Linguist Forum

General Linguistics => Linguist's Lounge => Outside of the box => Topic started by: Lingvogeometry on December 21, 2014, 09:41:47 AM

Title: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 21, 2014, 09:41:47 AM
Dear colleagues, please check my new paper with important linguistic discovery. Will be glad to hear your comments and critique.
Abstract:
The argumentation of ability to create effective compression algorithm for text data with means of in-language patterns and correlations, found by Glossematics theory. Demonstration of successful implementation of such algorithm.
Results received during the study allow to place and justify the hypothesis about formation and development of human language on basis of unified semantic constant, which is available for observation to every earthling.
Human language described as algorithmic structure based on prototype of binary logic taken by developing organisms from environment.
Unpredictable discovery that will change the world and help to understand our own history without brake of Occam’s Razor principle. 


Earthlings Speak Moon Language (https://www.academia.edu/9607100/Earthlings_Speak_Moon_Language)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on December 21, 2014, 01:21:23 PM
Moon language? I don't follow. This sounds confusing. What's the main point?
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 21, 2014, 02:23:42 PM
In short, human languages show interesting correlation, when similar phonetic structures give similar semantic characteristics.
My hypothesis is that this happens due to common mechanism of naming objects and phenomena.
Digging it deeply I understood that most semantic characteristics by some way refer to one object which is the moon.
You can check all M-N roots like Moon, mono, mini, money to understand what I mean.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on December 21, 2014, 03:50:24 PM
I don't see how that would be defended within any recognized linguistic theory.

The main problem is sound change:
http://etymonline.com/index.php

While in English that word does have m-n for a long time, it goes back to only m- in Proto-Indo-European and many of the words listed for other languages have completely different sounds. In the future of English I would not be surprised if it changes to something else.

In the end, you're finding coincidences. Or maybe you are finding a very very small effect. Basically you can say "sometimes [something] correlates with the m-n sequence", and that's true. But it doesn't predict anything-- if we look at a new language you can't predict that the word will have those sounds. Consider Spanish 'luna', not looking too far away. Or in Arabic 'qamar'. In Japanese there's no overlap: 'tsuki'.

In the end, I don't see the reason to spend more time on this topic. If you'd like me to, then answer this question: why? What is gained by doing this? Can you predict something? If so, make some predictions (without looking at the data) then we can check if you're right. If not, it's not science.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 22, 2014, 01:05:08 AM
Ahahahaha! Writing systems go back to drawing the shapes of the moon? :D

The rest of the paper is just as lacklustre and insubstantial. It's essentially a kind of mythoetymology, which has been tried many, many times before.

While in English that word does have m-n for a long time, it goes back to only m- in Proto-Indo-European and many of the words listed for other languages have completely different sounds. In the future of English I would not be surprised if it changes to something else.

Actually, the (or one) PIE reconstruction would be *mḗh₁-n̥-s (in turn from an earlier *méh₁-n-os), however, *meh₁- ("to measure") is the actual root; n is very productive as both an infix and suffix (derivational and inflectional).
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 22, 2014, 02:17:57 AM
You are correct, without prediction power any theory is not science. I will try to demonstrate that my theory has such power.

Regarding etymologies, please understand that I do not change or question existing etymology. I talk about pan-linguistic phenomena. What you call coincidences in deed has strict rules. I have discovered it with means of reverse engineering and big data analysis, not just by playing with words. After linguistic correlations were found prime role of the moon was detected in existing ancient texts like Rigveda and Bible, which proves the theory well.
Why do we need it? Humanity is trying to understand how our brain works, how it stores and processes the information. This is the key. Our language is BINARY structure with two basic constants taken from environment. Looking at the moon gave to developed brain two visual constants circle and crescent. And the brain has utilized it to make communication system we all know as language.
To prove it here is my prediction.
If you’ll take from ANY existing language roots with construction MB/NB/MP inside and check its meaning and etymology, in most cases you will receive limited set of semantic characteristics: mouth, stone, child (young), water, boat, fish, horns, unite, death, crescent shape.
Start with niMBus – crescent shape object related to dead people in fish- and cow-oriented religion. And having water in etymology as it means “cloud, mist”
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 22, 2014, 03:28:30 AM
If you’ll take from ANY existing language roots with construction MB/NB/MP inside and check its meaning and etymology, in most cases you will receive limited set of semantic characteristics: mouth, stone, child (young), water, boat, fish, horns, unite, death, crescent shape.

That's not limited at all. With such a broad list you could fit almost any word into that category — which not surprisingly always seems to be the case with "theories" such as these.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on December 22, 2014, 11:08:38 AM
Quote
What you call coincidences in deed has strict rules. I have discovered it with means of reverse engineering and big data analysis,
That's exactly the problem. As freknu says, your semantic range is not "strict" at all. And big data analysis has major statistical problems: by including more data, it's more likely that you'll find coincidental matches.

Here's some math for you if you'd like:
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 01:06:29 AM
http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

You've probably shared that a few times already, but, yoink! Even I can understand those equations :)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 01:10:41 AM
>>>semantic range is not "strict" at all

it is limited by unique root composition. There are not many roots with it. Just try it. Check any existing language and find a word with asigned construction. You will meet fish, horns, boat very quick.

After I have found mentioned semantic core I was surprised that it correlates with archeologic findings. This is an annotation for book of Erich Zehren - The Crescent and the Bull: A Survey of Archaeology in the Near East (1986):
During thousands of years, the moon was most important deity in many cultures – Old Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chinese etc. That persuasively proves common roots of ideology and religion of different nations. Main symbols of the moon – the bull, the lamb, the fish, boat of dead are met in mythology of many countries and images across the globe. Historical ethnographic book of E. Zehren summarized works of hundreds of scientist, dedicated themselves to researches of roots of religion symbolism and mythological texts.

As you can see, archeologists came to completely same semantic core as my study. Coincidence? No! It is our forgotten history. And our language screams about it.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 01:57:36 AM
it is limited by unique root composition.

Then you need to learn what a root is.

PIE. *meh₁- "to measure"
PIE. *(s)kand- "to shine"
PIE. *lewk- "to shine"
PIE. *sp(ʰ)eng- "to shine"
PIE. *gʰel- "to shine"
PIE. *denĝʰ- "to shine"
PIE. *aisk- "bright; shining"
PSTib. *s-(g)la- "moon; month"
PU. *kuŋe "moon; month"
PS. *warḫ- "moon; month"
PTur. *ay "moon; month"
PMPol. *sinaʀ "moon; month"
PAus. *bulaN "moon; month"

Notice anything? Most roots seem to be limited to two very specific meanings:

(1) to measure
(2) to shine
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 05:42:00 AM
Thanks for such nice excurse! Believe me I know all that etymologies as my 5 fingers )
Please give your explanation, why the moon is connected to measuring.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 06:54:10 AM
Please give your explanation, why the moon is connected to measuring.

Because that's what the etymology tells me... o_O

Not "mouth, stone, child (young), water, boat, fish, horns, unite, death" or "crescent shape".
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 07:46:27 AM
>>>Because that's what the etymology tells me... o_O

Yes, but what is your opinion as a linguist, why the moon is connected with measuring?

>>>Not "mouth, stone, child (young), water, boat, fish, horns, unite, death" or "crescent shape".

You did not make offered way. To make it more easy, just remind M-N words in English (moon, man, mono etc). You will meet mentioned semantic characteristics very quick.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 08:01:44 AM
>>>Because that's what the etymology tells me... o_O

Yes, but what is your opinion as a linguist, why the moon is connected with measuring?

As a linguist, I cannot say anything; from an anthropological point of view I can speculate that it is probably because of perceptive proximity. Humans perceive time — and not taking into account small spans of time — the first proximal measure of time is the sun showing day and night, then comes the moon showing week and month, then the seasons showing year.

However, this does not prove any part of your hypothesis.

>>>Not "mouth, stone, child (young), water, boat, fish, horns, unite, death" or "crescent shape".

You did not make offered way. To make it more easy, just remind M-N words in English (moon, man, mono etc). You will meet mentioned semantic characteristics very quick.

"Moon" is from *meh₁- "to measure"; "man" is from either *mon- "human" or *men- "mind; to think"; "mono" is from *men- "small".

Just because they superficially look similar does not mean that they are related. You are cherry picking and crowbaring.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 10:19:37 AM
You see, how complicated is your explanation of such easy things. Remember it comes from PIE-time, when no TIME, as we understand it, could exist.
In our country we say: everything genial is EASY.
From time being and till now most common tool for measuring is scales. The shape of scales cup is full geometrical copy of the shape of moon crescent. That is why ancient people named both objects with same name as we can see from etymology.
(http://www.wpclipart.com/holiday/election_Day/scales/scales_4.png)
Your hypothesis also breaks anthropological theory, by giving to primitive people common abstract type of intellection.
Moreover, in English word “scales” means also fish cover. As I told you, we will meet the fish very quick )

Regarding etymologies given absolutely correct by you. Don’t you see that in all cases you just mantion characteristics of the moon:
"Measure" as I said comes from moon shaped scale cup.
"Mono" is characteristic of the moon as this object is only one in the visible space and it goes small (young) during new moon. "Mini" is from same source.
"Mind" is great prove of my theory, which says that the moon taught people to think. Antient Indians know it very well and say: Knowledge is milk flowing down from celestial cow.
“Celestial cow” is the moon, if I need to explain it. Cow has crescent shape horns, that is why it is so divine in ancient religions.
(http://cs7010.vk.me/c322125/v322125719/276e/xs6bX7g-RHE.jpg)
So they call themselves “man”, understanding this simple concept, hardly forgotten by “smart” modern people, who see an atom in a microscope, but don’t pay attention to great object hanging over their heads )
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 10:38:07 AM
You see, how complicated is your explanation of such easy things.

You have it backwards.

