Ashleygraham(): 2010

The first essay contained so much information on the schools of linguistic comparative that the natural question is whether or not the information has any likely thing to do with the pressing issue of African history and etymology. The first article avoided much of the discussions about the autonomy of a language or homogeneity rather it followed something else, something in the neighborhood of generative history. Generative linguistic is not entirely different from linguistic comparative, but it makes its own argument about the possible flaw of world languages and so on, about the uselessness of current family tree of the world. In the last essay, there was the concern that the article covered so much, especially patterns of historical linguistic reduction (redactor), and lacked the connecting intersperse between African history and etymology of words on wider canvass. That position would not have seems very clear to outsiders, and even they tried, they would discover disjointing choreography of an essay - possibly or probably two-part essay retained in one. The outline was uneasy for Nigerians to appreciate, especially the issue of homogeneity of world languages and the autonomy of speaker communities of Africa. It is therefore necessary that this second article should make it clear that the schools of linguistic comparative or linguistic history are that important, since these studies envelope everything we know in the study of world languages and how it evolves through the ranks of world history.
We have to say that establishing the sense of the fact that the words t, st, and th, morphemes in English as mere innovation of an older African language such as Igbo is one way to see through the stethoscope of the world, such that a relationship is more than likely exist between West African languages and Europe. I have to however rely on my superiors in linguistic study to widen my knowledge of linguistic schools and the linguistic comparative. I shall add that at least we can still experiment with the Igbo-English comparative, only as a way to demonstrate the relationship between Igbo and Hebrew and bring a careful end to the speculative categories of the mistakes within the linguistic trees. The example of the t morpheme in terms like this can go further, largely on examples such as the word Christ which originated from Greek as Kyrios, which may be given an age in terms of Igbo by way of the word chi. Chi in Chinese is the ‘potential force’, and in Igbo, chi is a term that defines the godly force, perhaps a smaller god but altogether a designated force. The relationship between Christ and Chi is something that requires the Hebrew culture and so on to understand, but the idea is on the word and word alone.
The English word tribe will occupy part of our discussion throughout the essay, but the meaning behind the word tribe is the only issue at this point. Tribe means ‘family nucleus’ in English but the work of t morpheme becomes important, largely because of the fact that in Spanish for instance, we have uribe as a ‘form of settlement’, that the Vikings will say cibe for man’s habitation as if to say a cribe in English. These words are no different from Nigerian Igbo words such as umuibe meaning the settlement of the ‘family nucleus’ and in Hebrew, ibe also means ‘family nucleus’ which in Nigerian Igbo is the very word ibe which is the same as the word tribe at least in meaning. So the word t-ribe is ibe without the t.
The flow of the linguistic comparative continues in such respect of Igbo and English, but to sack the natural confusion over incorporating other languages in spite of the two-language comparative, we may have make do with a two language comparative only. We may just for now stick temporarily with the relationship between Igbo and English just to enhance the understanding. For one thing we have other examples which are not very obvious, examples however make sense in terms of the given semantic or sense of the word, for instance the word nnkor is Igbo for ‘sharp edge’ of a knife, but cannot connect in relative term for the word cut. These two words refer to the same thing but in the current comparative appliance they differs a bit, as such they that don’t necessarily apply. Perhaps we can draw a better conclusion by observing the following statement in Igbo, for instance nma nnkor, meaning sharp knife, or sharp machete, and not exactly machete cut - which is the exact connecting word/s to the Igbo nma nnkor. One might tend to see that a shift in sound and meaning is retention when comparing nma (Igbo) to machete (English) and (Spanish) which are same in sound and words, but the comparison does not apply to the word nnkor and cut in spite of their sense of word meaning. But we can make a case for the relationship between these two words. So there is a degree of innovation involved in these languages and so on, between Igbo in terms of English. The innovation must involve all the letter t or other letters for instance st and th, and from these innovations, there are no ends.
Case in point is the presence of the more accurate achievement of the Igbo words nma for ma-chete and nkor (sharp) for cut. This is such that we need to compare other examples to make the case, for instance Igbo word ise which is five, which can be noted in English as cent, even though it may refer to coins and numeric value. The t morpheme essentially apply in the above example, and do in other examples such as uuju and just, uuru and rust, aama and mast, iri and litre, nsuu (beyond, yonder) and south, taa (tata) and today, these words are as similar in meaning and they originate as innovation of one to another. So perhaps the nnkor and cut, but there are other examples. Nko (Nkoo) is Igbo for English word comb, while uma is Igbo for the English word manners. There is also mpi which means horn in Igbo, but the semantic view arrives at the word pin and better word, pike. So mpi is Igbo for pike (horn). Nshaa which is the pikes on a comb (an nkoo), is also a word which can be used as comb, a synonym for comb, nshaa may however be better for the word sharp. So mpi is pike, nshaa is sharp. Another example will also include uda (loud) for Igbo and then there is audacious in English, while offor like in offering may fit better be fitted for the word forth.
Then there is a semantic of words in more general terms, for instance unudum in Igbo meaning ‘all of you/people’, which is not exactly the same as the word universe in English or in similar such example in other languages of the world. But if we compare the Igbo word unu meaning ‘you people’ or ‘those people’ to the word unit in English, there is a more rewarding connection, given the t morpheme and the very group sense of the world unit. There is no point pushing this comparison, that there is enough to call this semantic connection a reality in terms of English and in terms of Latin or Greek at this point. Even at that, we can add certain Greek words to the mix, for instance the word eirene eudokia, is interpreted in English as reign of peace. Eirene eudokia cannot be that different from Igbo word for reign of peace, which is udoka. What about the word reign in Igbo, which is not that direct accept in terms of the very word arene, meaning farewell or good will and to this word, there is also ene as dialectal. There is also irene in Igbo whose meaning is long gone. The English word ‘reign’ can also be identified in Igbo as ochichi or naachi (oshishi, naashi), referring to the rule, not to missed as a synonym for reign, but the nature of the word is such that the English ‘shine’ or ‘shining’ which refers to the ray of the sun or star playing, invoke as much meaning as reigning years invoke a ruling. Even the word year in English is anno in classic Latin, a world which is not that far from a`no in Spanish, and in Nigerian Igbo, anno, a`no, yera/yaro, year, is identified as aro or afo. So we say Anno Domini ‘year of our lord’ in Latin, in redactor anno, as in (anno 272) and in Igbo, we arrive at the translation of year as (aro 272). All these etymological comparatives could not be possible in any way or any language, if only we see languages of the world as autonomous as well and impervious to experience, autonomy as described in today’s family of languages.
Autonomy of language encourages a greater view that language is impervious to experience and therefore correspond to a particular entity of change and agents of that change in a set of languages and a given language, sometimes from the internal evidence. If we cast our view so close to the view of the linguistic turn, we may arrive at language as a form of philosophy and a sort of the psychology of communication. Linguistic turn and philosophy of language informs our knowledge about our behaviors and about others around us. This was very clearly the views of the Johann George Hamann and functional use of the words in terms of cognitive ability, and was also his view on the structure of language formation and its autonomy within internal evidence. In a sense, European languages are enabled to life by the biological factors of the European race community, which lend to the bragging about the possibility of mental structure of languages and how to define speaker communities and intelligence capacity. Jacques Derrida may have called it Chair of the speaker, or at least qualified in terms of chair of the language, which naturally influences the mental structure of language. Hence European languages such as Germany and perhaps the Nordic, is the very ‘metaphysical core’ of Western thought, suggesting that the structure of say English language imply intelligence capacity, hence the mental picture of the language is almost equal to structure of words and sentences, to patterns of speaking, and hence patterns of thinking.
In terms of structure and structuralism, it needs be said that Ferdinand De Saussure completely opposed the fact that the functions of a given word has any particular meaning beyond what is probably assigned to it. That for instance the signs used to illustrate meaning in a language are just what it is, signs or marks that has sounds – sounds that has meaning. That is to say the idea of spoken word is dependent on what is seen, without due recourse to how it is spoken, and the langue which are signs and marks of indication in a language that has meaning therefore convey a particular sense, a particular sense of a spoken word which he called the parole. In a sense, his argument is that a relationship exists between spoken words or language and sound of any kind. The influence of De Saussure on many linguists is not in doubt, though the full position on what was eloquently spoken or organized by his students per se, aligns him with the likes of Bloomfield of the American linguistic school.
Yet we may carve a niche for outsiders of the schools of linguistic comparative and general principles of language, for we know that Judith Butler, Julia Kristen, and Michel Foucault are no small matter in cognitive psychology and speech pathology, they essential made career out of it. Michael Foucault and his French group focused more on the anthology of the spoken word, and what the patients - as his many psychology analysis of Foucault suggest – is pretending to avoid in the course of the meeting and psychotherapy. It may have inspired a particular expression purely on the conditions of their mind, a condition that is not that far from the mental ‘chair’ of a speaker and speaker community, such that what certain speakers are not easily saying what he has just said or about to say, rather he infers or speaks of other things. In many ways, Foucault and other French psychopathologist, do not belong with the De Saussure in terms of profession and language but in terms of speech and what the speaker has in mind, these two men attempt to suggest that speech depends on a particular state of item or state of mind, much of which is subjective, and in terms of Foucault, it perhaps widens on the psychoanalysis of spoken words in the sense of Carl Jung, yet closer to the school Roland Barthes. Needs to be mentioned that on a wider scope of mental chair or core meaning, there is perhaps the illative sense of Henry Newman in his ‘Grammar of Ascent’ to add to it.
Noam Chomsky’s ‘Syntactic Structures’ of 1957 has won the title of been a transition from speculative to the scientific. But largely on the popularity of the man than much of his writing which disappoint, Chomsky’s view is a shorter view on the nature of languages and how they work, seems only clear that the transition in a sentence explains the speaker’s anteriority. If that is only true, we may suggest that a given language has make up that is similar to its speaking community, that the speakers are as smart as their language, that the language contain the basic psychology of sentence formation which transit from one form to another - depending on the projection and mind construction. In that sense, the major work of Art among the linguist is ‘The sound pattern of English’ by Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, Sound pattern of English is also known as SPE, where the two authors and linguist argued that language in terms of its formation is best noted for the transformational character of the structure and the outline, than the sounds of the words which is in many ways is the phonology. If his argument is reviewed in the context of what was popular in his time – phonology and semantic - it would seem to suggest that Chomsky’s ‘Syntactic structures’ made a departure case for phonology and word comparison, on the context of sounds that are negative and positive in value, values which could be earned, which are merely a subcategory of grammar. Grammar by definition he argues, form the back bone of patterns of speaking which if placed in context of Neo-grammarian do much in deleting the preference and comparison based on word sound than structure of the sentence.
For that, Chomsky and Halle’s position on English as an example of language containing the thought process of the speaker which is inordinate to sound, inspired a whole lot of other words in question about linguistic comparison, such that we say that there is a possibility that language changes over time due to sound, but the pattern of speaking and the syntax of the given language endures throughout the transitivity in a sentence. Auto segmental phonology, lexical phonology, optimality theory are all the works of the great achiever in linguistic study whose derivative position influenced attitude to the study of languages. In many forms, we can argue that the beginning of this century, Noam Chomsky and Halle may still retain much of their influence. If we however conclude that Chomsky’s work on syntax as more symbolic in language as much as words and sounds are subsystem, we would have forgotten that English language has a history and that history in terms of language and the history of the people, may offer all kinds of interpretation on Chomsky’s patterns.
