"Everyone's" Language

I think that would be boring, if we all spoke the same language. You will find that most languages in the world will have different quirks and structures that reveal the culture of the speaker.

Plus it's good for your brain to be able to speak multiple languages and IMO, helps to encourage people to be more open and accepting of each other.

 

I just wish we all spoke the same language due to ancient cave markings and other ancient artifacts with writing.
It would be great to actually look at the markings and actually understand what they encountered , instead of guessing .

 

cave markings =/= language

in fact, language and markings are very different. the cave markings you speak of vary greatly, as well. in terms of color, depictions of scenes (ways of hunting/gathering/domestication), and overall layout

usually those markings tell us pretty straightforward what they encountered.

perhaps you should study some of this stuff if it intrigues you so much. you might post less inquisitively and add more to discussion

 

aww , someone's mad I'm quite guessing
Because of what I said in my other thread..
Oh well not my issue , that's your inner issue of clicking on my threads & giving feedback & not liking the feedback given back to you
If I'm annoying , simply click another thread..
But markings, some aren't of pictures.. markings as in language were indeed a language.
But I understand your argument.

 

it doesn't serve well to assume the state of mind of another person over the internet. it typically doesn't turn out as believed, i have found.

'markings' are pictures. what you are suggesting as 'language' is often referred to as cuneiform, which first appeared on clay tablets, not on cave walls. the 'markings' pre-date cuneiform thousands (if not tens of thousands) of years. i would include venus statues as part of 'markings' as they are an archetypical artifact.


i think part of what makes you 'annoying' per se (i won't say annoying, i don't mean to be too offending to your impressionable self) is that you attempt to make conversational threads about interesting topics but instead of supplying any sort of engaging input, you make faint claims to ideas/topics that could be substantiated by just a little bit of research. this results in me, or other posters dishing out some groundpoints that should/could be the common knowledge required for a truly fruitful discussion, but instead it is hamstrung by the OP itself. quite a paradox

 

Markings can be pictures , but some aren't.

(i won't say annoying, i don't mean to be too offending to your impressionable self) <- I guess you know me , then.. ? Lol.

And I think you take some of my topics a little bit to serious ..?
Not every topic I talk about has to have "research" or "facts"
and If that's your issue , simply don't comment on my threads
and save yourself from the "annoying" faint claims..

 

this is what i am talking about...

the topic that you started is very interesting.
the fact that you don't understand some of the basic definition of terms, or at least try to agree on a general understanding of terms makes it difficult (beyond the difficulty of trying to coach you about the general topic as a whole)

like someone else had said, if you spent a little more time reading instead of posting you may come out benefiting a whole lot. I know I have and I joined these forums when I was younger than you.


I was also a whole lot more foul-mouthed and antagonistic (can you believe that?)

 

You're .. very rude.

 

TY Jay, you've been wonderful.

 

K ?

 

I believe that there was a point in our most distant past when we did speak a universal language of at least a few words that were spiritually, emotionally, and physically charged. This is based on research that I have done off and on over the past 12 years. I hope to have a book about this published within a year or two or three (its part of three books and I am working on all three together). But there are several liguists who have published papers on about 6 or 8 key words that they think were part of a universal mother language.

I feel that language provides clues and evidence of a primal spirituality that all mankind shared at one time---before his very first explorations out of Africa. One clue of this in particular is the Axis Mundi (Celestial Axis, World Tree, etc, etc) and its shared universal motif which almost always shares some form of connection to the serpent. This is found in every corner and region of the world, and in every spirituality and religion (and every religion is built upon the precedent that came before it).

If you point out how universal this concept is to an anthropologist and ask him if it signifies a connection to a primal belief system, he will tell you that it is impossible because over that long of a period of time any beliefs from that long ago would be lost. But I offer evidence that this is not the case. Following the course of language development also gives us clues to our religious and spiritual history through time as well.

(Since I mentioned the World Tree and the serpent, I want to point out now that I am not validating the Biblical story of the Garden of Eden. It is the same tree and the same serpent motif. But the Hebraic tribes split it into two trees (reflecting their dualistic view of the universe and the masculine and feminine) and they demonized the serpent reflecting their rebellion against the Goddess cultures. I think the story of the Garden of Eden is a great psychological document that records the Jewish tradition of man's emergence from a Hunter-Gatherer culture, but from the perspective of a maculine-dominated culture that saw the power of the human feminine as inferior and sinful. As a psychological document, it is a great account of the rise of the shadow and the development of the super-ego--symbolized by the Tree of Life that was taken away from man as he fell from grace. I however disagree with the morality and religion of the story.)

My research centers around the language of the feminine. However, there is plenty of evidence that it was not strictly feminine in our most distant past. In the beginning it was the language of generation, fecundity, and sex. I feel that earliest man understood that it took both male and female to create offspring, and there was no dominant sex. Today we always think in terms of dominance because we carry the dualistic legacy of the planter culture group ethic with its in-group and out-group. Hunter-gatherers are multiplistic, not dualistic---they see the universe in terms of multiple forces and life is best when those forces are in balance. Planter cultures start to see the world in a dualistic manner of a universe of two competing forces because they must work in groups in order to survive--their live's become defined by the group.

The most basic root---and probably the oldest word in the human language is k~n, at some point this became k~nt (a word you might recognize)---but it wasn't until man moved to the Middle East that a ~t added to the end of a word represented the feminine (and you still see this especially in semitic languages today), and on the other hand words beginning with t~ represented particular archetypes of the masculine. But the feminine k~ is still the most prevalent and representative of archetypes of the feminine. It devolves into g~, j~, h~, etc. In parts of India it turned to a y (as in yoni). The evidence of this Indian case lies in two mountain languages where words in one language that start with g~ begin with y~ in the other language, and visa-versa.

Also I will point out that there is evidence of writing older than cuneiform, something that athropologists simply take as markings---but the markings are used in such a way to suggest that it is an early form of writing, or at least a communication or label of sorts.

BUT---would we want everyone to speak the same language today? No, language is more than just a culture, it defines how people think and see the world within that culture. Because dominant languages are forcing themselves upon people around the world, we are losing languages at an alarming rate. Once those languages are gone, both the people, and the world as a whole have lost a heritage, traditions, a unique way of seeing the world, etc.

For example, I speak fluent Japanese, and there are things that I can express in Japanese that are not easily translatable into English. There are things that I can express easier in Japanese than in English, and visa versa. Haiku is a Japanese art form. People compose haiku in English, and sometimes they can be quite good---but true haiku, which expresses season and everything else that it was intended to do within its 17 syllables is really achieved best in Japanese. I find that writing and reading haiku in Japanese is a deep experience of nature---very spiritual.

I am learning Lakota (Sioux), and the Lakota believe that the language is very powerful spiritually. English is a linear language and is therefore conscious mind-based. Lakota is a nonlinear language and is therefore subconscious mind based---so yes, I believe it is more powerful spiritually than English (the subconscious is our gateway to the spiritual. It is where we experience the numinous). After a few years of experiencing Lakota at use in ceremony, I can say that it has a way of creating distinct impressions of spiritual power. In part because of its non-linear nature---a few words can have deep meaningful implications. Regardless of wheter you agree with this---speaking and thinking in Lakota offers you a unique and special way of seeing the world around you that we do not have in English.

 

It's a great thought, and would be nice....

 

I like the fact we're so different and speak different languages. I'd find it boring if everybody spoke the same language.