From time being and till now most common tool for measuring is scales. The shape of scales cup is full geometrical copy of the shape of moon crescent.
...
Moreover, in English word “scales” means also fish cover.

scale (for weighing) ← ON. skál "bowl" ← PG. *skēlō "bowl" ← PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate"
scale (of fish) ← OFr. escale "shell" ← OHD. scāla "shell; bowl" ← PG. *skēlō "bowl", *skaljō "shell" ← PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate"

Both related to *skiljaną "to separate; to divide; to allot", and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.

Regarding etymologies given absolutely correct by you. Don’t you see that in all cases you just mantion characteristics of the moon...

No, I don't, I don't like to make assumptions and treat them as facts.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 10:58:52 AM
>>>and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.
Did I say it? I just said that moon and scales (tool for measurement) are connected semantically, that is why we meet measure in etymology of moon.
Another question. As you see fish “scale” comes from *skiljaną (to separate). From your point of view what is common between fish scales and separation process?

More «assumptions» if you don’t mind:
Money or moneta in Russian refers to round silver objects (coins). There is even a tradition to show money to the moon. Same M-N combination, but etymology will be not connected for sure )
Manege – ROUND object
Minute – back to measuring as well as month.
Finally Sanskrit Mandala - "disc, circle."

And by the way, do you know what SCALA means in Russian? MOUNTIAN, which is a stone as was predicted.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 11:51:00 AM
>>>and not the reason why the word "moon" is related to measurement.
Did I say it? I just said that moon and scales (tool for measurement) are connected semantically ...

It's quite obvious they are not.

... that is why we meet measure in etymology of moon.

How fascinating /sarcasm

Another question. As you see fish “scale” comes from *skiljaną (to separate). From your point of view what is common between fish scales and separation process?

Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.

Money or moneta in Russian refers to round silver objects (coins).

From the surname of Juno, "Monēta" (lit. adviser) who coined money in ancient Rome. From *moneō "I warn, advise; I remind", from *meminī "I remember", from *memón- "to remember", from *men- "to think".

Manege – ROUND object

From French manège "ring", from Italian maneggio, from maneggiare "to handle", from Latin manidieō "I handle", from manus "hand", from PIE. *mH- "hand".

Minute – back to measuring as well as month.

From Latin minūta "minute", from minūtus "diminished", from minuō "I diminish", from PIE. *mey- "small, little"

Finally Sanskrit Mandala - "disc, circle."

Unknown; perhaps *mand- "pen, enclosure".

And by the way, do you know what SCALA means in Russian? MOUNTIAN, which is a stone as was predicted.

From Proto-Slavic *skala, from PIE. *(s)kel- "to separate".

And none of those prove anything, and provide absolutely nothing to your hypothesis. That you are so willing to without a second thought accept such superficial similarities as proof of a relation, quite frankly, boggles my mind.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 23, 2014, 01:34:55 PM
Dear frenku, first of all thank you for your kind attention to this topic. As I can see you are well educated person and have deep knowledge in linguistics. I appreciate your criticism and professional comments.
Hope you have found something new here, that will help to understand your point of interest more deeply.
I will be glad to continue dialog and share more my findings with you and respected community.
I do not understand why you copy-paste those etymologies. They are well known and I don’t deny any of it.
I said that moon, moneta, manege, mandala are all ROUND. Do you have something against that?   

>>> Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.
This is your explanation why fish scales and separating are related?

Ok, let me try following. Don’t send me etymologies, just answer what is common between the cup and the cap? Semantically.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 23, 2014, 01:44:57 PM
I do not understand why you copy-paste those etymologies.

Because you do not seem to understand their etymology.

I said that moon, moneta, manege, mandala are all ROUND. Do you have something against that?

Those things being round does not make them related, nor does it imply any hidden meaning.

>>> Old French "escale" meant "shell" which was loaned into Middle English as a more general term for a hard, outer covering.
This is your explanation why fish scales and separating are related?

They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.

Ok, let me try following. Don’t send me etymologies, just answer what is common between the cup and the cap? Semantically.

A cup (*kewp- "hollow") is a hollow vessel, and a cap (*kap- "head") is a garment worn on the head. Etymologically there is no relation.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: cranberryletters on December 23, 2014, 11:06:24 PM
How in the world do you have the patience for this?
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 24, 2014, 11:47:22 AM
A cup (*kewp- "hollow") is a hollow vessel, and a cap (*kap- "head") is a garment worn on the head. Etymologically there is no relation.

I did not ask you for etymology. Only semantic relation. Correct answer is: both objects have similar shape.
You cannot explain why one word with meaning “separate” gave meaning of “mountain” in another language just by “They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.
Yes, they share the same root, but why meaning “separate” became meaning “mountain”?
I can give you an example:
In PIE it was the root *ker- with meaning “to grow”, which received meaning “crescent” in English. It happened naturally because the moon is growing and crescent is the logic start of such grow process.
Now can you explain why word “horn” appeared from same PIE root? Please. Semantically.
 
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 24, 2014, 01:44:02 PM
I did not ask you for etymology. Only semantic relation.

You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.

Correct answer is: both objects have similar shape.

Irrelevant.

You cannot explain why one word with meaning “separate” gave meaning of “mountain” in another language just by “They are related because they share the same root, *(s)kel-.

Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

In PIE it was the root *ker- with meaning “to grow”, which received meaning “crescent” in English. It happened naturally because the moon is growing and crescent is the logic start of such grow process.
Now can you explain why word “horn” appeared from same PIE root? Please. Semantically.

They didn't.

PIE. *k̑er- "to grow" and *k̑er- "head; horn" are two different, unrelated roots. You cannot assume something as fact based merely on superficial similarities.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 25, 2014, 07:15:57 AM
You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.
I did not start any historical linguistics theories yet! Only pure linguistic basis. I understand that meanings are changed, but they change according to LOGIC.
One word transfers to another, but there is a relation between named objects. Otherwise how to name new object? Take some characteristics of old one (shape, color, size, action etc) and give same or changed name to new one. In such way crescent takes characteristic of “growing” from initial root *ker-. Isn’t it?


Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

Yes! And it is logical. Separation is breaking/cracking of something. Fissure is a result of such action. Cliff is a break of shore (BeReG in Russian). Rock and stone are cliff and shore material usually. It is correct and logic.
So as I said between any words of same root such logic MUST present. What was said about the moon is little bit different. It is PAN linguistic correlation. It answers how did human wondered to name first objects.
For example “a stone”. If you never had a word for it, by living in desert, how you will name the stone once you meet it? You will find something already known to you and named. Look at the fullmoon. It looks like a stone and it was available for observation even for desert people. So it is logic to take existed name for the moon and name the stone accordingly. Later I will show real examples fixed by etymologists.

PIE. *k̑er- "to grow" and *k̑er- "head; horn" are two different, unrelated roots.

Sorry, but it even sounds tricky. *k̑er- and *k̑er- are completely phonetically same. Objects and derivatives are very close, but roots are unrelated…? It is same as trying to argue that A letter is unrelated to A letter. I know that linguists accept such “logic”, but this makes the linguistics a quasi-science )
My effort is to make linguistics same precise as mathematics. When rules are surpass exclusions. But not vice versa.
From my point of view, if one root *ker- gives word and meaning “crescent” and another root *ker- gives word and meaning “horn”. And then crescent is full graphic analogue of horns, it means that linguists make a mistake by declaring those roots unrelated.
Lets fix such mistakes together. If we will not question legitimacy of existing theories, we could never receive new ones. More accurate and precise.
Thank you for your attention! I enjoy the discussion with expert as you are.

Just take a look, how ancient people purely understood the graphic relation between the moon and objects the call divine. All human religions are inherit same logic. They symbolize visible “god” in form of horns, nimbus, G-letter, boat, cup and crescent itself. I don’t understand how modern human miss this similarity… It is truly said: if you want to hide something good, just put it in most visible place.

(http://cs7010.vk.me/c322125/v322125719/27a0/6igsnR_KsMQ.jpg)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 25, 2014, 07:55:02 AM
You cannot discuss historical linguistics without discussing etymology. You cannot limit your analysis to strictly semantics only if you want to study historical linguistics, because meanings shift, they change.
I did not start any historical linguistics theories yet!

Yes, you have: you are already arguing for deep historical relations, for mythoetymology, and possibly some form (or hint) of phonosemantics.

I understand that meanings are changed, but they change according to LOGIC.

Many a linguist would probably cringe at it being described as "logical". Meanings shift based on usage, which may or may not be reasoned. The word you are looking for is more likely "describable".

Because it developed as "to separate" > "to break, crack" > "cliff; fissure" > "mountain; rock, stone".

Yes! And it is logical.

It is describable.

Objects and derivatives are very close...

Historically/etymologicall, they are not.

but roots are unrelated…?

Yes, there is so far no demonstrable connection between any of the many similar roots. That's just what they are, similar, not connected. Some connections may still be found as comparative linguistics continues to study language, but that does not by any means imply that any root that looks related is related.

It is same as trying to argue that A letter is unrelated to A letter.

No, it would be the same as arguing that "a" (indefinite particle) is unrelated to "a" (negative prefix), even though superficially they would appear connected — and that would be a falsifiable and coherent reasoning.

From my point of view, if one root *ker- gives word and meaning “crescent” and another root *ker- gives word and meaning “horn”. And then crescent is full graphic analogue of horns, it means that linguists make a mistake by declaring those roots unrelated.

No, it means that you are cherry picking data and crowbaring it into your interpretations.

Lets fix such mistakes together.

They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 25, 2014, 01:27:36 PM
They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!
4 “different” *k̑er- roots came from Pokorny dictionary (1930) based on Walde dictionary (1906).
Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.
You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory? Come on! In any other science field leading theory was changed many times till now. But not in linguistics.
With religious inspiration linguists repeat that old mantras and when somebody says they are incorrect he is claimed as lingvofreak or cherrypicker )
But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it? Please, if you can.
Otherwise, it is not a science as you said, just naked assumptions made by some grandpas, who never know about cybernetics, internet and big data, but still believed in telegony and Expanding Earth theory )
 
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 25, 2014, 01:50:47 PM
They are not mistakes. They are careful, scientific considerations. You cannot take assumption as fact.
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!

