Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Part 4 - Sounds and Meaning: The molecules of language

Hello, and welcome to Language with Chu. This is a series of videos on sounds and meaning. If you haven't watched the first ones, I recommend that you do so, because this is part four, so I've already talked about the other theories and why I'm talking about this. So, please check the videos above if you haven't, and then resume watching this one.

Slide14.JPG

Here we come to my favorite of the three, even though I'm really, really partial to the phonosemantics one too, which I talked about on part two. This one by Abraham Abehsera is a fabulous book. In fact, I think everybody should read it, just out of curiosity if you like languages, because it gives you a new way of looking at them.

Slide15.JPG


His idea is that, because we don't have any records… Usually you see trees like these, right? And you say, okay, well, it must be proven, right? That Latin leads to Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc. Germanic. Blah blah. blah. And you take it as a given that that's it. But we forget that a lot of this is guessing, pure, pure guesswork. There's no proof, there's proof sometimes when it comes to the same language and how it evolved or changed. In my opinion, it doesn't “evolve”, really, but it changes. But there's very little proof of how one led to the other. Again, that's a topic for another video.

But what Abraham Abehsera says is that nobody asks some really simple questions. For example, what happened at the beginning that led to language? Did the language capacity grow, develop on its own and people didn't have language but were capable of it? The same with mathematics, for example. Or did all come about at the same time? What were the first words, and how were they chosen? You know, who chose the first sounds? Who chose the first words? Who chose what to name? Then, according to which law? How did they come up with the system? And more so when you start thinking about the structure of a language.

In another series of videos, I'm going to talk about these questions more in depth, and the different schools of thoughts, and the different theories, from creationism to Darwinism. And you'll see what a mess it is, actually. These questions aren't answered, and are not likely to be anytime soon.

But anyway, back to his work he asks, why did cousin languages adopt different sounds for the same concept? Horse, cheval, caballo, etc. That's just for the word horse, even though they are cousin indo-European languages, they each chose different sounds. Maybe an explanation is what I just told you on part two about phonosemantics, maybe not. Maybe there's something else that binds words together and makes each people choose different essences of things to name them.

Then, why does each word have a certain sound, certain combination of sounds, instead of others? Why did English speakers decide to call an apple an apple and not a carrot? Nobody knows. And finally, why do cousin languages choose the same sounds for different meanings? Like appel is to call in French, and apple, you know what it is in English. Gateau is a cake in French, and gato in Spanish is a cat. So the same combinations of sounds, consonants in particular, but different meanings. It’s kind of strange, right? They could all have picked the same. Why not?

Well what's sure is that arbitrary consensus doesn't explain. This decision that was just collective, and you know, a little group of people started deciding, and they came up with a word and said, okay, let's name an apple and apple. It doesn't explain it. Why not? Because there are too many parallels in all the world languages, not just within the same families.

So let's look at that a little bit more closely:


Slide16.JPG

He talks about how universal language ignores time. Basically, what he calls “universal language” is what you can perceive if you study different words from different languages, as I'm going to do in a minute. You'll see that there's something that almost tells you that people back then, were a lot more right-brained. You know, the right brain is the one that sees the whole, the essence, the global meaning of things, while the left brain is more logical, it's analytical, it's the one where supposedly language is more centered nowadays. But perhaps people in the past had more of an ability to think with their right brain, and imagine things, and perceive the essence of things. Why not? He's not the only one to say it, actually, there are several references I could give you about it. And I think it's quite convincing, actually, when you think about how words came to be…

This is just my analogy of it. It's funny because, in a sense, this is the elephant in the room in Linguistics too. Nobody wants to talk about these topics, as I said on part one. But, you know the story of the blind men: Each blind man is touching a part of the elephant, and nobody can figure out what it is. So this one will guess he's touching a rope, the other one a tree, the other one a wall, etc. And the idea is that all of us together can see much more reality than each of us alone.

Well, extrapolate that to languages, and what he's saying is that… Imagine this was the word for tree in English, in Spanish, in Hebrew, and Chinese, etc, etc. And each one of them conveyed a little bit of that “essence” of the word. And when you combine them together, when you see them together, that's when you get a real idea of what a word means. It's kind of an interesting concept. If you've ever learned a foreign language, you notice that there are subtleties, words that are so simple… Like cabbage: you know, in Spanish or in English cabbage is a cabbage, right? You don't think of many analogies or things to say about it. Well, in French, if you call somebody “my cabbage”, it's an endearing term. So cabbage has another connotation there, of something endearing, cute, whatever. The same happens with almost every word, I would say, even though there are “exact translations”. There's always a subtlety that you perceive when you learn a foreign language that wasn't there in your mother tongue. So he could be onto something by explaining this is a sort of a molecule.

