Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

Εἰρήνη said:
(...), I came to the conclusion that the "Tower of Babel" event happened only in the human consciousness/perception (conditioned by changed physicality). So, it is not the languages that changed. It is our perception of them that changed. ONE UNIFIED language exists and always existed. But people lost that understanding. Modern people understand words in a more literal/flat way, as opposed to understanding speech multidimensionally from all angels simultaneously as some sort of a multifaceted gem. This multi-angle approach allows one to see concepts of speech in their entire volume, without choosing only one common faucet of a word.
(...)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes and no ?

Session 5 October 1994 :

Q: (L) What was the event a hundred or so years after the flood of Noah that was described as the confusing of languages, or the tower of Babel?

A: Spiritual confluence.

Q: (L) What purpose did the individuals who came together to build the tower intend for said tower?

A: Electromagnetic concentration of all gravity waves.

Q: (L) And what did they intend to do with these concentrated waves?

A: Mind alteration of masses.

Q: (L) What intention did they have in altering the mind of the masses?

A: Spiritual unification of the masses.

Q: (L) Who were the "gods" that looked down on the tower of Babel, at those who were building it with the intention of unification, and decided to destroy their works?

A: Lizards.

Q: (L) Okay, so the Lizzies blew up the tower of Babel. What else did they do to the minds of mankind; did they do something causing literal disruption of their understanding of language?

A: Close.

Q: (L) What tool did they use to accomplish this divisiveness?

A: Brainwashing of masses.
 
Chu said:
I finally published something on Substack, for those who may be interested:
Click to expand...

I didn't watch your videos nor read this thread, but I read your article from your last post and must say it's quite a fascinating field.

I have been thinking to myself lately that I find more efficient a language that uses an alphabet as opposed to a language that uses a logographic writing system (Mandarin for example), at least for reading/writing purposes. I find it so inefficient to have to learn more than 5000 Hanzis in order to be able to become "functional", as opposed to our Latin alphabet which seems much simpler.

And in regards to the "sounds" of a language, there are so many homophones in Mandarin because they lack a variety of sounds that we have in French and English. So they came up with "tones"...

After reading your article, I became curious, so I asked ChatGPT to help answer my questions, and I never expected what it told me:
English has more syllables than French!?
Also, it's estimated that at least 10-20% of Mandarin words are homophones, 1-2% of English words are homophones, 3-5% of French words are homophones.


Q- analyzing Mandarin vs Cantonese vs English vs French. How many initials and finals (or sounds) each language has?

Mandarin (Standard Chinese)​

Mandarin has a relatively simple phonetic system.
  • Initials: 21
    These are the consonants at the beginning of a syllable (e.g., b, p, m, f, d).
    Examples: bā (爸), mā (妈)
  • Finals: 39
    These are the vowel sounds and possible codas that follow the initials (e.g., a, ai, an, iou).
    Examples: mā, máo (毛), miàn (面)
  • Tones: 4 main tones (plus a neutral tone) drastically change the meaning of words.
Total combinations: About 420 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, around 1,200 distinguishable sounds.

Cantonese​

Cantonese is more phonemically complex than Mandarin.
  • Initials: 19
    Slightly fewer than Mandarin, but still covering many consonants.
  • Finals: 53
    Cantonese has more finals than Mandarin because it retains more traditional Chinese sound endings (e.g., -p, -t, -k).
  • Tones: 6-9 tones, depending on the counting method (some count entering tones as separate).
Total combinations: Over 600 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, the number exceeds 6,000.

English​

English has a much larger and more irregular phonetic inventory.
  • Consonants (Initials): Around 24
    Examples: p, t, k, s, sh, th.
  • Vowels (Finals): Around 20 distinct vowel sounds, depending on the dialect (e.g., short vowels, long vowels, diphthongs).
    Examples: cat, key, boat, cow.
  • No tones: Stress and intonation are used instead.
Total combinations: With its flexible syllable structure, English has over 15,000 possible syllables, making it much larger than Mandarin or Cantonese.