They were "invented" more than a 100 years ago, but they have been under continuous scrutiny up to now, and they continue to stand up to scientific falsification. Other things, on the other hand, have been disproven or been revised to reflect modern advances.

Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.

Irrelevant. The theory is judged on its own, and has been for the past 200 years.

You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory?

No, but if you want to revise PIE theory then you need to provide falsifiable comparative linguistic data and analysis, not pointing to the moon and howling.

But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it?

I don't need to. If you want to claim that all these roots are related then it is your responsibility to demonstrate this. These roots are treated as distinct precisely because they cannot be demonstrated to be related.

A lack of evidence for them being related does not prove that they cannot be related, only that there is a lack of evidence for them being related. Hence they are treated as separate roots until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: cranberryletters on December 25, 2014, 01:51:49 PM
Do you understand that these "scientific considerations" were invented more then 100 years ago!!!

And they have stood the test of time.

Quote
4 “different” *k̑er- roots came from Pokorny dictionary (1930) based on Walde dictionary (1906).
Do you understand that it was the time when scientific society was laughing on Einstein’s theory, which as we know now is correct and useful.

That says nothing about the validity of an entirely different theory.

Quote
You claim this old chewed gum as an unbreakable and FINAL theory?

No, perhaps a superior methodology will arise and surpasse what we have now. That would be great, but it looks ever doubtful that a revolution will occur now that glottochronology has been invalidated as reliable tool.
 
Quote
But if I will ask you to prove that there were 4 different roots but not one with different meanings, can you scientifically and with presentation of FACTS do it?

They could be reflexes of the same etymon but without justification to merge the four, the most parsimonious decision is to keep them separate.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 28, 2014, 07:28:59 AM
Did I understand you correct? You use theory, which you cannot even prove? Nice.
At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange. Can you point to same situation in modern English? Much more developed language. As you claim that in primitive language as was PIE, the situation of having phonetically same but unrelated roots, takes place very often.
Moreover, please confirm that 4 “different” *ker- exist only because nobody can demonstrate that they are related. Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution, so base the theory on such lack of knowledge.
I have never seen such “theory” in any other science field. It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round )))

Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?
   
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on December 28, 2014, 01:08:34 PM
Quote
You use theory, which you cannot even prove?
Yes. That's how science works. You can look up falsifiability if you'd like.
(And, by the way, you haven't even come close to "proving" anything either, if you still want to suggest that matters.)

Quote
At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange. Can you point to same situation in modern English?
Of course. There are many homophones in Modern English and other languages. Words like "right" and "check" have about 12 definitions each, though some do go back to a similar root. If you want separate roots, then there are various examples such as "duck", the two meanings of which have nothing to do with each other.

Quote
Much more developed language. As you claim that in primitive language as was PIE, the situation of having phonetically same but unrelated roots, takes place very often.
First, we don't make that assumption. Linguistically, PIE was probably just as developed as Modern English. Culturally there were differences, but these are not likely to affect overall complexity. For example, they might have more words for plants and animals than we have now, at least in basic vocabulary.
You don't understand the basics of Linguistics, so it's difficult to have this conversation with you.
Second, one possibility for this reconstruction is that we don't have enough information to separate these forms. Through reconstruction we have some idea what the language looked like, but we don't necessarily know whether there was more separating the forms. Maybe they had different suffixes.

Just because something looks like it might be related does NOT mean you can assume it is related. Really simple. Science. Stop doing that if you want to be taken seriously.

Quote
Moreover, please confirm that 4 “different” *ker- exist only because nobody can demonstrate that they are related. Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution, so base the theory on such lack of knowledge.
1. You don't like the answer.
2. Therefore it is wrong?
:D

Quote
I have never seen such “theory” in any other science field. It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round )))
Lots of things don't make sense in science until you really understand them. For example, a circle isn't just "round". It's actually an infinitely-sided shape. And evolution still hasn't convinced everyone. The whole point of science is that we have to ask challenging questions and try to understand. It doesn't just confirm our assumptions. That's not how it works.

Quote
Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?
I have no idea how this is related. I'm going to move on now.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 28, 2014, 01:27:59 PM
Yes. That's how science works. You can look up falsifiability if you'd like.
(And, by the way, you haven't even come close to "proving" anything either, if you still want to suggest that matters.)

Sure I know about falsifiability. And I also understand that science does not prove anything. Just makes theories that give more predictable results. The theory I offer corresponds to both conditions.

Of course. There are many homophones in Modern English and other languages. Words like "right" and "check" have about 12 definitions each, though some do go back to a similar root. If you want separate roots, then there are various examples such as "duck", the two meanings of which have nothing to do with each other.

Stop! Homophones, as you correctly said, usually go back to similar root. But what we talk about is different roots. You and vocabulary claim that in PIE it was so many different roots with homophony phenomena. I asked to present same in English. “Duck” is ok, but has only two roots. Can you name 4-roots one? Or 7-roots one. According to dictionary PIE root *ker- has at least 7 different UNRELATED roots. And such picture we can see with many other PIE roots. This what I talk about. Modern English being more developed and differentiated does not have such examples. For my understanding in time of PIE it was not so many objects to name as we have now. How it was possible to appear 7 different roots with same sounding plus 4 with little changed sounding (*k̑er-)? Why it does not happen now?

Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 28, 2014, 02:16:53 PM
I have no idea how this is related.

I do. It is very simple. Alpha comes from Aleph, which means “the bull” and represented as a horned head of the bull – crescent.
Omega comes from Ayin, which means “eye” and represented as a circle.

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/aleph_moon.png)
(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/ain_omega.png)

Both transfer two states of the moon. Crescent and fullmoon. Jesus is an allegory of visible “god”. It is thirteen month (12 apostols + him) and represents first and last moon of lunar year cycle. Alpha and Omega. Easy.
To give additional prove of this concept just look at the symbols of Jesus. Half of bread (semicircle) and the cup (crescent shape object). He comes from young newborn (young moon), then 33 years ( 30 lunar days), dies and resurrects in three days. New moon is coming visible after 3 days of invisible state.

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/pope_bread_cup.png)

Is this theory falsifiable? Sure. Human stupidity falsify it for thousands of years. They claim the Jesus as the symbol of sun.
Look at caps of that people. They represent white crescent. Look at the nimbus – crescent. They put crescent on the cross, or the cock instead of crescent. Where is the sun???

(http://www.cirota.ru/forum/images/27/27416.jpeg)
(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/cock_crescent.png)

They say openly that young Jesus is young moon. Look below. Just solve this little puzzle:

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/jesus_moon_picture.png)

So you see how my theory and linguistics can find biggest historical mistakes. I need your help guys! I cannot persuade humanity without help of professionals. I’m professional engineer, but not linguist as you correctly noticed. With means of big data analysis, I have found something very important for society. All human religious conflicts can be stopped if people will understand that they have common roots of religion, of language, of culture.
If we will not stop fighting now we will destroy the planet. The moon was always the point of interest for humanity. It is a philosopher’s stone. It can help us to unite. But somebody has to inform people about it. I try to do my best, but my efforts are not enough. Most people laugh as you do, cause the concept sounds too easy for modern people. Nobody remembers simple suggestion received from ancients – everything genius is simple.
Thank you for you critics and comments. Even such support is good for this idea. Professional sight always needed to craft good product and engage people to the idea. Thank you!
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 28, 2014, 04:10:07 PM
Did I understand you correct? You use theory, which you cannot even prove? Nice.

Prove what? There is nothing that requires proving.

At the same moment, the idea of having 4 SAME roots in ancient protolanguage looks very very strange.

Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Because it looks like confession of linguistic science, that it cannot find the correct solution...

So? "I do not know" is not a bad thing. Until there is enough evidence it would be foolish — and outright damaging — to conclude anything other than the roots cannot be shown to be related and thus will be treated separately.

It is same as to claim that circle has square shape and use this delusion till somebody will demonstrate and prove it is round.

A circle can be demonstrated to be round and thus the claim that a circle is square is demonstrably false.

Little switch from *ker topic to historical linguistics problematics. Everybody knows that Jesus is called Alpha and Omega. At your opinion, what does it mean?

Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

The expression itself simply means "beginning and end", hence the usage of the first (beginning) and last (end) character.

So you see how my theory and linguistics can find biggest historical mistakes.

What mistakes? Make an extraordinary claim and you will have to provide extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 29, 2014, 01:29:11 AM
Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

I understand your point. But Book of Revelation was written originally in Greek, but not translated from Aramaic. So Jesus is called Alpha and Omega as this was first and last letters of Greek alphabet? Ok. But why first and last?
In case of lunar origin of this allegory, 13th new moon is at the same time first moon in next year cycle. So calling it first and last is quite logic.
Also both letters graphically make a silhouette of fish, so it could be noticed by author. We all know that Jesus is connected to fish and fishermen.

(http://lingvogeometry.org/images/fish_alpha_eng.png)

Omega came from Ain, that was also looking like a fish:

(http://lingvogeometry.org/images/Ain-script.png)
(http://lingvogeometry.org/images/omega_fish.png)

Every fisherman knows from ancient times that fish activity periods are deeply related with the state of the moon. Modern scientists explain such relation with change of intensity of the light during different periods of moon cycle. Fullmoon gives more light so the fish is much more active during this time. Taking this into account one of the oldest fishing techniques is fishing with light. Check Chinese fishing nets as an example. Moreover, every fisherman knows that successful fishing takes place at night time – the time of the moon, as you understand.
The connection is also seen from semiotics. The fish comes at the same place where crescent moon.