And let me explain to you how he came up with this way of viewing words:


Slide17.JPG

He says there should be two dictionaries: one dictionary for synonyms, so words that mean something similar or the same in all languages combined, and another one for homonyms, taking words that sound the same. And he would have two dictionaries and combine them both. So you start off with what he calls the “square unit” which is… You try to look between languages or the same language for synonyms: two words that mean something similar, and put them in the Y-axis. And on the X-axis, you look for homonyms, words that sound the same, share the same sounds. And he focuses on consonants, but I think vowels would apply too, except they're a little more flexible, they change more with time or across dialects, and things like that. So he focused on consonants.

But let's take an example: You have the word mèche, which means wick in French. So mèche/wick. Totally different sounds, but they have the same meaning. Then you look for two words: one that will have the /m/ and the /sh/ sound in French as well, and mean something different, and with /w/ and /k/ in English that would mean something similar here. So you have to find similar sound here, similar meaning here. And we got a pair: méchant and wicked, so something about an evil person. And he says, for each pair that you find like this, in the six or seven thousand languages of the world, you may find five, ten, sometimes three, or whatever. And what is interesting about these is that, if you were to look as normal linguists or, in general, people look at them, you would find that these words were not related at all. They have different roots. All of them have different roots. And they tell you, okay, it comes from old Germanic, it comes from whatever, Gaelic, Proto-Indoeuropean (they make up the words for Proto-Indoeuropean) and Proto-Germanic… “Proto” =old, imagined (no traces), and then you come up with these words. So notice, the roots are different. They shouldn't be related if there's nothing in common, right? Yet, you find out that there's something that binds them. It's almost like gravity. Can you guess what that is? What do these words share? It’s the idea of a torsion. A person who is wicked is twisted, just like the wick is, right? And you're like, okay, that's interesting! It's almost like a like a force field that binds these four words together, even though they didn't have the same roots.

Now, if you saw just one example, you may say, well, maybe it's a coincidence, maybe they got the roots wrong, whatever. But let's expand this example, and do what he did to find these “molecules of language”, the elephant.


Slide18.JPG


You take any two concepts, like mother/wife/woman and horse. And you look for two homonyms: bride in English and bride in French, which means “bridle”. Okay, so there is a connection between words that have to do with “horse”, and words that have to do with “mother”. Do we stop here? Maybe not, because when you have the word married in English you also have a word for female horse in English which is mare. Interesting, so even within English, you have married and mare /m-r/, /m-r/. And the meaning stays. So purple is anything that has to do with “horse”, and green anything that has to do with the “wife/woman”.

Then, we keep going, and lo and behold… here it’s not even cousin languages: Mande is from Africa it's a language in Africa, or languages in Africa. And the word for “horse” is weefo, and the word for “horses” is wed, like “she wed somebody”. So you still keep finding this among languages that are not related, not from the same family, and so on and so forth. You have in Danish kone, “wife”, and in Russian the word for “horse”, конь. Аgain, then you have in Мandarin... Аnd here I added them for the sounds, because this one is 妈(ma1) and this one is 马(ma3). So they do share the sounds, but you see also that they share part of the character: this is a character for woman, and this is the character for horse, which you see here. So it´s interesting, the ways in which you write can also have these square units.

Okay, so then, you take two more concepts, and you take the “horse” that you had before, and you add the “sea”, and we find that mare in Italian and mare in English have the same sounds, mare is a pond in French, and mare again in English. Then you have aqua, water in Latin or Italian, and in Latin you have equus (like in equestrian) for horse. So you start seeing how the “horse” is related to the “mother”, and to the “sea”. And the rule he came up with is that, if (A) the mother is linked to (B) the horse, and (B) the horse is linked to (C) the water, then the (A) mother will also be linked to (C) the water. Well, is it possible? Do we find it in any languages of the world? Oh yeah, for sure. We have mer in French, and mère (different spelling, but the same sounds) for “mother”. You have 海 (hai3) in Chinese, and you have 母(mu3) in Chinese as well. Here the sounds are not the same, but I put the example so that you can see, again, that it has to do with the ideogram, the way it's written.

So here we start seeing that there's a connection. And you could say, well what's the relationship? Imagine that you were one of our ancestors, you know a primitive man. This is 10.000 BC. Why would you be linking the wife with the horse, or you know, anything like that. Well in archetypes, or in general psychology, people compare women with wild emotions, like horses. Women, high in emotion, water, horses etc. That could be one link. The other one is that they are both carriers: the horse is used for carrying, traditionally, and the wife, the mother, carries a baby, right? And the sea could be the “sea” where the baby grows, the placenta. There are all kinds of analogies you could find for why these words are related, and how they reflect some kind of ancestral view of the world.


Slide19.JPG


You can keep going on and on. Here are some examples: I let you read them, but basically it's the idea that something “ripens” within the mother, like the baby. There's a wall: in fact, the French word for pregnant and a wall, an enclosure, is the same. So there's the idea that something increases in size, is broad, or is ripe, or is like a wall. So all these are sort of analogies for birth or pregnancy, and it's fascinating. I really don't want to bother you with so many details, but the book goes on and on and on, and it builds from these, until you get a story, which is almost like what you see in dreams. It's a different kind of language, it´s symbolic. And it could explain, at least in part, why so many words that are supposedly not related (like in Chinese and English) have similarities.