No doubt exist that he treated the subject very well but nothing is more commanding than the fact that he can do much more since English is a mere adjective for older languages of their Anglo-Saxon world and a transition from older forms of the same language, that in many ways English language can compare with African languages with as much semantic as it is phonology, with as much spoken words as it is structure of the sentences. English is by fact English, the more popular language of the world and in terms of what we may refer to as generative linguistic, English as English is a great example. For that we might indicate that Chomsky’s positions are not that automatic in given sense of sciences, that in fact it is a mere recap on English which in many ways is already existing, which has a history of the structure and forms of execution correctively borrowed from Latin. All the forms and patterns of speaking evident in English today were merely transported from the more organic origins of Latin and Greek. If we think that Chomsky is right in transitivity in a sentence, we must not include English language as part of the example, we must refer to ‘grow-areas’ and appendages to English from its more ancient forms, forms that include Latin which is merely European in origin.
Roman Latin did not descend from Rome. It was acquired through the steppes of Latium and the society of farmers called Etruscans. Latin by itself evident nature is not isolated in its essence and in its meaning, Latin was a language at home to other languages of the area in question. Latin began as a very crude form, forms not unlike what was available around its neighbors, but Latin acquired other changes from other languages, it enhanced its essence. For instance, ancient comparison between Latin and Cartagena language of Africa will easily lead you to the very early versions of world history and how Latin came to be. In fact the history of Latin as a language is such that her unlikely success in the world is so forgotten and neglected since other successes in the world make and break with time. Over the years, we find that empirical view of the so called Greek and the rest of the Europe believed to have the torch light that lead into new and subtle idea about defining much with the few. But happened to Persian Demotic and what happened to other more popular languages of the world such Aramaic, which Christ himself spoke or possibly spoke in his living years on earth. We happened to African languages, which for many centuries was the backbone of the world languages.
Religion happened to Aramaic and religion happened to Greek. If we concentrate on the idea that Greek language is now very significant because of Christianity, we would be forced to see what happened to the much bigger church and empire by name Persia and Islam. Islam happened to Aramaic, and not only Aramaic, Islam happened to the language that dominated much of the world for centuries and that language is none other than Arabic. Islam happened to Latin, such that today’s language had borrowed so much from others, Islam also happened to Europe such that the connection between Greek and Europeans of today is so completely misleading that we can only hope to be that empirical about our languages. But the material for empirical studies is very slim that the real studies in the terms of what the languages are and how they may have looked like in the years past is excessively English and Northern German. Northern Germanic is the more fanciful name that has been given to the languages that bear some degree of relatedness to the countries within Germany. If that is only the truth, then we can say that German is by circumstance autonomous and developed in its autonomy, developed by stretch of what may has happened in the time past in Germany alone, as such proved itself like Greek to be impervious to outside influence.
It is not the case therefore that Greek language which has been connected to Europe for so long, has survived in places like Greece without extending its influence over the years to places such German without agents of some significance. And that can only mean that we have arrived at the very best with the rest of what was Christianity, and what is the holy bible and what is Hebrew and other Semitic languages. For that, we argue that Greek in places such as Germany, as much as Latin for English followed a pattern of transmission other than the history of the world and of Europe. We can arrive at the very facts of what has been successful in terms of that transmission and none other than religion of Christianity and religion of Islam. What has taken very center and part of the main is the history of Christian monks carrying Greek translated Bible, and Muslim in Europe carrying much of their creed and their teaching to that part of the world. If no major connection in terms of the Greece and the Germans exist, then the very point of the whole exercise on languages is that the major source of European language in modern terms cannot be Greek and cannot be Latin.
If there is scientific empiricism of the whole process in languages, there is even far less, much less than what is so far notable, such that Bible language such as Hebrew may have played such a significant hand in today’s languages than has Arabic in itself. What we can say this early and would rather defend as time proceeds is that Greek is not the mother tongue of Germany, and neither is Latin, as such Germanic languages of Northern and Western Germany are seriously misleading as basis for variously other languages of the world, especially European. History and linguistic comparison go hand and globe and by that we mean that much of the current world of languages and so on, may have been related to the ruling languages of Persia and Arabic, such that Hebrew is not that different from the whole of European language, much that Arabic which gave birth to Spanish and standardized Latin has much more to offer to modern linguistic comparatives than English. If that should also mean that Greek which is noted in Europe as direct source but not ancestral to European languages, as for instance English language is said to have little to do with Greek in terms of structure, may have much to offered much to European comparative linguistics, much more can be achieved if we educate that Arabic and Sacerdotal accent is greater and more original is idealizing our world of learning.
Structures and syntax may be that deceiving since we can say that what is noted by a particular set of words at a particular time, may suffer increasing changes due to necessity to grow and therefore the structure as structure may, breakdown over time hence subject to the forces of time. Even if the structure of words such as the consonants do not itself change, it is only common to dwell on that fact that what was particular in words of a certain time will refer to something more enhanced in meaning, such that changes over time will mean something else over time.
So, as much as vowels in the particular context of time is subject to changes, syntax might change in speaker community and even at that, the words themselves might also change from one meaning to another. Given what is common and available at a time and over time, the degree of the changes can be very possible. It is this change which takes place in fixed notation but remain the same to the consonant and structure of a more origin source that sometimes account for serious departures in a family of words. Yet in head to head connection, there is nothing to replace the relationship between an African words discovered in many ways to be the same with European words.
If there is a way to calibrate the changes that have taken place in the world of languages from older sources, and perhaps note their rate of change, we place the natural possibility for such changes to take place in a given time and in a given community, and through those changes we apply the rate of syntactic change in a language over a period of time. A case in point will be the issue with English language and Igbo language. The change that has taken place in English over the last 100 years is so much that a speaker of the language who rose from the grave may wonder at the words and how they have changed. 200 years, there were people who called 15 and 16c English tedious and hard to imbibe. In today’s English, so much has taken place that the likes of Jeremy Bentham and his grammar in stack and original forms, may be difficult to grasp. We can grasp 18c European languages, but as far 17century and beyond, it will be difficult to read Shakespeare of English. Not that his words are different from what they were, but the changes that has taken place, but the formation the words would not apply to our world.
Further down to the great vowel changes in English, it will be observed that English become increasingly closer to Latin and to Greek. In the time of the Old English, we can rove easily from one form of Latin or Spanish to another, and then on to the old English language. There is nothing wrong in making out the claim that even French of the Normans, was French Latin, a pivotal relatedness that demonstrates a crass of ingenuity and rate of change between Latin Norman French so to speak, and very own English language. All and none, there is no doubt that many French words of today are very much the same as the English and many English words of today can rediscovered in Latin. Latin and old French as 75% comparative but the exact percentage is not clear in terms of English. What we have seen so far will indicate that language in terms of how it is now viewed, did not quite take in the old and now ridden Latin, rather the changes that have taken place in terms of French and in terms of English languages, took place within the waft of English from 16c. If that is only a brief interpretation of what happens to language, we land out the view that much of the so called English language or European language that broke away from Latin and Greek, did so only recently, did so in terms of the changes within the structure and syntax, and in terms of the sounds and the second meaning.
If there is a second meaning to any language in the world, then we view those changes from the standpoint of the changes that may have occupied in a given time lague, much like the presence of a verifiable language such as Latin, caught in terms of the older written format bearing notable functions, where comparative use of the structures of the languages have assumed or adjusted to new situation in another language. Functions of the consonants have come to an end in Latin of a certain age, does not mean that the words are not verifiable. It is for fact most verifiable. Implied linguistic functions of the words as we have noted in French and English departures from Latin, seem in many ways the same with the view that older versions of Latin may be closer to older forms of Semitic languages. At some point, Latin was the main event of the world, the structure of Latin so well improved that Latin began to depart from its older forms. Such that various degree of departures and influences of places ruled by Latin, adopted their language to fit what as written version of the very complete Latin at a time. The main event from the Latin past has taken needed and adequate force and responsibility in changing how we see the original speaker community in relation to their neighbors, and sometimes their superior in the world of languages, the Aramaic.
Greek comes ever so closely to Latin, and perhaps offered more to Latin at setting age than perhaps any other language until the coming of Islam. The articulator signatory of Greek in terms of its grammar and rhetoric was transferred to Latin as Greek got weaker and sedentary language due to political changes in the world. Emasculated from these times was also the version of Greek that is enjoyed today in linguistic comparative, and that Greek is no longer growing or adapting to time and to changes, that Greek is trapped in its time, different from today’s Greek revival and in years to come yield, to the superiority of change. Impervious speaker community of any language shrouded in secrecy makes it difficult to count on the thinking power of its speaker community, for as much we can say, for instance Greek today in matter years would be that different from the Greek in past centuries, we can also indicate that the structure of the words within the language will not likely change but the meaning of these structures will shift to certain disputable degree that such changes will more than likely lead to other changes in the given language or perhaps become a new language altogether.
Beyond Latin and Greek and of the time of Christ or thereabout, there is need to recast the decaying trunk of the older classics of the world. One of such classics occurred by way of Aramaic, whose form continued in terms of growth in side African territory especially Egypt, and is retention in many languages of the place until the rise of Islam and Arabic. It is Egypt and Syria that well have accounted for these changes inside Aramaic. Aramaic like the Coptic which compares with the later provided human beings a closer affinity in between their languages, for no language in the world has so well transformed attitude to vocalization or use of languages than the very classic forms of Aramaic. So from Arabic there is a connection between some ancient Arabic and the much of Africa languages. The difficulty is not giving the audience a piecemeal reduction of language that is now English, through Latin and Greek, by way of Aramaic, but in demonstrating that autonomy in languages can only refer to a language that is static and time consummating, with fixed syntax and structure already achieved in speaker community and then irrelevant as changes in matter of world languages essentially occur. In that sense, there is one form language to be studies at anything for any reason, and that form is language in terms of its evolution in a given community, language which can only be of some of significance in view of it ability to incorporate the rate of the changes that take place in the world.