(http://lingvogeometry.org/images/fish_moon.png)

Check the logo of Dreamworks. They understand the connection between the fish and the moon very deep.

(http://logok.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/DreamWorks-logo-880x660.png)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 29, 2014, 01:31:52 AM
Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Please give example of such roots in English. 4 or 7 roots as in case of *ker-
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 29, 2014, 04:36:29 AM
Well, to begin with, the first and last characters of Aramaic is alef and taw, which was later translated into Greek as alpha and omega... *drumroll* because alpha and omega are the first and last characters of Greek.

I understand your point. But Book of Revelation was written originally in Greek, but not translated from Aramaic.

Sure, but the expression is from Aramaic, not Greek. Had the manuscripts been written earlier it would have been alpha and psi, even earlier and it would have been alpha and tau.

Why? Statistically there is nothing strange about it, especially not considering the very nature of comparative linguistics and reconstructions.

Please give example of such roots in English. 4 or 7 roots as in case of *ker-

Irrelevant.

PIE is not English, English is not PIE. English is an attested language, PIE is a reconstructed language.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 29, 2014, 08:17:18 AM
Herewith I will make an effort to demonstrate the common appearance of root *k̑er- in PIE. I will take derivatives from each “separate” root and show that they have strong semantic connection.

*k̑er-(1) - horn, head, upper part of body.

The horn has noticeable C-shape, which is first semantic feature. And it grows from the head, which is also important.
(http://www.organicjewelry.com/CowHorn.jpg)

Carat – unit of mass, used for measuring gemstones and pearls. Initially comes from “carob” with meaning “small horn” due to noticeable C-shape of carob tree beans. Horned shape.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Ceratonia_siliqua_MHNT.BOT.2011.3.89.jpg/1920px-Ceratonia_siliqua_MHNT.BOT.2011.3.89.jpg)

Carrot – vegetable with noticeable horned shape.
(http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/carrots.jpg)

Carotid – artery, which comes into the head and has special “horned” Y-shape when splitted.
(http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/images_241)

Cerastes – kind of snake with horns on the head.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7394/9372620989_1f3069105e.jpg)

Ceratopsian – horned dino.
(http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/images/1017/triceratops-ceratopsian-dinosaur_90897_1.jpg)

Cerebellum – part of the brain. Related to the root as it is in the head.
Cerebrum – brain itself.
Cervine – horned animal.
Cervix – applied to neck-like parts of the body. The neck is related to the head.
Cheer – stands for the face, which is on  the head.
Chelicera – horn-shaped mouth parts of some arachnids, crabs and spiders. Sometimes looking like a horn/knife, sometimes like scissors.
(http://bugguide.net/images/cache/YRIQCR7Q9R90OQ70H0W0H090Z0KQR070DQ3KVRG000P0DR7QTRJKCQM0JQHQ1RLQBR70TQG0S00QFRXQCRE0TRYKUR.jpg)

Corn – horn-shaped vegetable.
(http://roachfest.homestead.com/files/supersweet_corn_ear_drawing_jpg.jpg)

Cornea – C-shaped part of an eye. Possible related as a part of head.
(http://www.tanvieyecenter.com/images/cornea.jpg)

Corneous - a biological and medical term meaning horny. Used to name something having horny shape of horny origin. For example hooves.

Corner – angle. V-shape, which is geometric semblance of C-shape.
(http://www.decodeunicode.org/en/u+299f/data/glyph/196x196/299F.gif)

Cornet – music instrument with horn-like conical pipe as semantic feature. Or horned shape wafer cone.
Cornculate - small horn-shaped processes.
Cornification – conversion of body cells into hard horny structures (hair, nails, feathers)
Cornu - a structure with a shape likened to a horn.
Corydalis – horn-shaped type of flower.
(http://www.plantsystematics.org/users/jdelaet/3_26_05_6/uploada8/nP3260062.JPG)

Corymb – special type of flower heading. Gives horn/crescent shaped flower.
(http://people.bridgewater.edu/~lhill/images/corymb.jpg)

Coryphaeus – Leader of chorus. Head in figurative meaning.
Cranium – skull. Head.
Criosphinx – Sphinx with horned ram’s head.
Hart – Male type of deer. Horned animal. In most cases, female deer does not have horns.
Hartebeest – horned animal
Hornbeam – type of tree with horn-shaped flowers.
(http://www.bachcentre.com/pictures/38/hornbeam.jpg)

Hornblende – horned-shape mineral in igneous rock.
(http://jm-derochette.be/images/WF_1/L14_LPNA_I.jpg)

Hornet – insect with horn-shaped body.
(http://images.clipartpanda.com/hornet-clipart-5c31e5a18cd365132db3c2dfa6164df7.jpg)
Hornfels - is called so because of its exceptional toughness and texture both reminiscent of animal horns.
Longicorn – horned beetle.
(http://www.tasfieldnats.org.au/ExcnPhotos/09c-AlumCliffs/longicorn3.jpg)

Migraine – headache.
Olecranon – elbow head. Horned shape part of bone. Stays in a corner formed by bones of the hand.
(http://www.bracestore.com/productcart/pc/catalog/images_breg/olecranon.jpg)

Rhinoceros – Animal with a horn.
Saveloy – rod or C-shaped sausage.
(http://www.mysheriff.co.uk/images/busimages/8000/1588/80001588/full_15th_november_2010_05_03_21_saveloy.jpg)

Serval – wild-cat with noticeable “horns” of ears.
(https://felids.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/serval-portrait-1.jpg)

Tarboosh – “horn” like cap.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_AW1cTemzk/UXPZTOCcJUI/AAAAAAAAAA0/1LjwrJWdUKg/s1600/Tarboosh.jpg)

Triceratops – horned dino.

As we can see, the semantic core is turning around main given concepts of horns and head.
Have also to point attention on such objects as Latin “caravel” – type of boat, coming from Greek “karabos” with meaning beetle, lobster (due to shape of its pincers) . Any boat has recognizable C-shape silhouette. As for caravel it was made from cow leather, so this semantic feature may play more initial role. Russian “korova” (cow) also comes from discussed root.

(http://lingvogeometry.org/images/hors.jpg)
This pagan god name is HORS. He is coming on a boat and rules by horned animals. But in etymology, there is no connection to *ker- root...
At the same time there is a word in Russian – “horn”, which means bugle. This construction is simple horn and 100% should be related to PIE root *k̑er- (1), but if you will look in the dictionary it will be said that it comes from Latin fornacem (oven) and then from PIE root *gwher- "warm". Where is the logic?

Or English “crown”. It is related to the head, has horns, sounds same as “horn”, but is not connected with above root!
Or “crab”? “Karabos” with meaning “lobster” goes to *k̑er- (1), but “crab”, which has pincers same as lobster goes to *gerbh-? Come on guys! It is not falsifiability. It is bullshit, that nobody wants to question.


Now let’s take a look at second root:
*k̑er-(2) – to grow, increase.
Most derivated words demonstrate the process of growing, enlarging.
Accrete, accrue, concrescence, increase. But there are some, where this process is not seen clearly and transferred mostly metaphorically.
Crescent – growing, increasing moon. At the same time, it visually looks like a horn.
(http://philhart.com/gallery2/gallery/11834-4/Epsilon_Moon_047_400-2.jpg)

Crescendo – swelling volume of sound. Yes, there is a process of growing of volume, but look at the symbol for crescendo. It is an angle. One who made it understood which growing object symbolize the process. It is growing crescent, which geometry can be transferred as angle, corner symbol.
(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/793/flashcards/687793/jpg/flashcards_00381315336787750.jpg)

Cereal – again growing? Yes, the grain grows, and bread paste “grows” while being prepared, but with same logic everything around us is growing, including horns and heads ) Just take a look at any grain. Its has more logic semantic feature. It looks like small horns or crescents.
(http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/wheat-field-golden-grain.jpg)

Ceres – goddess who gave a name to previous Cereal. It is the goddess of agriculture. Then look at her image. It is logically pictured with one of main tool for cutting the grain – the sickle. And it has crescent shape! By the way the sickle is called "Serp" in Russian, but with no relation to discussed root...
(http://img1.liveinternet.ru/images/attach/c/6/93/427/93427169_4711681_Cerera.jpg)

Concrete – it is not growing, but it is hardening. In figurative sense it is close. But if we take lunar paradigm, then everything becomes more easy. Growing crescent finally gives the full moon, which looks like a hard stone (an actually is). Also we remember that any conctere is made from stones.
Crew – initially group of soldiers. Where is growing? Here it is. Soldeirs are youngest and lowest rank in army. Afterwards they will grow to mayors and generals. So it is logic to call them “growing”. Next word demonstrates same more precisely.
Recruit – youngest rank in army.
Griot – poet, bard, musician. Try to find the process of grow here? May be it was the lowest rank of people. But I think, the explanation is simple. Main tool of such people is their mouth, which looks like a white crescent. Remember Coryphaeus?
(http://images.clipartpanda.com/regimen-clipart-mouth-hi.png)

Hypocorism – Oops. Completely opposite process the grow. It is shortening of long name in most cases. Hard to explain if you don’t understand lunar hypothesis. The moon is not only growing, but also decreases. Becomes small and short. So in this case no break of logic.
Kore – Means “maiden”, but connected to crescent. Why? Because “maiden” means virgin, pure, clean. And young moon in figurative sense is clean, virgin, young. Same with “kouros” with meaning boy, son.
Which story is about young boy and God’s son? Yes, the Bible. As it is an allegoric story about visible characteristics of the moon.
Sincere – pure, honest, heartfelt, soulful, frank, candid. Recognize somebody? Usually people say it about the god. And it is correct, as they talk not about something fictional, but about an object they can see with their own eyes – the moon.

