈsɪs/; Ancient Greek: φύσις [pʰýsis]) is a Greek philosophical, theological, and scientific term, usually translated into English — according to its Latin translation "natura" — as "nature". [...] The Greek word "physis" can be considered the equivalent of the Latin natura. The abstract term physis is derived from the verb phyesthai/phynai, which means “to grow”, “to develop”, “to become” (Frisk 2006: 1052; Caspers 2010b: 1068). In ancient philosophy one also finds the noun "physis" referring to the growth expressed in the verb phyesthai/phynai and to the origin of development (Plato, Menexenos 237a; Aristotle, Metaphysics 1014b16–17). In terms of linguistic history, this verb is related to forms such as the English “be”, German bist or Latin fui (Lohmann 1960: 174; Pfeifer 1993: 1273; Beekes 2010: 1598). In Greek itself, the aorist (a verbal aspect) of “to be” can be expressed with forms of phynai. With regard to its kinship with “being” and the basic meaning of the verb stem phy- or bhu- (“growing”), there has long been criticism of the conventional translation of the word "physis" with “nature”. With the Latin natura, which for its part goes back to the verb nasci (“to be born”), one transfers the basic word "physis" into a different sphere of association. In this way, the emerging growth (of plants, for instance) is transferred into the realm of being born.[4]
Top Bottom