What has happened in the study of languages of the world is that series of similar languages that buttress on the same community are now supposed to belong to a particular family of languages. And much improvement has been done in terms of adapting scientific approaches to linguistic comparison, which is not different from empiricism that occupied earlier ancestors of the language comparison. But the broad stroke demonstrating these ideas seems very evident when compared through the thick of the African languages bearing elements of European languages, some of which are mildly English, some of which are seriously Greek. Take an instance, the relationship between Nigerian Igbo language and Greek could not under any circumstances exist based on what was is known to us these days, but in direct head to head comparison, a relationship actually exist.
Greek offers its own incentive and pretends to incorporate its autonomy which in turn incorporate its own essence in what is the study of languages, but in terms of Greek and Europe, Greek is not that isolated in its meaning. An instance of that comparative possibility will be the very presence of say Greek words encryption in African languages, some of which are notably European in accent and all of which, relate to some version of Coptic or Aramaic or other European languages. The relation between say Hebrew and Greek is only as far Latin is not concerned, since the closer the Latin, the closer a relations between Hebrew and Indo European languages. We can only hope to redeem what is possible in Arabic based on what is known in Arabic in terms of Arabic. We can only expect to redeem what is Hebrew based on what is Hebrew in terms of what Hebrew. Understanding that Hebrew is competent as Greek, as Arabic is even more competent, then the Aramaic is probably in redaction, much more competent.
Comparing Greek to Arabic may raise eyebrows of modern scholastic and comparing Hebrew to Greek may spook some concern. It is however clear that comparing Greek to Hebrew as much as Hebrew to Aramaic was entirely possible in the 2nd century before Christ, in the New Testament years of the early Apostles of Christ, and the centuries later in their pastoral era. It does appear that the more we reach back in time to look at the two comparative forms of language and speaking, the more we get closer to older forms of the more current ways of speaking. The more we compare for instance Latin in the time of Jerome of the 5TH century CE with Hebrew of that era, or with Greek, the more we see clearly the relationship between the two languages or others like it. If the time of Christ is taken into material comparison - given what was very available in terms of language - then what was available in those years of Christ was a degree of interference among the very major languages of the world. No doubt that Christ who grew up in Galilee spoke Aramaic and no doubt exist about his pedestrian with Hebrew, but in terms of Greek, the language was probably a variation from the main event of the time and that was Aramaic.
But Greek was not terribly different from other languages of the world at the time of Christ saving that difference existed between Greek and other languages of their time, which was Barbarian. A Barbarian is not a stranger else he is Persian or central Asian, the Berbers or Barbary were a very living presence of the country and the people we call Greece knew them well. These people didn’t have to speak Greek and sound like the Greeks, theirs’ was a language that was close to the dominant language of the world, and that language was actually Barbarian. In that, Barbarian or Berber was the language that gave structure to Aramaic which ascended from Demotic and was the language of the ruling party of the world, the Persians, newer languages and dialects broke free. It is mordant to cross check the relationship between Persia and European languages such as the one present in Germanic society. Germanic languages may in fact be closer to the Aramaic and to Berber and may altogether be closer to Hebrew than Greek or Latin. Germanic society, Northern and Western, may well be a dialect of the older society or thereabout, a society that was noted for maritime, a society that came down in history at once, a society that became many nations. What we succeed in doing is showing that these nations took fires from a major group, and that group can account for the source of the relative changes that took place in the Middle East and so on. Iranians and Aryans’ are in the same word and meaning, as much Parthian and the Scythians are mere tribes of the older empires, empires which are not that far from Babylon, not that far from Elam and therefore close to Phoenicians. We can say that the advanced comparative sophistry of Germanic languages such as the Runes, suggest a later date of incorporation to the larger world.
A language such as Greek is perhaps closer to Phoenician if we proceed further through history, these Phoenician comparative languages such as Ugarit will look close enough to other languages within the area, Ugarit which is in fact an older version of Hebrew will look closer to those of Ancient Sumer and Babylon, and from Babylon we draw on the ‘imaginative vistas’ of the Bible and book of Genesis. Yet perhaps we can descent lower to Egypt which was two millennia the home of Egypt. If we look closer to history, we can find degrees of connecting link between the Europe of today and Africa of yesterday. By facts of the changes that has taken place over a period of time, we notice that a given community may have been forgotten and may be left to the destruction and the decay of the sand. If we say that the longer version of what must have a consonant society of world in the old Egypt, may yielded structures of a given word, then the rate at a which a common language in the world compared with Egypt in relation to what happens to the language as it proceeds through time, is only note only due to shift in sounds, rather changes in the syntax due to changes in significance. The main changes that take place in any language occur at the level of consonants and word structure, and those kinds of change bears out in plain as language capable of being called a different language. In terms of English of the old society and in terms of English of today, there is a great gulf in between the sounds and the syntax. In relation to Old French to modern French, there is a great gulf of meaning. In terms of Old French, Old English, Old Germanic Aleman, Old Rune, and Latin or Greek, there is a gulf and that gulf is only due to the fact that these languages, from Latin and Greek are relatively the same.
Patterns and structures are very common and very present in every language of the world, to such sense that there is no given language of the world that compares to patterns now available in English language. In sentence structure, there is no reward in seeking the break point of optimality in given saturated community, for such examples may dwell on the facts that a claim of Veneer emerges, that from a community of very active speakers, a new and newer forms of language emerge. By that, we might easily arrive at the more probably fact that when we think of languages of the world, there is a chance that we can return a million times to Egypt and to Africa, that we can feed on the presence of the consonants and structure of the words, therefore there is such thing as the absence of vowels which is sounds notation, where the consonants yielding structure indicate the language age, that it has gone back and forth through time, that pictures in terms of letters or alphabets can therefore serve as a form of indication for the direction of the language, where it came from, above all, where to place the vowels.
Historical linguistic is now an organized body, and largely on the view that the world follows a well established path, that the discipline is rapier the edge of history, such that the any attempt to correct any set of existing examples and schools, would only land an objection of any school of outsiders. Much of the study as we will discover collapse into significant departures in world of learning, and in many ways, the comparative linguistic of very modern times have largely depended on what the Europeans have offered in the century earlier. It is no coincidence that the few, who look at the 19th century linguistic comparison, would see the relative presence of these words in today’s world of learning so to speak, and some of these words have meanings which make a whole lot of sense in very many sense of current history of the world, and may not in particular sense have that much to do with olden version of the language but evolved from ordinary influences of the speaker communities. But the chance of that happening is quite slim, so slim that it is impossible to state one good example saving for active speaking communities of Europe.
It was not always the case in linguistic study, there was in fact a time when the study of languages was relatively subtle and sedentary, and the impact of linguist on a speaker community was not very notable. Changes have taken place in the linguistic studies that are so profound that the world of languages entails much of the learning from the previous era, and much of what we know today in the world in terms of historical linguist study come from themes in the previous century. The reductionist view of the languages of the world versus the methodology involved in the study, indicate that much has been proven as possible, given the general graces of the new apartment of syntax and patterns of existential communication in a given sentence and above all the psychology of the language which is pacified by functions and symbols. If that is due to the very works of Chomsky and not necessarily Sapir or De Saussure, it will only be accurate to the perception of modern linguist since Chomsky’s popularity may also account for emphasis on the man as synonymous with the ‘themes’ of applied linguistic, themes from masters no forgotten.
Enough emphasis should be made about this subject, perhaps to the advantage of readers, and made auspiciously clear to permit the reasonable doubts of current African history and why it can change, revert to its origins. It needs be mentioned that providing the background to the schools of linguistic comparative may per chance mislead our view of the world, not that accuracy of this essays rendition of these schools and persona non-grata is in doubt, but the nature of the well developed schools of learning may only be a default of the more popular history of the world, a history that makes it difficult for us to see alternate and actual history of the world, and to see the actual linguistic descent of ancient and modern languages of the world. The recent connection between European languages and Africa leads to the grappling with the contentious affairs between these African languages, history, and people, with the very world. My personal attention is not the history per say, which may take us away from the subject of linguistic connections, rather on the deeper possibility that the revelations on African languages - Igbo to mention – may wrought with essence, the current schools of linguistic schools of the world and its family tree. Such connections will shade additional light on the antiquity of African history, which is not in doubt, which remain only in doubt given the misleading popularity of current histories of the world. As we proceed, our focus would be Syria and Jordan where much of transportation of the ancient world took place, especially the later part of Roman domination in what is now Red Sea and Africa. For it seems, that the sea and its connection to the larger world is part of the reason why contact over the years continue in many ways than one, contact between Africa and the world.
We shall focus with the arrival of a certain hoards of people, from possibly Middle East and who were collectively called the Barbarian, but which emerged as the general name for certain groups of sea trotters such as Vandals and Alan. There was a time when many of these tribes usually led by one major warrior or group of warriors, who formed themselves into a family and the family becomes strong over time. In terms of contact, is not as you will expect from Europe to Africa, rather from Africa to Europe and Asia. What we can also say is that in some late history of Africa of the 4th and 5th century AD, three major groups of people became dominant in the fourth century after Christ, they were a certain hoard of Barbarians in Africa, they were also the Vandals, and then the Alan in Africa. Each of them was seeking their own survival and each of them warred against each other. Soon there will only be two major groups, the Barbarians on one hand and then a group or tribe from a combination of the Vandals and Alan. And later, there was only one major group, the Barbarian. At this time in the 5th through 6th century, the tribes had disappeared from Africa. What we can however indicate is that the very history of the Goth and Ostrogoths who survive in Europe, may be due to the fact that only a few of them made it to Africa and perhaps left Africa either on time or made peace in parts of Rome on time. But so did a people called the Alarics so to speak, whose final destination was not variously known, but the Vandal and the Alans eventually bounded up to the remaining group called the Barbarian and were perhaps conquered simultaneously or at once, but they gradually became part of the Moors in the latter years, sort of disappeared from serious history.
Is not the end of the story, and by that we mean, that even the Goths of what is now Eastern Germany, called themselves vesi which is supposed to be the right one. In common sense to Igbo, the word right or right one simply means ezi/ehzi, as if to say hezi. We can add quickly that in Igbo there are words such as isi meaning head, for instance isi-ala meaning capital, while headquarters will mean Etitiama. In respect to the people and history in question, we can remind ourselves of the fact of the Nubians who were called N’ehesi, N’esi, meaning the head and first and the pure, and not necessarily black. Some interpretation refers the N’ehesi which is Nubia (?) as people from pure substance, which surprisingly Berbers also say about their origins, all of which has been taken as pure white race, when in all comical outcome, N’ehesi referred to the dark or the brown, some of original substance, pure black. But of course, we are stretching the view at this point, yet it was based on the realized episteme of being the tribe, the main genera of a given tribe, that there were the descendants of a verifiable ancestor, African through time and through history. There are no surprises there that those themes were acquired in the 18th through 20th century Europe, more than any other, the very Germans (Genera) and their Goths.