And nobody in Linguistics has explained that. Nobody… they just don't know. They just say that it's random, it's arbitrary, etc. But there are just too many coincidences, over and over when you look at them, to think that it's just a pure coincidence.

So to me, it's starting to look that there is a subconscious language that we carry around. It's almost like a universal fabric, something that binds all languages together. There are “language universals”, which I'll talk about in the future, but they're very few and far in between. And the sounds seem to be more universal than we think. And as I said before, different aspects of reality could be scattered perhaps throughout all the languages, and that could be the “confusion of tongues”, finally. Because each culture picks different types of traits of an object, of an entity, or of a feeling even, to describe, they choose specific sounds, and they kind of omit part of the elephant, of what the meaning of the word is.

Slide20.JPG

And maybe it's like (this is just a bunch of proteins, for example)… and you see, imagine that the word apple was here, and each of these little strings are the word apple in a different language. And then you combine it with a mother, horse, blah blah blah, and you end up with something that actually describes reality. It describes what it is to be human, it describes why languages are the way they are, instead of it being, oh well, these strings just happen to be there because of whatever, or it was random, maybe they are all interconnected. And we could find out, if people were really dedicated to doing so. So far, I haven't seen many linguists who are interested in this, because it's not materialistic enough. You have to think a little bit out outside the box, and ask questions that are a little bit uncomfortable in the field of academia, which I'll talk about later.

Slide21.JPG


But to wrap up with what Abraham Abehsera says in this book, he talks about two sorts of forces: creation on one side, so how words were created (but he talks about it more in terms of creationism, so god inventing the word and languages, and I'll get into these two opposites in future, in a future series). But basically on the other hand, you have that languages evolve (change, in my opinion). It's etymology, the study of the history of words. For me it's more like the information field that is represented in these sounds that are the same. And they both work together. So you start with different roots, and they all diverge (repulsion) and form different words. Those are historical changes, those are more conventional, they're decided by people, say. And on the other hand, you have a law of attraction that kind of pulls words together to sound the same, just like we saw with the examples before: wicked and wick, mèche and méchant, that actually makes them sound the same, as if there was a glue that binds them, something that attracts them together with time. And the reason why people choose similar sounds to depict similar concepts… And that says something about much, much further in the past, and a different way of viewing reality. A bit like Socrates, like I explained in the previous videos, where he talked about the words carrying the “essence” of things. So, on the one hand you have the etymology, the roots of a word, and how they spread, and on the other one, you have the words that want to sound the same and group together, and maybe that's why you have different families of languages that end up having similar sounding words.

So that's it for theory number three, that's just the main theory. So, phonosemantics, then what Carme Huertas did with the toponyms (names of places), and now what Abraham Abehsera did in the book Babel. I hope that you're starting to get curious about language and sounds. Personally, I find it fascinating, and I think it should be studied more thoroughly. But unfortunately, so far it doesn't look like it, because it's not in line with most of the Academia says and thinks about language, especially when you get into Chomskian linguistics, which I'll talk about in the future. So, I'll leave it at that, and make sure to tune in again for the last part.
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Part 5 - Sounds and Meaning: Cymatics, Alphabets and Shapes

Hello, and welcome to Language with Chu. This is part five of the series on sounds and meaning, this is just a bit of a wrap-up to show you a bit of trivia, or actually extra things that could make you think that sounds are not all they're made out to be. Let's just have a couple of slides to show you that sounds maybe even have shape. Do you think so? Let's see:

Slide23.JPG

Well, this is just to remind you that the human auditory field goes from 20 to 20,000 Hertz, so that means that all the frequencies that I'm going to show right after are within what humans can hear.

Slide24.JPG


There's something called Cymatics, and it shows that sounds, or rather, to be precise, frequencies, have shapes. You can look it up on Youtube, and you can see that if you put sand or salt or whatever on a loudspeaker, and you emit a certain frequency, the sound will form these shapes. These are just three examples. Remember 20 to 20,000 Hertz. This, we can hear. These are frequencies we can hear, and they all form these interesting shapes. Nobody knows why. As far as I know, it hasn't been really talked about, but they're there. So maybe frequency has to do with something, with the essence of things, and maybe each sound in language conveys that.

In fact, here are some pictures of a female voice, and you can see the different vowels, /a/, /o/, /u/, and how they change in shape. It's almost like a fractal, like a like a pattern that repeats itself over and over and over again. This hasn't been studied much, but I think it may be just a little clue, although it's just about frequency here. So I don't want to get carried away, because I think there's a lot more to sounds than just the frequency. It's basically about your pitch, the pitch of your voice, so it can´t be all of it. But it's interesting nonetheless. [And we each have a unique pattern, like what happens with our fingerprints.]