So you can see second “unrelated” root *k̑er-, when checked deeply, gives understanding, that the process of growing, increasing was taken from the environment, by observing such process happening with the moon. That is why *k̑er- (1) and *k̑er- (2) are completely same root. The geometry of crescent is nothing but the geometry of horn. Both growing and both heading the society.
That is why Moses is pictured with horns on his head, Jews where praying to “golden calf” etc.
(http://schistory.net/springsofgrace3/devotional/Moses/moseswithhornsonthecolonnadellimmacolata.jpg)

Moses is phonetic analogue of Russian Mesyac, that means CRESCENT!!! Coincidence? No! Forgotten history of humanity.
So now I have a question. Why word “grain” does not come from same root as “cereal” as it means completely same? Why word “grow” comes from another root? Why "corn" is separate root? It is also the cereal. Why "chorus" goes to PIE *gher-? There tons of such mistakes in etymology that linguists accept without any check, and make more mistakes, building further theories based on such delusions.
Let’s fix it together! Anyone wants to become next Vasmer or Pokorny? I give you this tool for free. Use it. Open the eyes of society!

Alright, there are 2 more *k̑er-s. Let’s dissect them.
*k̑er- (3) – string, plate
Unconnected from first sight they become connected if you know what is all about. It is easy.
String is the allegory of new moon – youngest crescent coming in form of string, thin line.
(http://www.abc-people.com/phenomenons/spiritism/new-moon.jpg)

The plate has also same silhouette from one view – the crescent.
(http://www.ikea.com/ru/ru/images/products/godta-tarelka-glubokaa-biruzovyj__0132355_PE287994_S4.JPG)

Moreover, it has full round silhouette from another view, which is graphic allegory of full moon. That is why the plate and the cup are so spread symbol in religions. They root to initial object that was considered by ancient people as a god.
I did not find reflexes, but I predict that above described logic will be followed in their cases.

And finnaly:
*k̑er- (4) - to harm, injure; ruined, spoiled
Again, no connection from the first sight. It can be called unrelated in deed, but there is a logic.
The moon in its last phase becomes harmed. Russians directly call it "harmed moon". In English we use waning moon, which means old, weakening. The process is opposite to grow, but we have seen such phenomena in case of “Hypocorism”.

I understand that some old linguists did not find such logic (or did not want to find), but in time of democracy and science how you - professionals - don’t see such simple correlation?
All 4 *k̑er- are the same root, divided (may be politically) into four, not to let people understand real roots of the language, religion etc.
I ask again for you help! There are so many such mistakes in etymology. Lets fix it! Lets explain to society where did we take initial roots. What was the role of our satellite in this process!
Earthlings speak moon language! The binary nature of this unique object gave us ability to develop binary logic. We made a computers on this logic, but still don’t understand that our own logic is same. Operating by crescents and circles, we made letters, words, knowledge. That is why old Hindu wisdom says: “Knowledge is milk flowing down from celestial cow”. Stupid mistake is to forget about this simple concept and start fighting between “solar” and “lunar” religions.
They are all lunar. Let’s stop this f@cking bloodshed!
Sorry for long speech and emotions. Believe you understand me.

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/moon_IO.png)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: freknu on December 29, 2014, 10:24:32 AM
I understand that some old linguists did not find such logic (or did not want to find), but in time of democracy and science how you - professionals - don’t see such simple correlation?

Correlation does not imply causation.

All 4 *k̑er- are the same root, divided (may be politically) into four, not to let people understand real roots of the language, religion etc.

Yes, that was the plan of the Illuminati all along! MWHAHAAHAHAHAAA!
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on December 29, 2014, 10:57:48 AM
Yes, that was the plan of the Illuminati all along! MWHAHAAHAHAHAAA!

One Breivik is not enough for Norway? Will see how will you laugh, when radical muslims will step on your fjords…
The only way to stop them is to admit that their religion is same as yours. Language gives such option. But the feeling of self-importance demonstrated by modern people, may cause fatal worldwide war… Stop thinking of yourself like you know everything in this world. You even don’t understand your own history.
You repeat that Jesus is a corner stone, but never ask why it is so. Because you don’t believe that this puzzle is very simple. Corner stone is unique stone in the building that visually makes corner/angle. This is visual allegory of crescent moon.
(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/PortGibsonTempleCornerstone.jpg)

During Easter time your shops loaded with rabbits– the symbol of Jesus, but you don’t understand that rabbit is an allegory taken from the Moon. Ancient people see that rabbit on the moon. Made many stories about. Put it on their flags. But we see it every year and don’t recognize this simple symbol.

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/moon_rabbit_sri_lanka.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Rabbit_in_the_moon_standing_by_pot.png)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit)

Again sorry for my emotions. But time is ticking away...
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on December 29, 2014, 04:19:33 PM
The fact that you can make an argument and find arbitrary-selected correlations to back it up doesn't make it scientifically valid.

A major problem with your approach is that it lacks any statistical balance: you can pick out a few words here and there that may appear to support your point, but you couldn't maintain it while looking at the average properties of all words; in fact, if you weren't just picking out the best (coincidental) examples, you wouldn't even see the patterns in the first place.

In short, you're telling a story, rather than doing science. I'm going to move this to an area of the forum where such non-mainstream ideas are appropriate. There you may continue, in this thread only, to discuss it if you wish. From a scientific perspective, I would advise you to consider other options and maybe discuss other theories with us, but I expect you will go on trying to defend this one. It's not going to go anywhere, but we can stop you from doing that.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 01, 2015, 08:13:39 AM
you can pick out a few words here and there that may appear to support your point, but you couldn't maintain it while looking at the average properties of all words.

Happy New Year, everyone!
The reflexes for analysis of *ker- root were not picked out here and there. They were taken from this source: The University of Texas at Austin - Linguistic Research Center (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ielex/X/P0932.html)
What is non-mainstream? It is official etymology.
Examples from religion were taken from opensource book – the Bible.

The only problem is that my opinion is non-mainstream? Sure, it is not. Like known opinion of Giordano Bruno was non-mainstream. But he was right. And I’m right. You will understand it with time.
Remember words of Mahatma Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Just wait for a while and you will applaud me on Nobel Prize ceremony. Cheers!
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on January 01, 2015, 10:17:11 AM
Quote
The reflexes for analysis of *ker- root were not picked out here and there. ... What is non-mainstream? It is official etymology.
The problem is not the source of information. It is the statistical distribution of that information. If you play enough times, you'll eventually win the lottery. But that doesn't mean that you will win the lottery on average, or even enough to earn back the money you spent on it.
That's the core problem with various claims about phonosemantics: even if they are somehow true, there is no way to show that they are statistically true. Or, much more likely: the claims are simply false, because they represent only coincidences. If it was not coincidence, we could apply statistical methods and show that in general this works, not just for the small number of times it happens to work.
I can't be clearer than that.
Quote
The only problem is that my opinion is non-mainstream?...
I agree: new, innovative ideas CAN be good. But they can also be bad. That's the tricky part: being different isn't always good, it just might be.
This is where burden of proof comes in: if you can demonstrate that your approach is worthwhile, then you can convince others. But you are failing to do so. Aside from the statistical problem, one reason is that rather than making coherent scientific arguments, you are making unsubstantiated claims and then posting pictures.
If you think about it, maybe the reason that people haven't "solved" this yet is because it's wrong. Certainly lots of people have tried. Phonosemantics is interesting; it just happens to also be wrong. To the extent it might be true, it would explain very little, not paradigm-shifting theory-disproving level discoveries.
Quote
Just wait for a while and you will applaud me on Nobel Prize ceremony.
Not a chance in this case, unfortunately.

I don't have more to say about this.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 01, 2015, 01:21:39 PM
If it was not coincidence, we could apply statistical methods and show that in general this works, not just for the small number of times it happens to work.


That is why I ask you to help! Let’s start from very beginning to check my theory in terms of statistical analysis.
The assumption is pretty clear. I assume, that human language appeared as a composition of vocal abilities of anthropoids and visual constants of arc and circle taken from model, available for observation to any leaving creature with enough optic capabilities – the moon.
From my point of view these two constants were kind of basic binary elements, which made available to code the information about environment.
For example, having a vocal element such as “krak”, which known to be a word from language of primates (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2879585/How-speak-MONKEY-Researchers-uncover-sophisticated-primate-language-local-dialects.html), with meaning “alarm call”, the brain could combine it with prominent visual object, that comes night time, when the level of danger is most high in the nature. Afterwards, when the language of primates was developing further, this combination could be transferred onto another object, such as banana, being a complete visual analog of crescent, or coconut, which is analog of full moon circle.
Or having in mind such logic combination as crescent – “krak” and see angry “smile” of another individual, which in body language of primates means “angry, danger”, the association mouth – “krak” could come into developed language and form new semantic core.
You can review phonetic similarity between CRESCENT-KRAK, KRAK-KRUG (circle in Russian) and so on. But it does not mean that Russian or English come from monkey language ) It is just a correlation caused by limited phonetic abilities of linguistic apparatus of anthropoids. And such correlation is a good starting point for researchers.

Help me to check this assumption with means of statistics and rules of linguistics, and I will accept or deny it according to the results. I deeply believe in science methods and in case of any result, I’m ready to accept it, independently of my personal preferences. Thank you!
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on January 01, 2015, 06:59:44 PM
Well that's actually a reasonable reply.

The first point to start then is falsifiability: how could your theory be wrong? If your theory is right, then there should be an imaginable alternate universe in which it is wrong. In that universe, how would you prove that it is wrong? Now, apply the same test here: if your test works, then your theory is wrong. If not, you can reasonably say it is supported by the data. So, let's try to prove your hypothesis wrong: what is a convincing way to do that? What evidence, if it existed, would completely convince you that you're wrong? Then let's look to see if that evidence exists.