No surprises that Jordanes history of the tribes is now extant; no longer existing, extant very recently since some work written in the 19th and early twentieth century made significant citations of Jordanes’ history of the tribes and their own Greak Trek from what is now Africa into Europe, using Northern Nubia (Ne’hesi) or the Nabataea. The Goths just unlike the Seljuks may not be as Whites as we think, let alone other tribes of Germany. Think of Frisian ‘Mooring’…what is that? The question now as much as then, is who were these Barbarians and where did these people come from? The answer remains as solid as the answers from ages past that these people were none other than Berbers of Africa.
No doubt by now we have adjusted to possibility of an African language been very present in English language. To be sure Nigerian Igbo language in its current form, do have several words in its very incarnation that bear stamps of English and other European languages of the world. In essence, the current language trees were based on the misguiding sense of world languages and of world history is the vista of Europe of the 18th century, as converted from their so called Age of Discovery (?). The European discovery of Africa was the White man’s discovery of Africa and in terms of noting and recognizing the history of the world, the 15c was as good as they come. The closest they came was Portugal navigating around the continent of Africa in search of an alternate sea route to a certain country called India, an India that was already foremost in great Annals of Rome, and Indus valley that decorated much of North African and Ancient history. To be nice, Indian route as discovered by Vasco Da Gama is one of the grossest errors of that Age of Discovery, which now explains the debt of misleading facts and history about Africa and the world since the arriving of the West to West Africa. I dare say that the Red Sea deserves its own history, and hold a lot of key to many doors.
No doubt that such existence of other languages of Europe has words that are very clearly African in sound and meaning. No doubt now exist that English language in the way we know of it today seem to have descended from a source that is not that far from Semitic roots, but the problem of Greek and possibly Latin as direct ancestors of many Germany languages including English is not in doubt, but we have to finally suggest that Greek and Latin are relatively new in world languages to make such impact on Europe. In fact a serious interval exists between the decline of Rome in the 5th century and the rise of Carolingian league in 12th. To therefore make matters very clear that in terms of continuity of language from Latin to Greek, there is no need to perhaps stretch the fact that Latin and Greek were the direct ancestors of Germanic languages. If at that is not clear, I shall indicate that much of the story concerning Germanic people or peoples will seem to implore them as outsiders of European continent.
I shall also indicate that when Rosetta Stone was discovered some time in the past, it has inscriptions concerning the Coronation of a certain pharaoh, written in Egyptian Hieroglyphics, Persian Demotic, and Classic Greek. But many of the philologists could not read it very clearly, and many of them simply did not understand the language at all nor break the coded script. If classic Latin and Greek were as common and understandable as 18th century Europeans indicate, need for interpreting the Greek to the larger European society would not exist. Need for breaking the code will not also exist. It is therefore simple to suggest that if the Greek’s of today spoke a language that was closer to the Greek of the 15century or earlier, they would have easily broken the Greek inscriptions of the Rosetta stone. European communities could not and the reason for this is better explicated by the sharp disconnect between Greek and Latin of the 4th and 5th AD and Greek and Latin at the end of the immortal 15th century AD. Yet the language that is English today and French of nowadays, contain indications of Latin influences. French and English of the 15th and 16th century contain that much more, yet they differ from Latin and from Greek. Why? The reasons are not farfetched, largely on the account of those who provided the blanket for the languages of Europe from 1066 AD to 1500. That blanket language was Norman indeed.
But the Normans did not speak Latin as far we know, they spoke their language which was 75% Latin, which was entirely old French and largely Nordic. It is said that old Swede, old French, old English, old German (Aleman) ended altogether in the 15c, and that the new languages of Europe which is so different from the old began after 15c or the fall of the Moors in Spain. But the question that has not been asked is how the Nordic and Scandinavians learnt Latin and some versions of Arabic, and how could they have written so well and so developed in their language that span throughout Europe. The answer is quite simple, that these Normans and their Nordic were not Europeans at all. Theirs was a language that shared origins with Latin, Greek, Punic, Phoenician, Palmyrene, Hebrew, Ugarit, Berber, Syriac, Coptic, and all the remnant of Middle East and Near East languages. Theirs was a language that is closer to Aramaic and Demotic than anything else, theirs was a language of the very elevated Muslim class of the Middle Ages, theirs was a variation of Arabic, perhaps closer to Berber than anything else.
For one thing, we shall speak of the German language, which as they say is the root of many language of what is supposed to be Western Europe and in fact, much of Europe. It is not uncommon history to indicate now that Germany in words and in history simply means tribes, tribes of certain peoples of Europe, united as they were by language and not necessarily by blood. This idea of Germany as genera, gen, germane as in tribe or German as a nation was did not exist until the 18th century when it was re-introduction to the world by philologers, based in part on articles of history written by Julius Caesar, Tacitus, and by Jordanes, and the name was also based in part by certain group of people called all kinds of names including Gaul and Barbarian. We shall delve into the Barbarian antiquity of the people who were given this name Germany and we shall find several ‘anomalies’ with the name and we will reveal that these Barbarian hoards were not Europeans as they say, they were Africans, mainly of the Berber stock. I shall repeat for sure that the history concerning the arrival of Alaric to Africa is stuff of history and according to the historian Jordanes, his version of Barbarians of what we might now regard as German descent (?) revel in the Great Trek, and in their attempt at trying to survive the forces mitigating against the people in many parts of North Africa, Egypt to mention. The Great Trek took place inside Africa and from Africa they went into Europe, possibly Spain.
Let’s be clear that formation of Germany as a nation and the Germanic group as a whole way we perceive of today is seriously an item of 18th and 19th century linguistic invention. Germany did not exist as a country or as a nation before 18th century, as such the so called Frisian, Jutes, and the Anglo-Saxons on today’s history are no articles of history per se, quite drive by on world history of Europe and also entirely misleading. Such view that England descended from these guys is not a direct synthesis of history - it is a derived account of settlers around the area in question from a very recent time and not beyond. From the fanciful interpretation of the world history after the Normans left, the legacy of the Charlemagne and Carolingians has grown continuously, exponentially. It may be part of the more organizing item of human psychology that at the absence of alternative history, we abide in the fantasy and myth making of them all. There is nothing to repeat about the misleading view of Germanic history, nothing to imperceptibly spoil here since we learn from the history of Britain, of simultaneous conquest and settlement of several peoples of the world in what is now England and UK. All of these may indicate that the English and their UK may not exactly be called one people, one race of (White Europeans) per se, perhaps they were a lose tag on ‘peoples’ of the World whose language differed remarkably until the coming of the Normans per se.
Reasons exist for corrections on the linguistic structure of the world to essentially take place, and these reasons include the likely possibility that the structure is bound to mistake in its assertion. Aside the sound shift and connection in so far as French and English of the 16c, there is not a whole lot that can be said about the view of the very places in the world coming from the perspectives of these Europeans. Even as far Europe, there is standardization of spelling of words and forms of speaking which make us approach these languages as classics and as opposed descents of a given language. If in any language of the world, we bring in Latin and Greek as the more determinant factor, we observe how these other languages are forced to adjust to the laws. Such view may compound in the words of English largely on accounts of who we become rather than how, and that succumb to the issues of what became classic. Classic versions of languages are usually the work of a school of specialist so to speak, or a person of privileged graces such as Gregory Chaucer and Dr Samuel Johnson, so to speak of English. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, had been the very basics of what is now English language, and its influences has remained very pivotal in the evolution of the very people and the very language. Vikings raids on Britain in 9th and 10th century played out its part in English language there was the presence of 1066 Norman Conquerors who arrived in Britain in the Battle of Hastings. If these individuals and their languages influenced English language, there is a possibility that theirs was a language that different from the much of Greek and eventually Latin.
Linguistics taking interest in for instance in English language will find Dr. Samuel Johnson ‘Dictionary of English’ of 1755 that compelling, largely for the discussed influences of the words and the origins of English words which relapses into Latin, as if Latin of over a thousand words gave birth to English. If English changed after the departure of the Normans means that these people were very international in their composition and above all, there was no way they would constituted a different externality than the people in the very word as we next time around. Translation of Latin to Greek, and Greek to Latin influenced various aspects of the words in the languages. But these Neo-grammarians changed our view on languages and that change has continued ever since.
The degree by which the early successes in comparative Latinity defined the attitude of historical linguist and the study of English and Sanskrit, cannot be demonstrated in common terms, but as based on a topic mainly in dept to Latin study, there was a shift in understanding of world languages from its probably sources to the improbable destiny in terms of the 18th century England and France. But of course these Masters of that engrossing Century set the pace for many studies in languages, largely due to the exposure of their military and fortunate class, most of whom remained in their country’s study long enough to build on the existing linguistic institutions. It does not in many ways suggest that these explorations of newer world and languages in the very late 17th and early 18th century, made these people first in the field and others second, or does it mean that the 18th century Europe of William Jones was beginning of linguistic comparison. What else can matter than the fact than the fact that we may suggest that it is supposed to matter to linguistic study, only on the context of Europe languages. In fact, what we recognize today as Persian Demotic and Greek inscription, were subject of great comparison in yester years. For we know at least in given history of the Middle East and Syrio Palestine, there is in fact definite study of the language study in vise of each, in terms of translations and commentary, and in terms of comparison.
But the issue is not that difficult to understand in terms of what we know about the languages of Europe, but the gully pit is falling into the ready-made trap of reduction theory that Europe, much as Germany, such as Britain and then as France is one country, one organic whole, one race of humans whose ancestors go back in time, and whose structure and one language descended from Germany, West, East, and North. The history of these Europeans, especially the Middle Ages is quite long and tedious. Out of these the much of European languages emerged. This picture is wrong, Germany today is more divided by its origin than Nigeria of the 40 and 50s, for sure we can contrast with Nigeria, that the people are relatively different to the point that each section of the Nigerians may indicate who is who, yet the Nigerian case is closer to its central core than the History leading to the Germany in the 18 and 19th century. In fact, most historians will still insist that Germany search for national identity dominated their warlike behaviors in the 19th century. Herwig Wolfram in his book ‘The Roman Empire and Its Germanic peoples clearly stated that “an entire people never composed all possible members of a tribe. For example, the two main Gothic peoples, the Visigoths of Southern France and Spain and the Ostrogoths of Italy, were each made up of ten or more different tribal groups, some of them of non-Germanic Origin. Our Modern terminology is simply incapable of describing such a reality” and he goes on to say that “the philological interest in the Germans in the nineteenth century was greater even than the historical and archaeological interest. For example, the division West Germanic, East Germanic, and North Germanic peoples came from philologists. A historian who all too readily adopts their terminology with its linguistic assumptions falls into a self-created trap.”