Slide25.JPG

Another thing about shape is that, in this study, for example, they took a bunch of couples of letters from different languages, some languages that nobody would know. In fact, if you knew them, you were eliminated from the test for that couple of graphemes, those two letters. And they made people guess whether it was an /u:/ sound or an /i:/ sound. And what was interesting was that some of them were really, really easy to guess, even though the person really swore that they didn't know the letters. It had to do with the amount of ink used, and the space between the traits. The more ink, for example, the more it was likely that the sound would be an /u:/. And this is not just people guessing, but the people who created the letters, the graphemes, also may have decided to represent that sound by something like the /u:/ being heavier, let's say. So there's something about letters that usually, again, seems arbitrary, but perhaps it's not, and it has to do with the meaning of sounds.

Slide26.JPG

I don't know, I find it very, very interesting, because when you look at old alphabets, usually they tell you, well, you know, the origins are different, or this one blended in with this one, not that one… And you hardly ever see them together, really, you study them separately. But aren't they kind of similar? Just look at these, and you'll see that there are similarities. It's not completely different.

Slide27.JPG

But not only that, when you see some of them more closely, that are supposedly from not even the same family, and they have similarities, you start wondering, well, why is this kind of crooked here and this is kind of crooked here? Hmm, hieroglyphs, Arabic, supposedly they're not related. Well, let me see. And why does this one look like a bull, and then in Proto-Sinaic again, and you're talking a long, long time in history. And they changed, but not that much. So what today is the letter “A”, perhaps in the past meant a bull, an ox. Isn't that interesting? We take the letters to be just random: “a-b-c-d-e”, but what if they actually initially meant something like they did with the hieroglyphs?

Slide28.JPG

Not only that, but when you see prehistoric caves like the one in Lascaux, it's amazing. This one is from 17,300 BC and supposedly, it depicts a world myth, how the world was created. And these people are supposedly primitive, right? They didn't have the technology we have now, etcetera. They were just counting herd, or counting people, or whatever. Except the patterns, the designs, repeat over and over in different territories, in different countries, from people who couldn't have been in touch. Not only that but there's a researcher, I forget her name now [Genevieve von Petzinger] who discovered that there are 32 geometric sign or symbols that are usually ignored in these caves, because it's just like a little line, a little circle, or whatever, but that repeat over and over across these caves. And there's something about the shape of what is depicted that resembles the old alphabets. So what if there was some kind of resemblance between sound and meaning, or the shape of letters or symbols and meanings? It's something that I don't think is too far out, because you see it already in Chinese.

chinese phonogram.png

You see sounds and graphemes and you see that part of the ideogram sometimes has a phonetic part, so it picks what sounded like one character and it puts it into another character to make it sound similar. Other times, you have just the idea in a character. But there's always this kind of combination and correlation between sound and meaning, even though we think Chinese is so difficult, and there's nothing in it that tells you the sound from the word. Well there is a little bit. There's not a lot like in Latin languages or in English, but you can find this way of grouping. You can find ways of grouping things by their essence too.

chinese classifiers.png

In Chinese, you use classifiers to talk about something… flat objects, for example. And you say one classifier for flat (a sheet of paper, for example ). So that essence in Chinese is conveyed by the classifiers. [1/2/3… + flat thing + sheet of paper]. But maybe it's also conveyed across all languages in the sounds. Maybe we choose different sounds because they mean something different, like I explained with phonosemantics.

So, again, I hope that I've given you some questions to ask yourself about why this topic could be interesting. I really don't have the answer, but I'm going to continue researching because I think it's fascinating, and that it gets ignored, even though it could be telling us about the “molecules of language”. Basically, the genetic imprint, if you want. We do that a lot in biology, and we haven't done it in language, so I find it a real, real pity. Anyway, I hope you like these videos, and please subscribe to my channel if you like this, or like this video or these videos, or share or leave me a comment with what your questions about language and sounds are. And see you next time for more videos about linguistic curiosities and language complexity. Bye bye!
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
There's something called Cymatics, and it shows that sounds, or rather, to be precise, frequencies, have shapes.[...]So maybe frequency has to do with something, with the essence of things, and maybe each sound in language conveys that.

When at the time (writing a story) I did some research and found the Cymatics, I also came across the works of Buckminster Fuller. If I remember correctly, he did research in this field, since he specialized in architecture and geometry. But not only that, because among his way of understanding the world, he had his own neologisms.:

Fuller used the word Universe without the definite or indefinite articles (the or a) and always capitalized the word. Fuller wrote that "by Universe I mean: the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated (to self or others) Experiences".[92]

As far as we can see, this man somehow managed to combine language and geometry.

Hmmm, that would be an interesting question for the C's. 🙂

EDIT: I forgot to mention Hans Jenny.
 
