Earthlings Speak Moon Language

[Lingvogeometry]

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:

• 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;
  

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, 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:

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.

[Lingvogeometry]

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:

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.

 You will also understand this assertion by creators of Futurama

[Daniel]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Lingvogeometry]

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!

[Daniel]

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.

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.

[Lingvogeometry]

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