Quote
I assume, that human language appeared as a composition of vocal abilities of anthropoids and visual constants of arc and circle taken from model, available for observation to any leaving creature with enough optic capabilities – the moon.
Why? Why not the sun? Why not the ocean? Why not trees? Or food? Or something about attractive pre-humans of the opposite gender?
Regardless, this is unknowable. It's an interesting thought, but one that we can't speculate about because it would have no effect on the language today. The range of human sounds is way beyond this, and we can't reasonably reconstruct proto-human language. It is also certain that languages change, and there would be nothing left over from that language today. So if you think there is any current similarity because those sounds have not changed, then that is certainly wrong.
Quote
....arc and circle...
From my point of view these two constants were kind of basic binary elements, which made available to code the information about environment.
Arc and circle? Why? How are those related to sounds? The problem with this is that you're interpreting it as a metaphor (as seen by early humans, possibly not consciously). So why not talk instead about lines vs. planes, or angles vs. circles? Or 1 vs. 0? Or a candy cane vs. a bowl of oatmeal??
Your theory is not specific enough to distinguish these, and we have no way to of testing for this.
Therefore, your theory is not right or wrong, it's just unfalsifiable, a bad theory, irrelevant to science because it cannot ever be tested. It's interesting, maybe something to write fiction about or speculate on in a long philosophical discussion, but it's not science. It can't be. Unless you can invent a time machine. But more than that, it's not just that it might be right and we can't know: it is no more potentially right than an infinity of other theories. This isn't just a problem of lacking data. It's a problem that you have no legitimate reason to make this theory. Unfortunately that's how this works from a scientific perspective. (You're not alone in having unfalsifiable theories about language evolution, of course. But the others shouldn't be taken seriously either.)

Quote
For example, having a vocal element such as “krak”, which known to be a word from language of primates, with meaning “alarm call”
We have no way of knowing what kinds of sounds (if any) early primates made. Some monkeys today make a sound like that, and others make different sounds. In fact, the research you're referring to found dialectal differences in the monkeys, meaning that the sounds in monkeys are arbitrary, so you can't use that as evidence to claim then that human language sounds are not arbitrary.

Quote
“alarm call”, the brain could combine it with prominent visual object, that comes night time, when the level of danger is most high in the nature. Afterwards, when the language of primates was developing further, this combination could be transferred onto another object, such as banana, being a complete visual analog of crescent, or coconut, which is analog of full moon circle.
Certainly possible. But why not "lion" and "stick"? The point is, we can't figure out what things they were referring to.

However, at a very abstract level, your ideas may be correct: human language MIGHT have begun as a binary contrast. Based on the work of Saussure and others, language is seen as a system of contrasts, rather than a system of absolute meanings. So the reason that "b" can be part of a word with a meaning is because "b" is not "c", because "bat" and "cat" refer to different animals. Therefore, "b" and "c" [k] are contrastive sounds in English.
It is very reasonable to speculate that language began as a binary contrast, but we have no way of confirming that. Additionally, it might not have just been binary because many animal species have more than just two sounds.
But regardless, I think it is reasonable to say that early human language involved a system of contrasts, without as much information/contrastiveness as modern human languages.

But that does NOT associate the contrasts with any particular sounds that would remain in the languages (in any particular way) today.

Consider words that evolve to mean their opposites. There is no sound-meaning relationship!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

Quote
You can review phonetic similarity between CRESCENT-KRAK, KRAK-KRUG (circle in Russian) and so on. But it does not mean that Russian or English come from monkey language ) It is just a correlation caused by limited phonetic abilities of linguistic apparatus of anthropoids. And such correlation is a good starting point for researchers.
Statistically (see the link I gave you before) it is not surprising at all that EVERY language will have some sequence of sounds that is something like "krak" (given whatever phonotactic constraints exist in the language-- for example, a language with no final consonants and no consonant clusters might only have "ka"). But that doesn't mean there's a REASON for those particular sounds for those particular meanings.

This is where statistics comes in: take a RANDOM SAMPLE list of 100 words in the language in some semantic field in one language, or a RANDOM sample of words for one thing (like "moon") from 100 (not too closely related) languages. Is there any way to defend your hypothesis?
You can try that and let us know, but I strongly doubt it.

In fact, the only things you can show are:
1. Human languages use contrastive sounds.
2. Human languages make a contrast between the apple pies and pencils-- circular things, and long things.
But there are millions of other things that human languages also make contrasts between.

One way of testing this is to show that the evidence is stronger than a different theory.

Here's my new theory:
Humans are special because we live on land and evolved to rule the land. But we also originally came from the water, and we need water to survive. So it's about balance. Therefore, human language must have originally referred to the binary contrast that was most important for survival and identity: the difference between "wet" and "dry". "wet" was originally a sound like "ooooh" and "dry" was originally a sound like "ssss", because these sounds are clearly related to those meanings, just try saying them. Then over time other meanings got these sounds too. Some examples:
WET: glue is wet; water is blue; hoods and shoes protect us from water; food is related to [eating and] drinking.
DRY: deserts are dry; the sun dries up water; smoke is due to burning fire; when we sleep we are not drinking.

Bottom line: interesting story, but I have no evidence for that. You don't either.

Quote
Help me to check this assumption with means of statistics and rules of linguistics, and I will accept or deny it according to the results.
Ok, please do, and then post the results. You must select 100 words in one language and then one word in 100 languages. Your theory predicts that it should be similar in these cases. But the goal is not for you to LOOK FOR similar words. The goal is for you to look at RANDOM words (related only in meaning) then compare them. Are they similar? I'm certain you will find no evidence to support your hypothesis. But if you do, please let us know. And if you don't, also please let us know.

Quote
I deeply believe in science methods and in case of any result, I’m ready to accept it, independently of my personal preferences.
Great. One of the best things we can do as scientists (maybe the only thing we can do) is prove theories false. It's useful to do so because the remaining possibilities are still possible, and we can stop wasting our time on false theories. Spending your time advocating for a particular theory is actually not a very good use of time: that's called bias, and it won't help anything. You should instead be showing that it is the only possible theory because other theories don't work. But in this case I don't think you can do that.
Remember: whatever you do must be replicable by others. So you can't do it in a way that is "special" (=biased) for you. You must do it so that anyone can run the same test (with different words) and find that your theory is still supported by the data.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 02, 2015, 09:00:54 AM
Well that's actually a reasonable reply. So, let's try to prove your hypothesis wrong: what is a convincing way to do that? What evidence, if it existed, would completely convince you that you're wrong? Then let's look to see if that evidence exists.

Thank you for your kind support. I know about Popper’s criterion and have checked the theory for falsifiability. In my case it is very easy to check. The theory can be falsified by arguing that initial object was not the moon, but the sun. Any reference to round object can be applied for both objects. Without more detailed check, I can successfully argue that the sun was the object who gave names to round objects and phenomena. But overall sun theory does not come as a key to observed correlations. Lunar paradigm fits much better and don’t break Occam’s Razor principle. I will try to explain below, while answering your correct questions.

Why? Why not the sun? Why not the ocean? Why not trees? Or food? Or something about attractive pre-humans of the opposite gender?

Let me tell you how did I come to this theory and you will see the lunar paradigm was already questioned with your questions.
I’m modern well developed person with many interests and highest IQ. 25 years of my life I work with computers and software, internet, databases. I deeply understand everything connected with IT. Can develop apps on any existing programming language, from simple controllers to smarthouse solutions.
During my life I have travelled a lot. Mostly in European countries and South Asia. 4 years overall I have spent by living in India and Sri Lanka, diving deeply in society and learning all aspects of their life as a retrospective of ancient kind of life. In those countries there are still possible to see by own eyes the conserved lifestyle not changed from Vedic times. For good observer there is great anthropologic material to collect.
Also all my life I have read a LOT of books. Much more than average person. Besides classic literature, my interests are history, anthropology, psychology, detectives, science fiction etc. Around 2005-2010, at least in Russia, many speculative literature started to appear. Authors were playing with linguistic correlations and make historical consequences that absolutely change existing views. Now it is called lingvofreaks and I’m first fighter against such wry conclusions. They change words, mix sounds, reverse it and get conclusions that does not correspond to any logic and never supported by theoretical base.
While checking their speculations in my mind and trying to understand why those speculations are accepted by average society, I have found some very interesting correlation. It was not the moon yet )
In two words, if you take any word in any language and find phonetic or semantic analogues in English or any another, within several steps you will come to one conceptions: the stone.
Example: you take English word “room” and translate to Russian “komnata”, there is Russian “kamen” with meaning “stone”.
Or you take English “water” and there is a name “Peter” with meaning “stone”.
But don’t take it seriously. I understand that those are just speculations. It was just a starting point for me to check more deeply relations between languages and words.
I have made a table where I put Russian word and get translation into most google available languages to visualize it better than simple translation. And I have found that there are some phonetic combinations that come much more often than others. Like “con, com, man, set, ng, bot”.
That time I did not think about the moon. I understood, that if there is a real correlation first I can try to make a translation engine, that knows only one language, but translates from any language, by using phonosemantic rules (I failed) and second possible usage – the compression algorithm, that finds those limited set of combinations in text and changes with variables (com=1, man=2 etc.), then compresses received data. While unzipping it takes variables and changes back with meanings.
I have made an algorithm that showed 10-15% more effective compression of text data, than usual Zip does. It was simple and great solution. To make it more effective, I decided to transfer not only phonetic structure, but also semantic characteristics, by changing it with variables. To do it I needed to check how big is semantic difference in case of close phonetic structures.
I took simple phonetic combination like consonant-vowel-R. Examples: bar, car, chair, more etc.
And start checking all semantic features of such phonetically close words.
After I check all available combinations in Russian and English I was surprised that the set of possible meanings is very limited and there are some, that are met more often.
There are those prominent characteristics:

First thought was – it is all about the god. But I’m materialist and I understood, that there is an object that can fit practically all received characteristics – the Sun. It is permanent and periodic, white, yellow, spherical, moves by circle, beautiful etc.
And for a long time I have checked my idea and find many confirmations that the image of the sun fits most sematic requirements, but also there were some, that could be hardly logically connected with the sun. For example cows, boats, water.
I have decided to write a paper about my idea and make more experiments. I have named it Lingvogeometry and moved to Sri Lanka to have some time for such work. What happened there really changed my life and made everything clear and perfect.
One night I was sitting on the beach and thinking of my ideas, drawing some concepts on the sand. I could not understand how to connect the sun with arcs and curved objects appear in my reasonings. Then I turned my head up and see the moon. I was surprised that it was not in the state I used to see it in Europe. It was not usual C. The crescent was turned 90 degrees and looked like a boat, cup, horns. That was my insight! The missed element of my system was found. I have started to check my idea with new knowledge and understood that lunar paradigm fits more accurate and logic then solar one. In case of solar, the curve and arc are imaginary (its way in the sky), while the moon makes it real and specific. The curve and arc is available for observer without further logic transformation.
When after one year of research in such fields as archeology, semiotics, theology, neuropsychology, anthropology I have found tons of facts, pointing to the prominent role of the moon in human history. Some of facts I have already posted. But much more I have in my pockets. They are waiting for publication in my big work about it. Unfortunately, today I don’t have enough time to work on it, so I’m looking for coauthor to help my with. And another point is my English and lack of writing experience. Due to this problems, scientific society does not take me serious. That is why I’m here.
I have published my initial work in Russian and have very good reviews, but Russian society, especially science people are mostly believers and the idea that the god they pray is only the moon from times of animalism, does not get a support. Mostly angry and emotional comments.
My work was accepted by editor and published in Russian science magazine (http://trv-science.ru/2013/08/13/informaciya-iz-materii-ili-materiya-iz-informacii/), but under the press of readers they removed it from science section to fun section, as you made by the way )
I understand this position and do not huff about it. Any new paradigm goes through such process. It is good way to correct and harden the theory.           
So this was my story in short. Now it is more clear for you how I came to such strange concept. Help me to prove or disprove it. I will be grateful for any result.

Arc and circle? Why? How are those related to sounds? The problem with this is that you're interpreting it as a metaphor (as seen by early humans, possibly not consciously). So why not talk instead about lines vs. planes, or angles vs. circles? Or 1 vs. 0? Or a candy cane vs. a bowl of oatmeal??
1 and 0 are closer to me and arc and circle as visual metaphor. I connect it with process of coding information by computers. Two simple and opposite elements make available to code very complex structures as in case of computers. As our brain is a prototype of processor, these two constants are very useful to code the information inside it. Most important that the standard, the reference is available for observation without any instrument and for all humans simultaneously.
It is like an announcement of constants and variables in the start of any computer program. Further complex functions and transformations refer back to those simple agreements and operate with it.
The relation between two visual states of the moon and counting system you can still see in Kannada, where 1 and 0 are transferred like this:

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/12.png)

This makes possible to save the information in the memory not only in the form of images, but in more energy effective form – vectors, or functions. The brain does not need to save pixel by pixel image of red circle. It can take stored “lunar” constant – the circle and add the information about its size and color. It will use much less memory cells. The information about red color can be also “coded” by linking to the moon. First due to some atmospheric effects, the moon comes red color some times, but there is more easy logic. Human mouth is red and is having crescent shape. So referring again to saved constant the brain can code the information about red color in simple steps. (German “rot” phonetically similar with Russian “rot” with meaning mouth)
When the brain needs to restore saved information about red circle, it just calculates simple function and quickly builds in “operation memory” needed concept. It is more quick and energy effective then to restore pixel image.
In case the brain works like a library of images, it has to be very big in size and utilize huge amount of energy. In case there is a “vector operation system” in it, the space is needed only to store functions, so the size will not be that big. Just compare vector and bitmap image file sizes to understand what I mean.

It's interesting, maybe something to write fiction about or speculate on in a long philosophical discussion, but it's not science. It can't be. Unless you can invent a time machine.
But we have a TIME MACHINE! Just go to Africa or Asia and you will see and hear how people were living thousands years ago. They still act same way as they did may be million years ago. They are very simple, reflexive and ritualized. Their languages are also not developed and learning it is just same as to come into the past. Most words if you start to check come from very limited set of phonetic compositions. Kottu, kata, kada, gedere, they can code most modern concepts with such simple set.   
You can see in Sanskrit so many “ker” roots. But there was not so many. It is the one protoroot, which gave many reflexes. No complexity. Easy as 2+2 )

 
We have no way of knowing what kinds of sounds (if any) early primates made. Some monkeys today make a sound like that, and others make different sounds. In fact, the research you're referring to found dialectal differences in the monkeys, meaning that the sounds in monkeys are arbitrary, so you can't use that as evidence to claim then that human language sounds are not arbitrary.

You are correct. And I did not take it as an evidence. I just point your attention that even primates cannot escape from limited set of sound combinations. And also the study of monkey language is a great example how the language could develop. First it was an arbitrary sound connected with alert of danger. When same sound could be tagged to specific type of danger (big cat for example) and fixed as the name of this object. To give the name to another dangerous animal the sound could be changed slightly, and here we are, they have 2 words for 2 species. In third step, as the most dangerous part of time is the night, the moon as night object can receive same name. It is an interpolation and solution scaling, speaking engineering language. The moon as I said was useful constant, when there was no logic analogues in surrounding world. One has developed a fishing hook and needs to give the name for it. He knows the name for crescent moon and applies it to newly developed item. Easy for him and easy to explain it to society.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 02, 2015, 09:01:37 AM

Certainly possible. But why not "lion" and "stick"? The point is, we can't figure out what things they were referring to.

Because to explain to somebody that he takes existing name of lion, one must show the lion, and even in this case receiver will not understand the meaning, as there are many different cats, it can be young or old, white or yellow etc. Having in collective unconscious the idea that nighttime is dangerous, makes available more specific explanation.
But remember it is only one possible way. It is my assumption based on facts we observe now. The specific way was much more complex, as you understand. I call in reverse engineering of human language. If we can do it with computer language, why we cannot make same with natural language?

It is very reasonable to speculate that language began as a binary contrast, but we have no way of confirming that. Additionally, it might not have just been binary because many animal species have more than just two sounds.

I can see that you make common mistake, mostly caused by convergent type of thinking inherent by humans. Binary states that I talk about are not just relation of two sounds. It is a possibility to make contrast as you correctly said. By this contrast, we can code complex ideas.
From one point of view the circle of moon gives the concept of full, while new moon gives opposite concept of small, even not existing signal. But in case of our counting system, the circle means not existence, while 1 means having a signal. With difference in details, it is the same image of binary logic. So it does not mean that two words with same sound must have opposite meaning. It is just a way to create those words. Bull (crescent) and ball (sphere) show pure contrast, but it does not mean that only these two words can show it.  Full (circle) and well (circle) does not show an opposition, but still utilize described quasi-binary logic.

Consider words that evolve to mean their opposites. There is no sound-meaning relationship!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym

This is what I have called “quantum linguistics” in my works, when one sound tag may have two different opposite meanings. Lunar paradigm gives simple answer how it may exist.
We take the word “moon” and it may have two different visual meanings “full moon” and “crescent moon” depending on context. Auto-antonyms? For me it is natural way to create new words and meanings. 

This is where statistics comes in: take a RANDOM SAMPLE list of 100 words in the language in some semantic field in one language, or a RANDOM sample of words for one thing (like "moon") from 100 (not too closely related) languages. Is there any way to defend your hypothesis?
You can try that and let us know, but I strongly doubt it.

Sorry I did not understand what we have to do after. We have started from statistical check. Let me see how you offer to do it more clearly and I will make this check.

Here's my new theory:
Humans are special because we live on land and evolved to rule the land. But we also originally came from the water, and we need water to survive. So it's about balance. Therefore, human language must have originally referred to the binary contrast that was most important for survival and identity: the difference between "wet" and "dry".

The only problem is that you indue early humans with ABSTRACT thinking. Wet and dry are abstract concepts. Such type of thinking appeared much later then specific thinking inherent to protohumans.  To make a concept of “wet” first they need to have a concept and name for water. “Dry” is even more complex. It is a process of getting off-watered. So there is no answer how people received the name for water itself. But I understand your point and find it correct. As was said before the development of complex ideas was available by using logic oppositions. Water/stone more good example and don’t need abstract thinking. And here comes simple logic: water is falling from the sky, when it comes dark same as night time. So the water is given by night time object – the moon. Moreover, crescent moon looks like a cup, so it could contain water in it.
Opposite condition – the stone. Hard stuff, known as a tool and weapon from monkey times. Usually it is grey sphere. Same grey sphere is hanging above the head. So there is simple logic connection.
In final, there is an understanding that both the water and the stone somehow are connected to the moon.
Today we have same in English. “Rock” means the stone, but at the same time rock music is symbolized by fingers in form of horns. In Russian “rog” means the horn. Interesting, but absolutely natural duality in case of lunar theory.
Again Russian “reka” means “river”. So it is water. Completely opposite to the stone, but ok from lunar point of view.
And finally, remember that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
“To speak” in Russian sounds like “rech, ryock”. Not because we speak by horns or stones ), but due to the shape of our speaking mechanism – the mouth. Which has crescent, “horned” shape.
So it is absolutely truth in the Bible. There was a word in the beginning said by “celestial mouth”, and this mouth is the god – the moon. That is why in any religion people try to feed this mouth by sacrifices.
German gives more evidence about this connection. They call the mouth – “Mund”. Just compare with English “month”

Ok, please do, and then post the results. You must select 100 words in one language and then one word in 100 languages. Your theory predicts that it should be similar in these cases. But the goal is not for you to LOOK FOR similar words. The goal is for you to look at RANDOM words (related only in meaning) then compare them. Are they similar? I'm certain you will find no evidence to support your hypothesis. But if you do, please let us know. And if you don't, also please let us know.