Last edited:

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
In my one-time line of work this concept of language as encoding 'the essence of things' was a given. I think all true poets and poetic dramatists, especially of course Shake-spear, took this not just as a given but as a purposeful calling to work through or from and to use sound and rhythm as meaningful beyond the surface of the language so as to reveal totality of being rather than mere utility. In a simple way when first working with performers of this kind of 'heightened' text I would get them to experience and play with a whole body sense of the sound qualities encased with words/signifiers. At a simplistic level - and just taking English as an example (because I think in a strange way as a language it encapsulates this inherent creative tension very well) - one can simply it down to consonants being the 'thought' or shaping or form of the thing to be signified and the vowel as its 'emotion' or feeling or expressiveness. And in English this negotiation, or dance, or marriage, or war between these two places informs and even shapes the final signifying word. The vowels in some way are trying to escape or expand or flow and the consonants are controlling and forming and dictating the limits and shapes to the vowels. Obviously this has many ebbs and flows, but it seems to be a creative compromise between the fixed and the free, between tightening and loosening of fully integrated sensational and mind meaning.

So much of this apprehensional power of words (as opposed to comprehensional) has been lost today where we are so overloaded by and over dependent on the visual with the ensuing dilution of our other sensory powers. Back in the 16th century people in London said they went to 'hear' a play (not watch). Tells you a lot about what has been lost along the way. But I used to find when working with those willing to re-tune their bodies/voices, that they became way more excited about language when they began to experience and explore words as sprung capsules full of explosive meaning buried in just the sound they make - so I would say its a natural human attribute that lies way deeper than prevailing social programming or culture.

Beautifully said, thank you! And of course, I agree. It also makes me think of how sounds are the "deepest" connection we have to our mother tongue, which is why for most people it's very difficult to sound like a native speaker when they learn a foreign language. There is something about identity, and perhaps as part of our "morphogenetic field", that is expressed in sounds, and very difficult to set aside. Poetry speaks from the "heart", so it makes sense that poets and writers would be more sensitive to how sounds convey meaning.

What you described about consonants and vowels is exactly what happens with them at a phonetical/physical level. So, there's definitely something to that. In this other series where I explained phonemes, and the International Phonetic alphabet, I think you'll also find something interesting to compare with your own knowledge on the subject.

Anyway thank you. I'm really looking forward to watching your other videos. I'll learn much from you and perhaps rekindle somewhat a love that was waning.

I really hope so, and look forward to hearing more about your own discoveries!

Margaret Magnus (cited in part 2) gave quite a few references in "The Oxford Dictionary of the History of Linguistics." Here's an excerpt, in case you want to check the authors out:

9.5.1 Poets and Writers

Velemir Khlebnikov was a Russian futurist poet. His verse consisted mostly of words of his own invention, superficially similar to those in James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. However, he also wrote purely linguistic works outlining the correlations he had observed between Russian phonemes and their meaning. He even produced a list of Russian phonemes followed by a brief semantic characterization of each. For example: v—the return of one point to another (a circular path); m—the breaking up of volume into infinitely small parts; s—the departure of points from out of one immovable point; z—the reflection of light from a mirror (Khlebnikov 1987: 481).

(p. 204) 9.5.2 Charles Sanders Peirce
Roman Jakobson referred to Peirce as ‘the most universal and inventive of American thinkers.’ Peirce provided Jakobson with the key that he could use to resolve the paradox of sound symbolism. He did this by distinguishing different levels of the sign—that is, by recognizing that the word embodies more than the obvious arbitrariness of word reference, and that word meaning can be divided into distinct types, some of which may be influenced by the word's form and others not. Peirce (1931) distinguished three types or levels of signs:
• Level 1 or Firstness: Iconic. On this level there is no distinction between what a thing is and what it represents.
• Level 2 or Secondness: Indexical. On this level, a sign by its nature points to something else, as smoke is an index of fire. But with Peirce, secondness runs much deeper than merely this. Secondness is quite generally the introduction of the ‘other.’
• Level 3 or Thirdness: Symbolic. This in his view corresponded to the word's referent. Only the third level is truly arbitrary. On the first and second levels, word meaning was, in fact, influenced by form.

On the first level, the influence was direct and visceral, not learned, but immediate. Jakobson distinguished between a direct relation between sound
and meaning focused in the right hemisphere of the brain, and ‘double articulation,’ or an indirect, left hemisphere relationship, such as one finds in poetry, mythology, sound symbolism, and synaesthesia, though he did not correlate these in any way with Humboldt's
classification.


[...]

9.6.4 Poetics
Grammont (1930) conducted an empirical study of great poetry correlating moods with phonemes. His book is divided into various ‘ideas’—repetition, accumulation, sorrow, joy, irony, silence, smallness, etc. Grammont provides examples from great poetry exhibiting each of these ‘ideas’ and shows how they are expressed with the same types of sounds in the poetry not only of France, but also of other countries. These correspondences, he felt,
were not in most cases purely onomatopoeic. He describes his intentions thus (p. 195):

What is the sound of an abstract idea or of a sentiment? With what vowels or with what consonants can the poet paint them? The very question seems absurd. But it isn't. […] One can paint an idea with sounds: everyone knows that we do it in music, and poetry, though strictly speaking not music, actually is to a certain degree (as we shall later) a kind of music; vowels being musical notes of a sort.

Grammont observes that any ordinary French phrase can of course be rendered in any other language, but that an element of meaning prevails in poetry which makes it inaccessible to precise translation, and this he considers to be the contribution that sound makes to meaning. He therefore sees some utterances as more mimetic and therefore superior to others. He also, however, finds sound symbolism not only to be a function of parole; rather, the phonemes have meanings implicit in them. He argues at some length that the fact that a phoneme's meaning is very broad does not mean that it (p. 208) has no semantics at all: since there are so few phonemes, one would expect each to have a broad meaning.

Jakobson's view on the interrelatedness of sound and meaning was strongly influenced by his studies in poetics. He studied poetry throughout his life, and especially in later years, he wrote numerous analyses of poems, in which he sought to get at what it was about the interrelations and juxtapositions of sound that gave the poem its effect. Jakobson's thought resembled Grammont's in that to him, poetry existed when a writer was being attentive to the effect of form on content.

Poetics has always been a source of fascination for linguists. Its study tends to be focused on how the form of a poem affects its content, and its practitioners are both numerous and varied, including Barthes (1980), Chvany (1986), Fónagy (1961), Hiraga (1993, 2000), Hofstadter (1997), Oliver (1994), Pinsky (1999), Prokofieva (1995), Ross (1986, 1991), Tsur (1992), and Whissel (1999).
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Exploring this idea, it seems like there are a few foundational concepts that are highly interrelated. Mathematics, language, sound, information, geometry. It seems quite difficult to describe any of these without at least some sort of reference to the other. Mathematics elaborates geometry, but mathematics requires geometric symbols to do the elaboration. And the meaning of a geometric symbol can only be conveyed via some sort of sound.

The C's have described mathematics as being the 'only universal language', but there's clearly more than meets the eye to this statement. After all, how can a concept like "mother" be described mathematically? Could you imagine communicating with a mind that would require that kind of description? :-O

The "essences" of sound groupings that Chu describes from Abehserah's book, if reflective of the geometry of information, points to a sort of 'meta-information' that causes the 'geometricizing' of the information. This 'meta-information' could be the property of an archetype, say at the sixth density level of pure knowledge/truth.

Possible. And it could also be akin to Lethbridge's work. Basically, our 3D perception and level of consciousness only allows for the 3D languages, sounds and writing systems that we have. But each of those sounds and symbols may be way more complex from a 4D perspective and above. We only see, hear and produce what we can, but they originate at higher densities?

The reason I mention this is because human language, as beautiful and complex as it is, is also full of flaws. But if we had, say, telepathy, where would we learn as much? All those times when we have a hard time putting an emotion into words, understanding each other, etc, are opportunities for learning. And the same with the multiplicity of languages. They sure hinder finding knowledge, but it's a challenge we have to face.

So perhaps the Truth 'shapes' information in a way that provides a sound as one inherently essential aspect, and we, through our hyperdimensional connections to this information, 'play' these sounds both unconsciously and consciously via activities such as music, poetry and language at 3D? This also leads me to wonder about the Pythagorean "Music of the Spheres" and the various religious motifs about the higher realms being filled with music.

Also possible, although I'd say that in that case, the same may apply to Lies. Each type of alignment determines what we see, how we live, etc. It's not so visible in language because entire communities share one, but... Hebrew, for example, only has 3 vowels, and no "letters" for them. Just tiny dots and such to show which vowel is used, but you usually have to guess. So, the most melodious sounds are less important. Hebrew was also "resuscitated". It was a dead language once. So, now think of the culture Israel lives in, and... enough said. ;-)

Going further, if we bring UFT into this (gravito-electro-magnetic forces?), could we also speculate that the 'proper' sounds would be one part of a reflection of information that includes specific combinations of these forces that may have particular effects... "sound manipulating gravity" anyone?

That's a question we may never have an answer for at this level of being, but why not? Healing with sounds comes to mind.

In a more cooperative sense, if a group of people were to align the sounds and construction of their words with the archetypes they wish to reflect at this level as closely as possible, I wonder if that would assist in channeling the energies of those archetypes into everyday reality? So the appropriate words, songs, dances etc could help 'create order from chaos'. Gives a whole new meaning to Jordan Peterson's Rule 10: "Be Precise With Your Speech"! 😄

Anyway, this is getting really abstract, so I'll leave it there before I start sounding like a madman.

Welcome to the club, LOL! This is part of the problem. I can't go on Youtube and tell people about Kantek and human beings being "planted" on Earth. Well, I could, but I'd lose the little credibility I may have, LOL! I'd rather first discover more, find the right type of data, etc. and THEN speculate.

Fascinating! Thank you for posting this Chu 🙂. Regarding “The Square Unit”, and the author focusing on Consonants for meaning, I have had similar thoughts while pondering on Philology. It seems to me that Consonants give structure, like the poles of a tent, or the skeletal structure of vertebrate animals. And vowels give nuance to the otherwise rigid structure.

Good point! And that is reflected in our physiognomy and the way we pronounce sounds. So, I think it's all connected, and the Intelligent Designers aren't dummies. Language didn't start from monkey grunts. ;-)

Order of the sounds matter as well.