French​

French has a moderate sound inventory but is distinct in how nasal vowels and liaison work.
  • Consonants (Initials): Around 20-22 (depending on the dialect).
    Examples: p, b, t, s, ch.
  • Vowels (Finals): 13-16, including 4 nasalized vowels.
    Examples: é, è, â, eau, un.
  • No tones: Like English, French uses stress and intonation.
Total combinations: French has around 1,000-1,200 syllables, much fewer than English but comparable to Mandarin (without tones).

​

Comparison Table​

LanguageInitialsFinals (Vowels)TonesTotal Sounds (w/o Tones)Total Sounds (w/ Tones)
Mandarin21394+1~420~1,200
Cantonese19536-9~600~6,000
English24~20None~15,000N/A
French20-2213-16None~1,000-1,200N/A



Q- Are you sure about the "total combinations" number you gave me regarding French and English? We share the same alphabet, thus almost everything is similar, so how could it be possible for English to have 15 000 possible syllables vs French 1000-1200? It does not make any sense.


You raise a very valid point! Let me clarify the difference between English and French in terms of phonetic combinations. The disparity in the total syllables stems from phonological diversity, not just the shared alphabet. English and French both use the Latin script, but their pronunciation rules, phonemes, and syllable structure differ significantly.

Why English Has More Possible Syllables Than French​

  1. Number of Vowel Phonemes:
    • English: English has a rich vowel system with approximately 20 distinct vowel sounds (including diphthongs like "ai" in time and "oi" in coin). Regional accents may add even more variation.
    • French: French has about 13-16 vowel sounds, including its nasal vowels (an, en, un, on). French lacks diphthongs and glide vowels as distinct phonemes.
      Result: More vowels lead to more possible syllables in English.
  2. Syllable Structures:
    • English: English allows very complex syllables, including:
      • Clusters of consonants at the beginning (stray, spring).
      • Clusters at the end (texts, banks).
    • French: French syllables are simpler and often end in vowels (cheval, élève). Consonant clusters are rare, and many final consonants are silent.
      Result: English’s flexible syllable structure creates far more possible combinations.
  3. Phoneme Variety:
    • English: English uses around 44 phonemes (depending on the dialect) to construct syllables.
    • French: French uses around 36 phonemes.
      Result: A larger inventory of phonemes increases the number of combinations in English.
  4. Stress and Reduced Vowels:
    • English: English uses stress to differentiate syllables, and reduced vowels (like the schwa sound, /ə/) can occur in weak syllables. For example: record (noun vs. verb).
    • French: Stress is fixed on the last syllable of a phrase, and reduced vowels are rare.
      Result: Stress and vowel reduction in English add more possibilities.

Estimated Syllable Count​

  • English:
    • By combining its large vowel inventory, consonant clusters, and flexible syllable structures, English has been estimated to have over 15,000 possible syllables.
  • French:
    • French has fewer phonemes and simpler syllable structures, leading to an estimated 1,000-1,200 syllables.
 
As someone that does speak/write several langs. ( though in different states of disrepair, if you will ) , wanting to an find essential structure in language must take into consideration the wielder , since exoteric "science" only looks outside , this seems like a failing proposition, remember reading , one of Ingo Swann's accounts , where he was in an , somewhat expanded awareness state , of, witnessing all kind of symbols floating around people . Simultaneously take into account the description of the human vessel , as in the tradition ( gnosis) , ie. the eneagram , to reach a more precise description of human language , it stands somewhat to logic to go beyond the symbol-logic context , perhaps pranalytical is in part that (?) , higher density seems to by default (?) communicate in images and telepathically , this implies a wider availability to expression/receivership , in this regard , perhaps the splitting of the centers is in part what allows sts to so easily confuse humans ( with symbols ).
 
Chu said:
If you had to guess, would you say that all languages of the world are equally complex?

------------------------------------

For me, more than the complexity of a language is the speed with which it is spoken.