What we can still salvage from that statement is that Germany as we read through it today did not exist as one organic whole beyond 18th century. As we proceed through time, Germany as we know it, descended from several tribes or settlers around the four specific geo-locations. That the people of Germanic tribes, is much the same as saying that the word tribe and genera, is by its definition Germany, meaning related people, and not a country, and this people are related by language and not by Blood. The book goes to throw more light on how Germanic people of several races, became bounded by their relationship to Roman and some has the government. It will appear that a certain group of people led by Alaric arrived in parts of Near East by the 4th century, then the Alan arrived or had been there, and the Vandals and Goths made it to Africa. They were first seeking food and shelter in Africa and the fact that many of them were leprous and suffered from cancerous skin and Northern Slavic suggest these three groups – besides many others – were probably from elsewhere. They came under the umbrage of Rome, driven then by common enemy, bounded by common enemy which was Rome and Byzantine. T.M Wallace Hadrill in his book ‘The Barbarian West, 400-1000 - Chronicle of the invasion of Europe by the so called Barbarian’ shows that the Barbarians were not exactly a unified body as we might think that in fact German was a series of tribes. What we have said early we can now indicate that those occupy what is German may be foreigners in the area of Germany. The origin group may or may not be the Northern Slavs.
Even such position is in my view spurious, for what we know in history is that the current Germany is called home of the Celtic, which some Archeologist has been unable to back up, especially given the long claim that Julius Ceaser conquered the place, and hence the explanation of the Latin backgrounds of Celts. But there is a better understanding to the origins of the Celts, since their language was very close to Normans, that the Celts who has been demonstrated to be familiar with certain Amerindians, Aztecs (Celtic) to mention, and then Nadene, Eskimo, Maori (East Polynesian), and Algonquin of North America by stretch, suggest a relationship between these people and can understood by the role of the Vikings (vikein) and Saracens (sarakein), and other maritime (using meridian coordinates, nautical meridem) empires/explorers of the middle ages, around the area and may have visited North America from centuries through Iceland, especially the Vinland and possibly Am-eri-ca.
Consider this, Wikipedia/org/wiki/Maori (sometimes helpful source, but use microfilm and prefer books if you can) did carry an essay about long phoneme derivative of a Maori language with ‘devised Alphabets’ by ‘Cambridge University’ produced the following words in Maori, ata (morning), ata (careful), mana (prestige), mana (prestige), wahine (woman) wa`hine (women), which compares almost instinctive and directly with Nigerian Igbo in the following tata (today), taa (today), uma (manners), nwanyi (woman). I shall expand on the scary discoveries I dug up some time ago, but Maori’s ‘wairua’ for spirit, cannot be that different from arua in Igbo, meaning spiritual fever or divine spirit, or opposed to the more common view of it as ‘reasoning’
If the older Norman language has affinity with Latin for instance Henri the I of England is supposed to have been able to read and write Latin or something close to Latin, and the above mentioned languages of North America is supposed to have affinity with Latin, as do Celtic, then the reputation is not Julius Ceasers’ and the Romans, the reputation is the ancestral roots of the Normans and Icelandic – the Vikings and Saracens of Africa. All of these groups are perhaps related to Merinid of Egypt (where the Red sea and Ptolemy Atlas was very pivotal) which was over populated in the 4th century by Greeks, Romans, brigands, Barbarians, Parthians, Syrians, Persians, Jews, Bedouin, Arabs, and Natives (Africans), suffered division in time of Christianity because of the persons of Christ and re-united by Islam came into prominence. My ultimate suggestion is that the Indians of North America - not Amerigo as we shall discuss later - who call themselves Black by race and had many of the foray of human color, from whiter to the darker, who built the pyramids ad novo like the ones in Africa, whose funerary architecture may have been part of the settlers main ideas and so on from the years of Barbarians or so to the fall of the Normans in 15c and of the Moors in the 15c, may be that related to the Africans and their Egytians. Another Caveat is that Aberdeen of Ireland (Eireland) is called Viking’s Aberdeen, which where Erik the Red and Thorvald came from and not Norway, Aberdeen as it was Yaredeen in ‘Saga of Erik the Red’ is Viking’s Aberdeen of Erieland (Abydos is in Africa, essentially Egypt) and much of the similarity between North America and some European language as Latin is just a natural consequence of the colonizers.
Consider this if you may, that if Danes, Norwegians, Picts, and Irish are supposed to be related to Germans, that all of them are supposed to have great affinity in terms of the languages, you come to wonder why in reality, all these languages are not the same and are completely different from modern Germany. The Secret History of the English Language’ is a book written by M.J Harper, mentioned that “the puzzle is not how the Irish managed to learn to speak English under the Norman Yoke, but how the Normans managed to learn to speak English when in Ireland. Unless the Irish were already speaking English and the Normans just went native as they did in Normandy, England, Scotland, Calabria, Sicily and Greece” Judging from all possibility, we can say that the English that we speak today is seriously descended from Normans. And if the Normans spoke a language that was comparative to Latin, or has a long strange affinity to older versions of Latin, then there is a chance that the English breakthrough in terms of affinity to Latin in the 18th and 19th century or previously is after math or after process, that the descent of English from Germany is not true and did not take place. English is therefore a kind of Latin, with ancient roots to Near East and Middle East, perhaps close to Punic, Phoenician or Aramaic, all of which are related to Greek and Latin in various departures. English is therefore not autonomous.
R.H Robins writing in the book ‘A short history of linguist’ provided this clue that much of the problem with modern linguistic is due to problem of contemporary history. In the book, the author indicated that “contemporary history has been said to be the most difficult historical field to cover. The historical attitude remains the same, but the material available and the relevant is much greater in volume, and the nearness of the scene makes the discernment of definite directions and movements, and of relatively permanent ‘schools’, more difficult.” What the author means by this statement is not very clear but there is a great chance that we are looking at the possibility that contemporary history may have experienced serious difficulty in bringing in the connection between languages of the world. What we discover in the book is a classic view of Europe in terms of world history and languages in every sense of the word. This fact of European view of the linguistic study and so on, remain an issue among the great learners of the language, largely in view of what proceeded from International Conference on languages which occur every three years or so since 1978, and more than that, the view of many Europeans and now Americans.
Homogeneity of language and the autonomous quantity of some of the speaker-community is probably based on something as the history of the Europe and how the Europeans arrived at the same place as we find them. In such view, the model of interpretation by different schools of linguistic study and so on, and all that based on a kind of recast. Greece for the very madness of historical linguist almost always begin in Greece, and in terms of history afforded to the Europeans that forced they view on the likes of the Greeks. It is noted by linguist that it was Greece that much of what we know today in terms of the terminology and parts of the speech came to have any significant meaning. From Greek, Latin writers copied through and through, and then English and so on. What Robert Henry Robins indicated is that Greece was the final point of what was a gradual evolution of speaking habit in the world. It was in many ways the place that has the largest repository of verifiable sources on the nature of spoken languages and so on. Such process of coming in terms with behaviors of words in a given language is called applied linguistics. Needs must be made about the issue of applied linguistic, and yet applied linguistic in very particular forms have been derived with view of what was essentially Greco-Roman, a fusion and outcome that lacks and backs the European history, from which much of the studies in the world’s comparative linguistic have taken place. In Greek then, history provide the reasons why the current vestiges of comparative European language seem to have taken any useful turn
In never ending issue of the reasons behind the attention European has earned, there is even greater view that clear cut indictment has been made more significant in the years leading to the new forms of schools in the current studies of the linguistics. No doubt that attempts have been made to reconnect Greek and Latin to what was the older ancestor of the language, which was Middle East Asia and Phoenician. No doubt that attempts have been about the nature of much older languages such as Egyptian Kemit, which has a great form of what was considered technical language and communication, above all, it was a kind of language and place that began the use of functions and punctuation, where the face of the signs can apply in many other version of the given language per se. What we can therefore say, is that a great deal of understanding is needed in order to understand the nature of shift in patterns and in languages, shifts that take in a given community of speakers, a case which is not unlike European throwing their dart on the board full of Greek. If there is however enough to suggest that Greeks inherited their abbreviation and literati from Babylon, there is even greater need to say that Sumer was the beginning of what people called European comparative linguistic and in fact the word ‘languages’.
Need exist for us to however insist that the whole issue of European originality of languages as extracted from Greek is not exactly misleading, that is in fact correct only to the degree that it must be accepted that Greek in every sense of the word, connect old to the new by way of Christianity. Greek and Latin, has a way of demonstrating the reasons why European languages are connected and why aspect theory of the autonomy of speaking community gives a false sense European languages as a special case in human anthropology and evolution biology. We have to disagree with proponents of Sumer as home of applied linguistic, largely on the context of its connection to Babylon and ultimately for the fact that alternative argument and evidence are unavailable. How much of that claim can be considered true is subject to all kinds of interpretation and understudy, yet the process through which Babylon managed to influence Greek is so diluted that there is nothing to demonstrate the full force of Babylonian literature and comparative linguistic to Greek, saving the view of Akkadians in the later part of the 1000 CE. If Greeks became a hit for European languages and English, we can call the attention of Latin to the language, mildly on the view that Latin is parent to English and Latin is parent to the languages that came under the swell of the Normans.
Apparently, the influence of the icon languages such as Greek and Latin, may have enabled the greater knowledge of world languages, in that much of the comparison were made between Greek or Latin as superlative languages and other languages that are well developed but lack the popularity of the current age and the one before. If Europe argues, that Greek gave weight to their many versions of Latinate languages, then it follows that Greek which did not evolve ad novo, owe much more to the languages and cultures that influenced it. In that Greek in terms of the age of Socrates and Plato was not Greek in terms of the older version of Greek. Such that Greek at the end of the Ptolemy’s rule in Egypt and middle east was that different from Greek at the time of Alexander the Great of Macedon. Greek had in its context three major dialects, one of was popular in the days of Socrates, such as Attic, such as Iona, and much like Akkadian, indicate the veracity of the dialects popular in that part of the world called Greece. If the argument that European languages like the languages of Greek, attempted an evolution due to optimization and evolve within itself, then the issue of the permanent presence of many European countries such English logically explains the dialectal of Indo-European languages of today. All the previous arguments will lead to that fact that Europe in much the same sense as we observe from
In many recent discoveries done in Europe and the work of the discoverers in the very Viking age of the Sweden, there were marking discovered all over the place and so on, and those carvings bear brunt of old Latin, but on a closer examination, they look no stranger to what Mr. Holland called Mooring language. In terms of how English may have differentiated from Igbo, there is a lot to be said about the issue. English language is terms of its roots are not that far from what is discovered in many Middle East and Near East languages. If there is a greater argument to be made about English as a diverted form of language that bear enough connection to Latin and Greek, it is only in terms of the now obscure Mooring language where a comparative relationship can be made. At such the madness of the current age English, is a classic case of language continuum. And that language may have also influenced the attitude of people to learning disability of the rest of Europe and we arrive at Aramaic are borrowed or learnt from the rest of other languages of the world. In Holland’s book ‘Exploration before Columbus’ he took the issue of Kesington Stone, where he was making flawed argument about the authenticity of the stone “in the interior part of America, no Mooring stones are known to have existed, except in Minnesota, where ten have been found.”. Ten Mooring stones discovered in Minnesota of USA and we are told that Mooring is also a dialect of Frisian. Wow. Mooring as dialect of German language yet it is not Moorish, or Moor, in spite of the Arabic calligraphy.