VL vs LV - evil, vile, veil, vilify, etc...Love, live, alive, levity — opposite meanings

Fascinating stuff!

Thank you again!

Thank you! And that's a great one! Abehsera mentions "evil - vile" on his book. He calls this phenomenon metathesis. Sometimes it leads to an opposite meaning, like in the example you gave, other times it's a similar meaning. For example: form (English) and "morph" (Greek).

Then you have antithesis: same order, opposite meaning: Like "CoLD" in English vs. "CaLDo" (hot, warm) in Italian.

And it's a lot of fun when you add languages like Chinese to the mix!:shock::cheer:
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
In my one-time line of work this concept of language as encoding 'the essence of things' was a given. I think all true poets and poetic dramatists, especially of course Shake-spear, took this not just as a given but as a purposeful calling to work through or from and to use sound and rhythm as meaningful beyond the surface of the language so as to reveal totality of being rather than mere utility. In a simple way when first working with performers of this kind of 'heightened' text I would get them to experience and play with a whole body sense of the sound qualities encased with words/signifiers. At a simplistic level - and just taking English as an example (because I think in a strange way as a language it encapsulates this inherent creative tension very well) - one can simply it down to consonants being the 'thought' or shaping or form of the thing to be signified and the vowel as its 'emotion' or feeling or expressiveness. And in English this negotiation, or dance, or marriage, or war between these two places informs and even shapes the final signifying word. The vowels in some way are trying to escape or expand or flow and the consonants are controlling and forming and dictating the limits and shapes to the vowels. Obviously this has many ebbs and flows, but it seems to be a creative compromise between the fixed and the free, between tightening and loosening of fully integrated sensational and mind meaning.
This was one of the ideas that came to my mind as I started on Chu's series about language and meaning.

Specially where she discusses the shapes that we would give a certain name to, how the one with sharper sounding consonants would look like a spiky shape and the more open and smoother sounding one would look like a fluffy cloud.

And the thought I had was like water flowing onwards, and the vowels one would use and the consonants that would punctuate them would be akin to building something for that water to flow in a specific shape. Think about a pipe that controls the flow of the water in a specific shape, certain consonants like K and T would be sharp turns, but ones like S and N would be smoother turns and the vowels would be the width of said pipe.

In that sense, I remember being left with the feeling that breadth was the flow onwards that would be modulated and informed by the consonants and vowels we use, and this creates communication of something that isn't simply air but universal information, and far beyond speaker and listener, but between life itself with itself, if that makes sense.

For instance, you say the word light, and you're describing a part of the universe with the universe, if that makes any sense.

And it strikes me that the same way language is constructed and used, and this flow of life that gets modulated by an intelligent speaker with a purpose to communicate and act. Is precisely how life behaves in general, pockets of life that get modulated into infinite forms of individual existence with their own specific purpose. So i was left with the impression that language, spoken and otherwise, not only describes life, but is in itself an emulation and reflection of the process of life itself.

Hope the above made sense.
 

Aaron r

Jedi Master
I don't think it has been mentioned yet but in C's session 23 May 2020 there is reference to berries being a marker to TDARM type technology due to the sound frequency. It was in a conversation about Missing 411 cases.
It just seemed such a fantastic comment but obviously there is much more to know about language, sound and how the world works.
 

brandon

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
I don't think it has been mentioned yet but in C's session 23 May 2020 there is reference to berries being a marker to TDARM type technology due to the sound frequency. It was in a conversation about Missing 411 cases.
It just seemed such a fantastic comment but obviously there is much more to know about language, sound and how the world works.

Such a weird thing, that! And from the same session:

(L) Yeah, there's that sound thing. There were several cases of spontaneous human combustion where they had name similarities. So, there's something about this transdimensional business locating itself via words or names which have frequency relating to sound or something.

..conjures up an image of some kind of fourth density google search tech.. "Locate: Joe Bloggs" "Did you mean: Joel Bloggs?" "Ehh, close enough."

All this also makes me think of the "knowing someone's true name gives you power over them" thing, like if "true name" means the objective sound that equals their being..

Cymatics?

Cymatics videos make me wonder, if crop circles are language at some level, what they might sound like spoken..
 
Last edited:

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think this is such an interesting topic and am looking forward to what is uncovered about it. Learning another language is one thing, learning deeper things about ones first language and perhaps uncovering new meanings and understandings has piqued my curiosity!
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
All this also makes me think of the "knowing someone's true name gives you power over them" thing, like if "true name" means the objective sound that equals their being..

From what I have learned it is something that is related to the essence or nature of the object/individual, and the root of the archetype.

It is generally said that all of us have an original and secret name and that name expresses the deepest of archetypes and therefore the essence.

There is a genealogy in the root of the words from which you can trace back to find the trunk or main axis where the archetype is. Such archetypes become, as described in the Sufi teachings, the names of God.

To know these names is to set in motion the most essential aspects of creation.
 