Many languages want to express a phrase and link it with another and then with another and so on, and, although this difficulty is overcome with practice, it is in the meaning that is given to certain words where the true difficulty of languages is.

There are up to 4 ways to interpret certain words.

But some words that derive from new techniques and inventions seem, to begin with, to give a change to the way of expressing oneself, forming words and even phrases with an interesting twist as they are integrated into different languages and make communication more universally understandable.
 
Whoohoo, @Chu :clap:You did it!! Well done! I just read your article, and I found it very interesting and look forward to your next one. As a complete layman, I think it's very educational that you describe the schools of thought and set out why you don't agree. It seems that also in the linguistics field, as in plenty other fields, they just want to ignore the facts on the ground, i.e. reality, and live only in (their) warped theory land.

But unfortunately, most others are no different from other “experts” in the Academia, regardless of how intelligent and well-educated they seem to be: they have also been brainwashed by political correctness, materialism and “truths” that are taken as a given, and that have gone unchallenged since their very inception.
Click to expand...
And here you are to shine a light on what's been shoved under the rug. Please continue to share your knowledge. Perhaps it's an idea to make a series and put it up on SOTT? Again, congratulations, I know this was not easy for you :hug2:
 
Laurs said:
Whoohoo, @Chu :clap:You did it!! Well done! I just read your article, and I found it very interesting and look forward to your next one. As a complete layman, I think it's very educational that you describe the schools of thought and set out why you don't agree. It seems that also in the linguistics field, as in plenty other fields, they just want to ignore the facts on the ground, i.e. reality, and live only in (their) warped theory land.


And here you are to shine a light on what's been shoved under the rug. Please continue to share your knowledge. Perhaps it's an idea to make a series and put it up on SOTT? Again, congratulations, I know this was not easy for you :hug2:
Click to expand...
Agreed. :headbanger:
 
Thanks a lot for the article, @Chu - very interesting read.

Apart from the question of complexity, the language gives insight into the thinking of the people speaking it. Once you start to learn a language and get beyond a certain basic level, all sorts of wonderful things open up - the language as a window into their thinking, how they formulate certain concepts, how they view their surroundings and their interaction with others.

That has been interesting from working with Australian Aboriginal people - English is often their 3rd of 4th ‘foreign’ language, and many concepts they are exposed to by the modern Australian society lacks words in their own language, so they create new descriptive words for that and then translate them literally into English. Or often they absorb the English term into their language. Anyway, fascinating topic … sorry, I’m rambling.

And I agree with Ollie - looking forward to more!
 
Laurs said:
And here you are to shine a light on what's been shoved under the rug. Please continue to share your knowledge. Perhaps it's an idea to make a series and put it up on SOTT? Again, congratulations, I know this was not easy for you :hug2:
Click to expand...

Yes, I think it's a good idea to upload it to SOTT, I was thinking of translating it for SOTT in Spanish, I don't know if Chu prefers to stay only on Subtrack. What do you think @Chu ?
 
Ricardo said:
to go beyond the symbol-logic context
Click to expand...

I think to see through the symbol-logic context is a key to understanding reality.
Mythology and religion tries to tell us about this. To give a few examples:
*six pleiades (common interpretations of a word or a symbol within the constraints of duality) and the seventh pleiade separated from the 6 sisters by the veil. This seventh sister, I think, is the true transcendental meaning that unites all other interpretations and reveals the nature of the phenomenon that a word attempts to describe;
* six points of the star of David and the G in the middle is similar to the six pleiades and the invisible seventh sister;
* six doves fly to the mouth of Zeus, one dies becoming a spirit;
* the spirit of law vs the letter of law;
* the top of the pyramid with the all-seeing eye veiled by clouds...etc…

The spelling of the same word metamorphosizes from one language to another and its interpretations change from one person to another it is possible to track down their path. I call these variations of the same - scattering, or dispersion, or the multitude. But the true meaning (the nature) shines through this mass of discrete particles; it is not something that is directly-discretely seen. It can be seen as something in between, or as a shadow, or seen on a tip of a needle, or between the sheets of rain.