Now I understand more clearly. But still little in doubt. What should be similar?
First point is 100 words with same meaning. We must determine the principle of meaning similarity.
For example I can take many different names for ship (boat, caravel, kayak etc) Don’t think I can find 100 ones. Or I can take 100 names of different fruits. But such relation is too general and does not have any sense. 
One words in 100 languages ok. But what I have to compare after? 100 names of ships with 100 translations of word “ship”? First, they will correlate for sure, as most names of ships already taken from another languages. And even in another case we can find many correlations between selections as coding possibilities of any language are limited by several sounds available for pronunciation. Second, what is the rule to find words correlate? Completely same sounding? Cot, god, hot, cat, cute are similar or different?
With pleasure I will do this test, but please give more detailed principles of similarity.

Remember: whatever you do must be replicable by others. So you can't do it in a way that is "special" (=biased) for you. You must do it so that anyone can run the same test (with different words) and find that your theory is still supported by the data.

Yes, I understand it. And I’m trying to describe this universal algorithm for somebody to act same and receive same results.
Now I can offer such test, which I used in my paper. One must take any combination of consonants (three enough) and find all words in any language where such combination exists.
The principle of similarity is phonetic propinquity: I have took B-R-K combination and I count words like break, brace, brag, braid, birch, bird etc phonetically similar. You can see on spectral analysis that all words will give very close graph.
Second one must take semantic characteristics from meanings and etymologies of received list of words.
For example: bard -  poet, singer, to lift up the voice, praise. Semantic core: mouth, voice, high
Then one must count statistic distribution of received semantic characteristics.
I predict that the distribution will look same as received by me in case of B-R-K sample:

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/diagram1.png)

15-20% of semantic characteristics will cover about 50% of taken roots. And these exceled characteristics will be connected to the image of the moon directly. By shape, as in case of mouth and boat, or by simple logic as in case of “young”.

I’m working now on more simple test. Will post it when available.

Again thanks a lot for your support. I deeply believe that it is not just wasting of time. Just imagine if I’m correct, what kind of changes are awaiting this world. It can unite all earthlings by common idea of same roots of their languages and religions.

P.S. Later, if we will still discuss this topic, I will present more evidences taken from other science fields. I have collected some works from neurobiology, that also confirm my assumptions. I don’t think you ever noticed the prominent role of the crescent shape in the design of logos. But if you will look closer, you will see that every designer tries to put the C-shape in modern logo. There is neurobiology answer why they do that. I will share if you’d like.

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/C_shape_logo_neurodesign.png)

 You will also understand this assertion by creators of Futurama ;)

(http://www.lingvogeometry.org/images/futurama_neuromarketing_secret.png)
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on January 02, 2015, 09:49:10 AM
Quote
The theory can be falsified by arguing that initial object was not the moon, but the sun. Any reference to round object can be applied for both objects.
That's not how falsifiability works. It isn't a binary between two theories, but your theory against any other possible theory. The problem with your claim here is that it might not have been the sun either. It is possible it was something else (anything) or nothing at all: there is no clear evidence that language began with reference to one thing (such as the moon).

Falsification works like this: you operationalize your theory as a specific hypothesis. For example, you might say "every language in the world will describe the moon with the sounds [mun], just like English" -- clearly that hypothesis is false. But maybe your theory works with some other variant. For example, "every language in the world will describe the moon with at least one of those three sounds" -- again, easy to test, and also false.

A hypothesis has predictive power: it can be used to test on new data (sometimes proving it false). I'm not seeing that in your explanation. You're just telling stories and showing us pictures.

Quote
Authors were playing with linguistic correlations and make historical consequences that absolutely change existing views. Now it is called lingvofreaks and I’m first fighter against such wry conclusions. They change words, mix sounds, reverse it and get conclusions that does not correspond to any logic and never supported by theoretical base.
Serious question: are you aware that this is exactly how YOU appear?

Quote
but translates from any language, by using phonosemantic rules (I failed)
It is good that you failed. That means you understand that's possible, rather than just assuming your theory is right. But that's the problem: if phonosemantics worked, people would use it, and it's possible your program would have worked. Why continue with this when there is so much evidence against it and (almost?) none for it?

Quote
There are those prominent characteristics:

    round, spherical;
    clear, full, main, absolute, first;
    permanent;
    periodic;
    white, yellow, black, red, blue;
    has big temperature;
    connected with eyes and vision;
    connected with mouth and abdomen;
    connected with intoxicating drinks;
    beautiful, magic, entrancing, heady;
    moving, mostly circle moving;
    connected with water;
    connected with birds;
    connected with mice, rabbits;
    connected with cows, horses and deer;
    connected with boats;
    big, small and middle;
So.... any words, basically?
That doesn't predict anything. If I give you a list of 100 words, can you tell me which ones will be in that group? And then can you show me that it correlates to something?
You're observing things and assuming patterns then making a guess about those patterns. The problem is that there are, in most cases, no patterns at all. Phonosemantics does not explain words.

Quote
But we have a TIME MACHINE! Just go to Africa or Asia and you will see and hear how people were living thousands years ago. They still act same way as they did may be million years ago. They are very simple, reflexive and ritualized. Their languages are also not developed and learning it is just same as to come into the past. Most words if you start to check come from very limited set of phonetic compositions. Kottu, kata, kada, gedere, they can code most modern concepts with such simple set.   
1. That's not an accurate description of African or Asian languages.
2. At best, that's very close to being very offensive. There are certainly (some) differences in how different languages are used, but you're making the "other people are primitive" argument, which has been disregarded in Linguistics for about 100 years because 1) it's offensive, and 2) it doesn't match the data.


I don't have time to read the rest of your long posts on this at the moment. Unfortunately you just don't seem to understand how languages work, and you're not approaching this in a way that is scientific. As I said, if you want to test this, try to make predictions, then see if they are true.

Specifically for testing:
Quote
First point is 100 words with same meaning. We must determine the principle of meaning similarity.
For example I can take many different names for ship (boat, caravel, kayak etc) Don’t think I can find 100 ones. Or I can take 100 names of different fruits. But such relation is too general and does not have any sense.
Your theory is that the moon is responsible for all words in human language, correct? They all started from the moon?
You should be able to find 100 words in modern English that are related to "moon". If not, then EVEN IF CORRECT, your theory is basically irrelevant: it would explain less than 100 words in the English language, out of the 100,000+ words in dictionaries.
Quote
One words in 100 languages ok. But what I have to compare after? 100 names of ships with 100 translations of word “ship”? First, they will correlate for sure, as most names of ships already taken from another languages.
Basic principles of comparison tell us NOT to do that: we avoid borrowings. So instead, look for words that are not often borrowed.
Quote
And even in another case we can find many correlations between selections as coding possibilities of any language are limited by several sounds available for pronunciation. Second, what is the rule to find words correlate? Completely same sounding? Cot, god, hot, cat, cute are similar or different?
Pick a consistent measurement. For example, "words for X will always have sound Y". A computational algorithm you could use is Levenstein distance (even better would be, in theory, using something like phonetic features instead of simple character-based replacement).
Then you need to show that the correspondences are above chance: basic statistics. The link I gave you earlier shows you how easy it is for these things to happen by chance.
Quote
With pleasure I will do this test, but please give more detailed principles of similarity.
That's the problem. Your observations of resemblance, etc., are not scientific because there is no metric. You're just looking at the data with your eyes and drawing conclusions because you want conclusions.

It's up to you, but if you want anyone to believe you, you will need to show objectively that your theory can predict something. If you can't find any way to predict anything, then your theory is not scientific. It's very simple.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 02, 2015, 12:29:41 PM
Specifically for testing: Your theory is that the moon is responsible for all words in human language, correct? They all started from the moon?
Not quite correct. The moon was initial object that gave to human an algorithm for naming new objects. But it does not mean that ALL objects were named only by the moon. It could happen in early times of humanity, but after some time new words started to appear without moon itself. So it is not correct to try to confirm that ALL words of modern English are related to the moon directly. What I observe is that via natural linguistic changes initially all words came from same source and by same algorithm. Reverse engineering as I told before. Please understand it correct.
You should be able to find 100 words in modern English that are related to "moon". If not, then EVEN IF CORRECT, your theory is basically irrelevant: it would explain less than 100 words in the English language, out of the 100,000+ words in dictionaries.
Please read above. They are related, but not that direct way you want to see.
Pick a consistent measurement. For example, "words for X will always have sound Y".
No, you don’t understand my hypothesis. I don’t and can’t claim anything like that.

It's up to you, but if you want anyone to believe you, you will need to show objectively that your theory can predict something. If you can't find any way to predict anything, then your theory is not scientific. It's very simple.
Please read previous post. I have shown the algorithm of test. I predict if somebody will do it with ANY combination different then I used, he will receive same results.
But as I told you, now I will try to represent more easy prediction. I really understand that I need to have it if I want to assure not only scientists, but also average people.
Just give me some time.
Have a nice weekend!
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Daniel on January 02, 2015, 12:44:40 PM
Quote
The moon was initial object that gave to human an algorithm for naming new objects.
That's far too old for us to do anything about it. Maybe that's right. Maybe that's wrong. It's not testable. Therefore, it's a story, not science. Words change too much, as you're observing: you can't show any correspondence for words meaning "moon", and therefore we can't test this.

Quote
I don’t and can’t claim anything like that.
Then what predictions can you make and test? That's what it comes down to.

You're literally posting logos for companies and images from cartoons. If you develop an algorithm that works, yes, please post it.
Title: Re: Earthlings Speak Moon Language
Post by: Lingvogeometry on January 02, 2015, 01:41:08 PM

You're literally posting logos for companies and images from cartoons. If you develop an algorithm that works, yes, please post it.

I will work it on and reply. Logos of companies here to show how designers love a curved shape, especially the crescent. I told you, there is a practical reason to do it. Read this: Why Our Brains Love The Curve, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2014/06/22/why-our-brains-love-the-curve/)