Kay Kim

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Think about a pipe that controls the flow of the water in a specific shape, certain consonants like K and T would be sharp turns, but ones like S and N would be smoother turns and the vowels would be the width of said pipe.
So i was left with the impression that language, spoken and otherwise, not only describes life, but is in itself an emulation and reflection of the process of life itself.

I understand that every words that have some positive sides and negative sides.
Instance that started “T”, on positive sounds-Thanks, Thinking, Team…
And negative-sounds, Terrible, Terror, Threaten…

How about “K” , the positive sounds- Kind, Knowledge, Knight…
Negative sounds- Kill, Kick… so, everything in the universe is balanced by two-forces? Even language?

Anyway I found out that the Cassiopaeaean gives us their name, just for our perception to identify from 3rd density beings view point of things.

Q: (L) You have said that you are us in the future, can you identify which one of you is me or Frank, or anyone else?

A: All are one. Names are used for your perceptions. We do not mean that we are one "individual", but that we are one in unity

And because their names given to us was so interesting, and I was wondering if they were using T, or K, so, I researched and actually I found some.

January 7, 1996-Turin. August 31, 1996- Kiork. September 21, 1996-Toyjila.
November 23, 1996- Tonno. December 28, 1996- Torren.

February 5, 2000- Tiannih. August 5, 2000- Komorrih. September 23, 2000- Kinnemah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metrist

Dagobah Resident
I watched the first video, and guessed the correct words, as with the 95%.
So, I've been thinking on the topic, and Jacob Boheme comes to mind. He wrote a book in the 1600s called The Signature of all Things. It starts out as an easy, interesting read, but then it gets hard to digest, but he breaks down language in a alchemical way and describes their components.

As far as sounds... A baby calf moose was wandering around making noises, looking for its mother, and it was confused and scared as you would imagine, being in a urban environment...
Well, we looked around, seeing no mother, but the calf looked at us making sounds and making eye contact - combined with its sounds it was like a direct plea for help, and in this plea was its heart, and also a sense of its own predicament. Of course most would be sympathetic, but it was in a deeper sense.

Another strange event with animals, was when one of my dogs got hit by a car - he bounced off the bumper - and upon checking his condition, I was warning him about cars: 'see what happens...' And he starts making sounds as if in syllables and I was startled. I said: 'OK, OK, I think you're gonna be fine, you look OK!'
I think in his dispair, he mimicked my speech to convey his pain, so I reassured him.
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Another strange event with animals, was when one of my dogs got hit by a car - he bounced off the bumper - and upon checking his condition, I was warning him about cars: 'see what happens...' And he starts making sounds as if in syllables and I was startled. I said: 'OK, OK, I think you're gonna be fine, you look OK!'
I think in his dispair, he mimicked my speech to convey his pain, so I reassured him.

It reminds me of this dog.


The thing is that although they do not have a vocal apparatus that allows them to communicate, they can understand words very well.

If I can, I will record my dog. He is apparently a mix between a Belgian shepherd and another breed that I can't identify, but he is VERY intelligent, to the point of being VERY demanding (apart from the characteristics of his breed) and he even has his own personality. I mean this dog even argues when you say no to something he wants.
 

MatiaS

Jedi
Super interesting videos!

Are you (or anyone else for that matter) familiar with the work of Chiron Last on YouTube?

He makes videos on this stuff and I think anyone interested in language and how it shapes our world could find some value in watching his presentations, which are thoroughly researched and well put together. It's kind of hard to explain in short terms exactly what his videos end up conveying but it sure is mind-boggling.
 

Cass

The Force is Strong With This One
I've been thinking lately that language - sounds - have something to do with geometry of information. After all, "In the beginning was the Word..."
In ancient Indian writings, in addition to four elements, Soul (atman), mind (manas), as well as time (kala), space (dik) and such a concept as "akasha" played an important role in the Universe. The substance "akasha" was presented as something indivisible and om- nipresent. Only one characteristic sign is attributed to it: Sound. The Primary Sound (mythical Bird, Sound, the First Logos, the Word of God). Sometimes in legends the formation of the world from chaos is mentioned. But it is necessary to understand that the Greek word "chaos" (chaos): "yawn", is derived from the root "cha-", the words "chaino", "chasco", "yawn", "yawn", "yawn", "yawn", "yawn". - "yawn", "yawn". So chaos in mythology means "yawning", "rampant space", "the empty expanse". This knowledge, which is "sacred" for This knowledge, which is "sacred" to one or another people, is almost never fully revealed by the tribal priests. by the priests of the tribe, especially to the occasional people. And as for the Grail, it must be remembered that when they hid it, it was not by chance that the 12 signs were divided into four parts with three signs in each. parts with three signs in each. This significantly complicated the process of composing the signs and activating the Grail by sound. The signs of the Grail in a certain sequence are like a form, like a key to the lock that, when a certain force is applied (the sound formula of the Primordial Sound), opens possibilities beyond the limits for a human being.
 
Top Bottom