It is like an archetypal vision of a unified body of fluidity; seeing through words/ dust particles without being gravitated to them through passions or other attachments that blind the true understanding of reality. Words work in a way that a meaning cannot be expressed through one word, it will slip away.

All letters, symbols, and all words in all languages transform one into another and essentially mean the same thing with different variations of the same. Like Peter turns into Paul, ying turns into yang. On a certain level of discreteness they can be antagonists, but at the topmost level of the archetypal abstraction they form one flow. Likewise all stories are about one thing, all gods mean the same thing, all historical or fictional characters represent one thing: the hero of a thousand faces, the ouroboros , the neverending self sustaining self igniting cyclical nature of life.
 
Chu said:
Are all languages equally complex?
If you had to guess, would you say that all languages of the world are equally complex?
-------------------------------------------
I thought this was the first chapter of an upcoming book, so I wrote my reply 229 in a general way based on the announcement described above because I found it very interesting that this thread was being followed.

Now I see that it is an article that I will read because it is a very interesting topic and to make more comments soon.
 
meadow_wind said:
I didn't watch your videos nor read this thread, but I read your article from your last post and must say it's quite a fascinating field.

I have been thinking to myself lately that I find more efficient a language that uses an alphabet as opposed to a language that uses a logographic writing system (Mandarin for example), at least for reading/writing purposes. I find it so inefficient to have to learn more than 5000 Hanzis in order to be able to become "functional", as opposed to our Latin alphabet which seems much simpler.

And in regards to the "sounds" of a language, there are so many homophones in Mandarin because they lack a variety of sounds that we have in French and English. So they came up with "tones"...

After reading your article, I became curious, so I asked ChatGPT to help answer my questions, and I never expected what it told me:
English has more syllables than French!?
Also, it's estimated that at least 10-20% of Mandarin words are homophones, 1-2% of English words are homophones, 3-5% of French words are homophones.


Q- analyzing Mandarin vs Cantonese vs English vs French. How many initials and finals (or sounds) each language has?

Mandarin (Standard Chinese)​

Mandarin has a relatively simple phonetic system.
  • Initials: 21
    These are the consonants at the beginning of a syllable (e.g., b, p, m, f, d).
    Examples: bā (爸), mā (妈)
  • Finals: 39
    These are the vowel sounds and possible codas that follow the initials (e.g., a, ai, an, iou).
    Examples: mā, máo (毛), miàn (面)
  • Tones: 4 main tones (plus a neutral tone) drastically change the meaning of words.
Total combinations: About 420 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, around 1,200 distinguishable sounds.

Cantonese​

Cantonese is more phonemically complex than Mandarin.

  • Initials: 19
    Slightly fewer than Mandarin, but still covering many consonants.
  • Finals: 53
    Cantonese has more finals than Mandarin because it retains more traditional Chinese sound endings (e.g., -p, -t, -k).
  • Tones: 6-9 tones, depending on the counting method (some count entering tones as separate).
Total combinations: Over 600 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, the number exceeds 6,000.

English​

English has a much larger and more irregular phonetic inventory.

  • Consonants (Initials): Around 24
    Examples: p, t, k, s, sh, th.
  • Vowels (Finals): Around 20 distinct vowel sounds, depending on the dialect (e.g., short vowels, long vowels, diphthongs).
    Examples: cat, key, boat, cow.
  • No tones: Stress and intonation are used instead.
Total combinations: With its flexible syllable structure, English has over 15,000 possible syllables, making it much larger than Mandarin or Cantonese.

French​

French has a moderate sound inventory but is distinct in how nasal vowels and liaison work.