II
The origin of Linguistic Schools

The issue concerning the formations of the Earth and the very planet in which we dwell come together are part on the lectures and writing of certain Charles Lyell in the ‘Principles of Archeology’ in 1833. He was very instrumental in deciding a lot of thinking concerning the evolution of the earth and about the attitude of the people in that parts of the world in terms of geological age of the earth. No doubt of the likes of John Evans was also a helping hand but in terms of his famous investigations in Egypt and in the Nile, there has been lack of exposition. That was a careful documentation of was a popular thinking at the time, which joined ranks with the Belgian Schermling who was himself a paleontologist. The cave issue in parts of France which many people found ominous became a touchstone in explicating a certain nature of the earth and that includes a multiple glaciations
Among the early years of those people which included Joseph Prestwick, who in 1860 made several accounts of the incident that in many accounts of his findings that most creatures found in their own environment. He was early very careful in noting the imbedded nature of the glacial that is buried under the earth as was for many years.

From these groups of geologist who made the case for what seem to have happened with animals dying in certain environment and for certain reasons, the theory is led to other conclusions. This idea of mammals being found in the same place as animals, this view of extinct animals found in some of the places in the world, each suggesting a period of time and means of extinct, took hold of the rest of the world and has not let go ever since. There is nothing from those years and nothing from the modern times that suggest that the great influences of these earliest scientists have no had its full effect in how the world is perceived.
Charles Babbage if we take him along with John Evans, and perhaps Charles Lyell, there is enough to suggest that they began the effort to reconstruct the earth’s geological finds which was dominated in European purview. But from even one’s junior years of school, there was always the influence of Charles Lyell, and much of his theory somehow affected every other view of the earth. And when the Americans took over the studies of the much of Archeology and Archeological view, they found in most parts of American Indian caves, the more popular of them was a certain Charles Whittlesey. Others like the rest of early birdie in Paleology and archeology attacked his prospect about the Indian glacial system and the signs of the Quaternary age of the world and the man.

John A. Gifford and George Rapp, Jr. in his book ‘ ‘ listed some of the early attack on the American ‘Glacial Age Man’ which include the likes of G. F Becker, F.W. Putnam, John Henry Haynes, C.C. Abbott, W. H Holmes, N.H Winchell, and A. Hardwicke, and the whole group according to Gifford and Rapp, Jr., strategically attacked the prospect. It is now a question of what is perceived of the whole early European interpretation of the French men and the whole interpretation of the discoveries in Europe. What we can take from these things is that the opposition of the probable Glacial Man in America was perceived in terms of Europe and in terms of the supposed race of Europeans. So the Indians of America and the discoveries of caves in America was quite an opposition.

Such acts of the way we look upon the works of the world began to look different from the intrusion of these Americans into what was considered sacral to Europe. Then there was the greater fact that as time continued that in terms of the glacial man and the rest of what we know that about the many eponyms of the earth, that somewhere in North Africa and the Mesopotamia had a lot to add to the people who began the modern approach to Paleontology and Archeology. The phase nature of the earth around the area of the North Africa made in entirely easier to begin the understanding of the earth at least in the last quaternary age. In terms of understanding at least what happened to our world as it variously involved out of the uncertainty, knowing quite well that during early years of the world extinction nothing survived in certain areas of the world, especially the very colder areas of the world, then the whole world of the common history is summary of the last 25 thousand years from warmer to the colder. However we turn the world of history and the way we push it, we can go the greater distance that there is no way that the people of the world has a history they can be verified.
The early list of both 19th and 20th century linguistic is not that clear but what is very clear in terms of noted linguistic schools are those who influenced the thinking and the attitude of linguistics in both centuries. The list is no where exhaustive but the much of the Ferdinand De Saussure, Edward Sapir, Bloomfield, Trubetskoy, and Jacobson. In very contemporary sense we may also refer to the likes of Greenberg, Chomsky, Veneer, and Meillet, not that others who made comparison possible between two languages do not count but we can begin with these schools who laid out the foundations, as a way to come close to how other may have given wings to the schools existing today.

Introductory version of the like of these people suggest a much bigger deal, and I think there is what we can say that much of the world dwell in the very sense of the given alphabet only on the account of what transpired the very view of these schools and their origin and place of influence. These schools such as Edward Sapir, easily available in many works of the Americans and in his, much of the relationship between American languages were made. His category of linguistics were brushing aside N.J Marr and his view of the so called ‘Japhetic’ appreciation of the linguistic comparison, which promoted the idea that much of the languages of the world come around the examples of Genesis 10 history of nations. Edward Sapir has made much more in terms of the languages of America, by uniting much of these languages, improving of the greater fact that American languages can be grouped in such a way that they can account their own origin. It is the school of Anthropologist that hinted on life Indian American and their cave society were comparably old as the many European societies such as those of France and West Europe, many of whom go as far as the last glaciations age. These American Anthologists’ indicated that the people who speak the language in American can form a version of the spoken words which has so much to offer for their own evolution in very given sense.

It is Edward Sapir and company who began to suggest that language was also possible in very main sense of the word, much like Hebrew in his work ‘On languages’ can relative to other languages of the world. His generation was influenced by the likes of Boas, and his influence on Bloomfield was well acknowledged by him. It is Edward Sapir and Bloomfield who went the longer distance to lay the foundation for American linguistic society and so on. While Sapir was very inspirational in his works and showed passion in various areas of languages and its possibility, Bloomfield paid great attention to the scientific connection and so on. In one sense, there was Sapir who paid attention to the influences of the languages, the psychology of languages and what seem to have influenced, Bloomfield played too close to how language operate. The psychology of language influenced a different world speaking and linguistic comparison, that as much as field of reasons exist, they exist even greater reason behind the spoken words. In that order, language cannot be related to spoken words, it might inspire to other areas of study that involves the right grace of connection and expression.

Bloomfield sponsored in terms of American linguistic comparison, the idea of influence of one language on the order showing affinity and evolution continue to be the grace of language as it expressed over time. It is the act of generative linguistic that allowed in English. It was in the area of the likes of Sapir and Bloomfield took on added meaning. If we say that much less exist between the Bloomfield and the later generation of comparatives, we arrive between Bloomfield and later day school in terms of Chomsky. The influence on many other groups of comparative linguistics indicate that much more is required and noted in terms of what was quite general about that in the world. In the wilder world of archeology, changes were taking place, and from these places, several schools developed from parts of Russia to East Europe. The buzz was about the relation between the languages of Europe and in fact the larger world, there were other changes taking place in Middle East studies, such that these schools of thought were not that popular and acceptable at first. Jacob Grimm in Germany was however making his point about languages and sound shift, and from his various work on languages, the connection between archeology of the Middle East and languages which gradually emerged.

The Prague school was not yet that popular until Greenberg arrived. The school was making their noise and strides in very business of the world languages, and there was the presence of other. If Trubetzkoy was that popular in Russia, it was due to his ability to tap into the phonology of Russian dialects, and from the sounds, there was the Trubetzkoy introducing the distinctive quality of the sounds and dialects within a community. But of the course, the work was entirely political given the influence of Stalin and company, where much of what available in Russia was an adoption to Catherine II era, where German and Russian languages were intended as the benign structure upon much of the languages of the world came to be. R. Jakobson work on Russia was in many ways based on the sound shift and sound drift, and the many clauses that he alluded to was due to the influence of the Prague school at the end World War II. But the school of Prague has among them some of those who have done some job with Hebrew and other comparative European languages. Nothing is wrong indicating that even in those days, there was always the struggle to place several languages of the world in terms of a certain popular language or so to speak, icon language. It is the politics of grammar and linguistic that led to difference ways of generating the linguistic study and what was later noted as lexical sub system.

Prague school deserves their position in the world as very important school. If not for anything, there was the presence of Joseph Greenberg who began a culture of mass comparison, which some might argue as a part of Meillet and perhaps, a product not unlike Vermeer. We have looked at sound shift in terms Jacob Grimm, and we have tried to reconcile much of what available in terms of plosive Germanic languages and the drive by in terms of accent, to reconcile with the shift that occur a in a given language and how it is influenced and we have arrived at mass comparison. Yet, it was not the comparative quality of Russia’s sub-category of language, which were nothing but dialects, than we are mistaken that shift in Germanic languages are supposed to have yielded languages of their own. If we tally much of what was considered European linguistics studies in terms of Europe and its languages, we may see why these views may only help our knowledge and knowing of dialects of the world, dialects, not unlike Germanic languages and relatedness to Russia.
Bloomfield did not quite succeed in promoting the history of the given language over time. In fact the issue of generative comparison seems in many ways a default of generative transformation, for the two can be the same in so far as two identical languages are concerned but in terms of comparing two non-identical languages, there is a problem in terms of a language and its word evolution. We may yield to the fact that the Bloomfield work encouraged guess-estimation of age of the particular language, a guest mate that reveal the influences on a language over a period of time and the rate of change of its wordings over a particular period of time. By comparing two languages, one a prestige or popular icon language, and the other a relative of the formal, there is a Bloomfield in noting the changes that may have taken place over a given time. Such changes may amount to sound, where ‘optimization’ is intended as a pun, rather a community yet shift in terms of the pitch, in terms of the stress of the words, in terms of the segmental - auto segmental, in terms of emphasis on the words and length of the stress, which many linguist with evolution biology persuasion, insist its human, native, biological, racial and altogether generic, conform to a speaker community.

If this idea of speaker community is taken seriously, we abide with the argument that Europeans by their accent and natural biological make up had a provocation for speaking patterns that was bound to be that different from others. Whereas encounters with other peoples of world may have lead to the level ground and ‘neutralization’ of language, it is to be argued that the structure of European language and morphology survive longer the ever shifting sounds in Europe speaker community. The reasons are defined by the little changes we discover in the dialectal of Europe, and more that, we reason that serious attention on how the speaker language can be seen in terms of the wilder world, endows with vistas of the history of the world. That is if Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle is right, then European speaker communities were only dislocated by the sounds within the language, which in comparative resonance with the rest of the world, offers us little besides sounds and meaning and by way of sounds, we establish a connection to European language which is expected to disappoint. Therefore sound is deemed insufficient in comparative linguistic, if not for the function of the words, for its plosives, its ‘second meaning’ as opposed to the rate of structural change; the morphology since language structure is far more enduring.

If Joseph Greenberg is to be taken into context here, we can say that phoneme theory and the whole issue of the relativity include a kind of history. Here, we can that two other forces in linguistic comparison should be made available, one of whom was Meillet and the Veneer, for it seems that Greenberg mass comparison absolve on Neo-grammarian approach, and such indicative that the comparing languages in very many ways over the long and short of world languages, essentially began from a point and from the point, there was a spread so to speak. It is not wrong to indicate that he is a historical linguistic, not necessarily concerned with the formation of the words and the influences of the word much like Grimm and Bloomfield, perhaps Sapir, and Greenberg seek to find languages and connection to the languages based on sample and based on the pattern that seem entirely evident within the languages. Mass comparison persuades against phoneme and structure, only on the context of the dynamics of the spoken words and the community and in terms of that community where new forms of language can emerge.

Ferdinand De Saussure is perhaps the most influential of all linguistic. In terms of sheer persuasion of the word and its essence, in terms of the two schools of languages that now exist, he is to be taken seriously. In view of the structure of a language and word, and in terms of the second and complimentary psychology or reduction view of languages, De Saussure was quite significant. In terms of the structure of words and languages, there is always in many ways, the importance of the consonants in words, but this idea is not that different from the very history of Alphabets and languages of the world and of writing, especially writing systems of the world. If we take De Saussure at a face level, and measure the evolution of his idea from the standpoint of writing from the ancient times, De Saussure is mildly different from Sapir, and it is only Sapir after a while when language is not just spoken words. If there is a departure of European view of the world languages, severely Western European, it is due to matters arising from communication, a fact that gave much weight to would be linguistics and others like them who saw language as form of communication. Sapir was not Methodological like Bloomfield, he was inclusive, he is believer in the view that one language interpret its contest as such Sapir was not entirely Universalist, as he does not necessarily believe in Autonomy of language.

The breakaway facts of recognizing the influence of one language on another, or the power of one language adapting gradually over time, invoke a sense of the intrinsic means of transmutations, a process of becoming a particular form whom redactor is Analytic school, and whose ‘reverse’ reversal is Chomsky. That Europe had a view that all relative to its environment seems that language cannot be verified beyond the pathos of Europe, and in view of what became popular, there was the American anthropologists and then linguist indicating languages and its grouping from Europe could also occur among the American Indian, and then from America, there was the greater world to look at.

If we say that Germany had their own Chronicles of Eri and the Icelanders too, there is a possibility that a connection exist between Eri and the whole of Europe. If that is not that important, we can equally refer to Edda which appears as part of the story concerning the early years of many of the Germanic tribes. The German Edda, the British Edda, the Icelandic Edda are sagas involved in the rise of the sea and how the sea monsters were overcome It is also a saga of the people migratory movement from place to another. The theme of Eri is so central to European history that if we can demonstrate the degree of fault associated with the Chronicles or the Eri in their current forms, we would have began to ease the historical confusion with Europe. Europe to be sure is not one organic whole. In fact the pre-occupation of very recent historians is set in such a way as to proof the unitary existence of Europe, especially the rise of the speaker communities and above all, the generality of Carolingian community on Europe. In many ways it always Christianity and his power of the continent, its effects on the speaker communities and why at this point they matter. These fables are the documents of these European countries suggest, for instance the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda, compose the much of the fights against the Universe and against the body of the world and waters and so on. These elliptical poems of ancient deep of the sea were quite common in Middle East Asia and in Near East. These poems about the battles that has took in the very many places of the sea, suggest that the stories about the triumph of Baal the storm god and Leviathan the sea monster remained a major part of the whole in many parts of the explores world.

I dare say that Germany as we understand it today is full of great people, but the culture is not one that surrounds blonde head and blue eyes. It is not a story of European whites only, it rather an outcome of several societies of mostly Near Eastern culture. There is no doubt that people we Germany for instance descended from a certain race. No doubt that the word Germania was mentioned in very common literature of the ancient but it may please the gentle reader to understand that the word was used as a family name as we have mentioned. So the issue of having these people attach a whole history of the world to a small group of Barbarian is quite deceiving to say the least. But Mooring in Frisians and in Germany and parts of France, Normans is much places as England and William the Conqueror as Erie, with all other Navy Captains of his – who helped to overcome England (Alegheri, Alagheri), Ireland (Eireland), (Lalland Sioux), and all Britain (Berit, Beret) – are known as Erie (Eri), then no mistakes exist for the now confirmed speculation that Normans of France were Muslims, hence brothers of covenant. As such William the conqueror was at least descended from Islamic roots, possibly Seljuk Turk, but if what we know is now accepted as true, William was a Moor, not unlike the Moors of today’s Germany or the Frisian Moorings. I am confident that Henry I (Henri I) who laid the foundations of English Tudor (Thor-, possibly Thorvald), who was the last son of William the Conqueror, was not his real name. His real name is probably Beauclerc and not Henry, since Henry would have meant a title, not unlike William for his father, a name that was also bestowed on his Knights from 11th centuries. You know William the Conqueror claimed England or Britain for himself, more like calling today’s Britain ‘my own’ or ‘I own’. Such claim is so strange a preposition, so strange to make the preposition unless it belongs to some recent ancestor of yours. The Vikings for a start gave Britain the image that it still has, and the Normans are their descendants. In terms of settlement, the Normans and William the Conqueror, dwelt in Wales, which as David Crystal once pointed out is called Weala from older English. The Vikings when they reached what is now England also warred in what is now Wales (Weala).

My take on this name William is that the older version of the name must have to do with Weala and perhaps weala+mu > Wealamu. Here’s why, the man was known for ‘claiming’ Britain, especially England for himself, as we earlier indicated, he was in fact saying ‘my own’ or ‘I own’ England. We can remember from our earlier thesis on the ‘Roots of English language’, which was an attempt to demonstrate that if Igbo is Hebrew as it is the author’s prove, then Igbo should be closer to the Semitic languages of Near East and Middle East, which as history indicated is the birth place of Christianity and Islam, the two drive-in force for much of the territorial conquest of Europe and the Asia Minor. That is to say that in spite of what we think of Latin, English must have Semitic roots, as such part of a more original same source as the Hebrew and the Nigerian Igbo. What was said in the ‘Roots of English language’ is that Igbo has very serious connection to English in terms of the words in more archaic forms, forms which are closer to Latin as they are close to Aramaic and Igbo. In that English of the European Middle Ages, cannot be that far from Igbo of today, such that one of the languages is perhaps an innovation of the other(Igbo>English). One of the instances was the word Weala (Wales) for natives of English Wales, whose older versions appear in Igbo as much the same in sound and it is in meaning, literarily, Nwe-ala, land owners, which in concord to older names in English, Weala-dic, meaning ‘the Welch, Wales’, can also be squared in Igbo as Ndi nwe-ala, meaning the land owners and not foreigners. That position I now invoke on the word William to define as Weala+mu, perhaps in keeping to Igbo translation it could well mean, ‘mu nweala’ meaning ‘I own the land’, a sort of claim, as William the Conqueror claimed England for himself. Point to consider, Weala or Wales is only slightly different from William, because of the morpheme ‘mu’ or ‘mi’ at the end of older names for William indicate. Older names of William confirms my speculation but needs must be made about the mu, which is old English and the French for me, which is not different in sound and meaning from the Igbo which is mua or mi, or even the Nigerian Yoruba emi. All these suggest that the claims of William the Conqueror, the nesting ground called ‘Wales’ - who were also called foreigners, may result a name Wellamu as if to say mu nweala (nwelamu) or mu weala all of which are very Igbo in meaning, as if to say in Igbo ‘my land’ ‘I own land’ ‘my own land’ - perhaps a saying about a man who owned or claimed the land called Britain ( Beret, which without the t in Igbo is simply Beri, home or place of Erie, Erieland ), about the conqueror of much of Europe bearing the title which was also an appellative.

His Naval Captains were also called Erie in the Chronicles of Erie or Chronicles of Eri or Chronicle of Eres, being the story concerning the foundation of much of Beri, beginning with a certain Erik the Riuda/Rouda, also known as Erik the Red of far away Icelandic. The last statement here is a bad translation, I think, for we know perhaps that the Vikings were first settled in Dublin, Aberdeen, and Limerick, in history concerning the age of Sarakeins and Vikings of the age of Chronicles, and from Aberdeen of Ireland which was eventually sacked by Vikings in the 8th and 9th, Erik the Red (?) and his father Thorvald were sent away for killing someone. All of which connect the Near East and Middle East and their ‘culture of refugee’ much more closer to the Vikings and their round huts and houses, leading eventually to the Viking’s York, Viking’s Aberdeen, Wales, Limerick, being part of their initial settlement along and the incident of Erik the Red, the birth of his son Leif Erik, the embrace of the new religion possibly Christianity, and the invitation to the Erik to his people that a new land was found, which is noted in history as Greenland, Iceland and so on.

The relationship between the Captains (all of whom are called Eire) who helped William the Conqueror subdue what is now England, Ireland, Scotland and then much of Europe, and the Knights – at one point 170 who became the backbones of the English Monarchy in order of William the Conqueror and descendants, all of whom are called William, suggest that both Henri (Eire) and William are possibly titles and recognition in matters originating perhaps from Islam or thereabout Arabic, but not without Egyptian origin, meaning ‘brothers of covenant’, perhaps reaching a high and break free point in France in names of Norman, Norseman, Norway in the modern terms, or archaic Noromonna, who premastered Europe and the UK and in later centuries fought relentlessly with other breakaways descendants of William the Conqueror and others, over the rule of England and the UK. These men were Explorers, these men were perhaps Muslims from the beginning, and the Chronicles of Eri is a major part of the raiding and determination to rule in the name of God, and these people and probably not from Europe originally. They became Europe.

Ashleygraham()

Saturday, November 20, 2010

The New Phenomenon of Land Grabbing in Africa and its Impact on Livelihoods and Ecosystems

Biofuels for Europe driving land grabbing in Africa — Friends of the Earth International

Pambazuka - Land-grabbing in Africa: The why and the how

Friday, November 12, 2010

Difficult to define Volcker Rule: Fed official - MarketWatch

Thursday, November 4, 2010

» Chukwumerije’s third term bid ….and other contests::Vanguard (Nigeria)

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Bernanke Bond Buying May Risk Rise in Prices Similar to 2004 - Bloomberg

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

2011 Fear Grips Obasanjo Over Jonathan - Lead Stories - Nigerian News Service

The Nation - Nwodo in trouble over waiver for Atiku

allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Voter Registration Holds January, Says Jega

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Etymology and the Problem of African History II