  • Consonants (Initials): Around 20-22 (depending on the dialect).
    Examples: p, b, t, s, ch.
  • Vowels (Finals): 13-16, including 4 nasalized vowels.
    Examples: é, è, â, eau, un.
  • No tones: Like English, French uses stress and intonation.
Total combinations: French has around 1,000-1,200 syllables, much fewer than English but comparable to Mandarin (without tones).

​

Comparison Table​


LanguageInitialsFinals (Vowels)TonesTotal Sounds (w/o Tones)Total Sounds (w/ Tones)
Mandarin21394+1~420~1,200
Cantonese19536-9~600~6,000
English24~20None~15,000N/A
French20-2213-16None~1,000-1,200N/A



Q- Are you sure about the "total combinations" number you gave me regarding French and English? We share the same alphabet, thus almost everything is similar, so how could it be possible for English to have 15 000 possible syllables vs French 1000-1200? It does not make any sense.


You raise a very valid point! Let me clarify the difference between English and French in terms of phonetic combinations. The disparity in the total syllables stems from phonological diversity, not just the shared alphabet. English and French both use the Latin script, but their pronunciation rules, phonemes, and syllable structure differ significantly.

Why English Has More Possible Syllables Than French​

  1. Number of Vowel Phonemes:
    • English: English has a rich vowel system with approximately 20 distinct vowel sounds (including diphthongs like "ai" in time and "oi" in coin). Regional accents may add even more variation.
    • French: French has about 13-16 vowel sounds, including its nasal vowels (an, en, un, on). French lacks diphthongs and glide vowels as distinct phonemes.
      Result: More vowels lead to more possible syllables in English.
    • English: English allows very complex syllables, including:
      • Clusters of consonants at the beginning (stray, spring).
      • Clusters at the end (texts, banks).
    • French: French syllables are simpler and often end in vowels (cheval, élève). Consonant clusters are rare, and many final consonants are silent.
      Result: English’s flexible syllable structure creates far more possible combinations.

Estimated Syllable Count​


  • English:
    • By combining its large vowel inventory, consonant clusters, and flexible syllable structures, English has been estimated to have over 15,000 possible syllables.
    • French has fewer phonemes and simpler syllable structures, leading to an estimated 1,000-1,200 syllables.
Click to expand...
very interesting. i grew up in german, studied in french, worked in english amongst the 13 european states participating in esa. the only practical language, world-wide, is english. only the brits did not have to learn other laguages. in this i believe to see a reason for the uk/usa ARROGANCE. different mother languages are a curse. this is why we should all learn telepathy.
 
meadow_wind said:
I didn't watch your videos nor read this thread, but I read your article from your last post and must say it's quite a fascinating field.

I have been thinking to myself lately that I find more efficient a language that uses an alphabet as opposed to a language that uses a logographic writing system (Mandarin for example), at least for reading/writing purposes. I find it so inefficient to have to learn more than 5000 Hanzis in order to be able to become "functional", as opposed to our Latin alphabet which seems much simpler.

And in regards to the "sounds" of a language, there are so many homophones in Mandarin because they lack a variety of sounds that we have in French and English. So they came up with "tones"...

After reading your article, I became curious, so I asked ChatGPT to help answer my questions, and I never expected what it told me:
English has more syllables than French!?
Also, it's estimated that at least 10-20% of Mandarin words are homophones, 1-2% of English words are homophones, 3-5% of French words are homophones.


Q- analyzing Mandarin vs Cantonese vs English vs French. How many initials and finals (or sounds) each language has?

Mandarin (Standard Chinese)​

Mandarin has a relatively simple phonetic system.
  • Initials: 21
    These are the consonants at the beginning of a syllable (e.g., b, p, m, f, d).
    Examples: bā (爸), mā (妈)
  • Finals: 39
    These are the vowel sounds and possible codas that follow the initials (e.g., a, ai, an, iou).
    Examples: mā, máo (毛), miàn (面)
  • Tones: 4 main tones (plus a neutral tone) drastically change the meaning of words.
Total combinations: About 420 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, around 1,200 distinguishable sounds.

Cantonese​

Cantonese is more phonemically complex than Mandarin.

  • Initials: 19
    Slightly fewer than Mandarin, but still covering many consonants.
  • Finals: 53
    Cantonese has more finals than Mandarin because it retains more traditional Chinese sound endings (e.g., -p, -t, -k).
  • Tones: 6-9 tones, depending on the counting method (some count entering tones as separate).
Total combinations: Over 600 syllables (excluding tones). Including tones, the number exceeds 6,000.

English​

English has a much larger and more irregular phonetic inventory.

  • Consonants (Initials): Around 24
    Examples: p, t, k, s, sh, th.
  • Vowels (Finals): Around 20 distinct vowel sounds, depending on the dialect (e.g., short vowels, long vowels, diphthongs).
    Examples: cat, key, boat, cow.
  • No tones: Stress and intonation are used instead.
Total combinations: With its flexible syllable structure, English has over 15,000 possible syllables, making it much larger than Mandarin or Cantonese.

French​

French has a moderate sound inventory but is distinct in how nasal vowels and liaison work.

  • Consonants (Initials): Around 20-22 (depending on the dialect).
    Examples: p, b, t, s, ch.
  • Vowels (Finals): 13-16, including 4 nasalized vowels.
    Examples: é, è, â, eau, un.
  • No tones: Like English, French uses stress and intonation.
Total combinations: French has around 1,000-1,200 syllables, much fewer than English but comparable to Mandarin (without tones).

​

Comparison Table​


LanguageInitialsFinals (Vowels)TonesTotal Sounds (w/o Tones)Total Sounds (w/ Tones)
Mandarin21394+1~420~1,200
Cantonese19536-9~600~6,000
English24~20None~15,000N/A
French20-2213-16None~1,000-1,200N/A



Q- Are you sure about the "total combinations" number you gave me regarding French and English? We share the same alphabet, thus almost everything is similar, so how could it be possible for English to have 15 000 possible syllables vs French 1000-1200? It does not make any sense.


You raise a very valid point! Let me clarify the difference between English and French in terms of phonetic combinations. The disparity in the total syllables stems from phonological diversity, not just the shared alphabet. English and French both use the Latin script, but their pronunciation rules, phonemes, and syllable structure differ significantly.

Why English Has More Possible Syllables Than French​

  1. Number of Vowel Phonemes:
    • English: English has a rich vowel system with approximately 20 distinct vowel sounds (including diphthongs like "ai" in time and "oi" in coin). Regional accents may add even more variation.
    • French: French has about 13-16 vowel sounds, including its nasal vowels (an, en, un, on). French lacks diphthongs and glide vowels as distinct phonemes.
      Result: More vowels lead to more possible syllables in English.
    • English: English allows very complex syllables, including:
      • Clusters of consonants at the beginning (stray, spring).
      • Clusters at the end (texts, banks).
    • French: French syllables are simpler and often end in vowels (cheval, élève). Consonant clusters are rare, and many final consonants are silent.
      Result: English’s flexible syllable structure creates far more possible combinations.

Estimated Syllable Count​


  • English:
    • By combining its large vowel inventory, consonant clusters, and flexible syllable structures, English has been estimated to have over 15,000 possible syllables.
    • French has fewer phonemes and simpler syllable structures, leading to an estimated 1,000-1,200 syllables.
Click to expand...
the c said that the unifying language at the time of atlantis was sanscrit. WHAT does this ai have to say about this?.
 
Εἰρήνη said:
After studying many modern and old languages to a different extent, including some aboriginal languages of Africa, Australia, Siberia and the Americas, I came to the conclusion that the "Tower of Babel" event happened only in the human consciousness/perception (conditioned by changed physicality). So, it is not the languages that changed. It is our perception of them that changed. ONE UNIFIED language exists and always existed. But people lost that understanding. Modern people understand words in a more literal/flat way, as opposed to understanding speech multidimensionally from all angels simultaneously as some sort of a multifaceted gem. This multi-angle approach allows one to see concepts of speech in their entire volume, without choosing only one common faucet of a word.
I think this is how the biblical "fall" is described: only one (apple) out of the entirety of the multitude was chosen, causing a limitation in understanding the language and the world. Another mythological example could be the deadly gaze of meduza turning everything into stone,because if the understanding of a word is based only on one faucet (literal way of looking at words), and not based on the entirety of the meaning looked from all angles at once, this word becomes discrete or separated from other meanings and other languages. I think all religions, all myths, all stories talk about it. When words are viewed only from one point of view (not all at once) the connection between concepts is lost, the multilevel understanding of reality is lost, the fluidity of the mind is lost, the connections between all world languages are lost.
But if we understand the deep meaning of a word we can understand ALL world languages.

Understanding of words and languages comes with understanding of life as a cycle, as a torus-shaped flow perhaps. I think the concept of the Wave the Cs talk about fits here perfectly (based on how I understand it at this moment). For example, after I grouped all the most common root words of all languages into categories, I saw that consonants are less fluid, and therefore more stable to preserve the structure of a root. After that I boiled them down to 2-3 consonant only roots. (I say “boil” because the studying of language reminds me.of an alchemical process). At this level I started seeing that many world languages are very similar and could be understood for the most part. After that I started seeing that consonants are not as constant as I thought, they metamorphosize one into another and that they have also a fluid cyclical nature in which everything flows and never stops changing. Sort of like the concept of ouroboros, or infinity. At this point I understood that all languages, all words boil down to a few archetypal meanings, which can ultimately be viewed as one. But if needed it can be separated back into myriads of words and languages. This is a very fast and rough explanation. It is always fun to go into details and see how a word transforms before your very eyes as its multidimensional meaning is being revealed.

I think this algorithm can be applied to everything else that exists, including DNA. Speech as a phenomenon can be called immortal for as long as there is someone who can speak; on a descrete/non-abstract scale languages appear to be different from one another, but on the grand cycle of things all languages can be understood by an individual as one. DNA exists and develops on a similar basis: discretness and the illusion of life and death on a small scale vs immortality/neverending continuity of life as a whole on a large scale.
So, are all languages equally complex? I would say yes and no depending on the level of abstraction and the angle we chose to look at it. On the most abstract level all languages boil down to one concept: ouroboros, the cycle of life, the Wave
Click to expand...
Apologies for not going through your post in details now, but I hope to address some of those points in future articles or videos. This is just my take, FWIW: Although I think it goes in the right direction by trying to look at the bigger picture (and I agree with you about the few archetypal meanings), I don't quite agree with you when it comes to how languages are designed and stitched together. I think languages ARE different, because human designers are different. That's not to say that they don't share a LOT more than is usually believed, just like humans do.

I can't speak for everyone, but at least personally, I'm lacking a lot of knowledge still to make any definite assessments. And as to roots, so much has been distorted, that it hides the most significant problem: that languages were created by different engineers. With similar "parts", but not quite the same. OSIT.
 
meadow_wind said:
I have been thinking to myself lately that I find more efficient a language that uses an alphabet as opposed to a language that uses a logographic writing system (Mandarin for example), at least for reading/writing purposes. I find it so inefficient to have to learn more than 5000 Hanzis in order to be able to become "functional", as opposed to our Latin alphabet which seems much simpler.
Click to expand...

We're going a bit off topic here, I think. But I think that your confusion stems from what you know as "simple". To a Chinese, learning words in English or French is very complicated. Not only do the rules seem to be very random, but also, they have to pretty much memorize everything, there being no visible connection between a word and its meaning. Also, if you remove writing, it is easier to communicate in Chinese than in Western languages. The grammar is much simpler. So, what is more or less practical is a matter of perspective. ;-)

And the same with your question about sounds. To us it seems more "practical" to have more possible combinations. But to a Chinese, having less combinations + tones makes up for a very compact and clever system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom