Linguistics.

[Brett Nortj]

For a long time now I have found many things about ancient languages, the dawn of language itself and of course, modern language. The tenets of modern language are based on merging older words together to form new words. This is where someone with authority seeks to compress phrases into one word, to allow for a shorter message. Modern language is not based on nature, as is ancient languages,  but instead on a hybrid generic system of term compression.

As for ancient languages, well, they led to basic languages, where the ancient languages were based on body language. This is where the tribe would try to infer a message, and then make a sound to symbolize the message. This led to words, grammar, and so forth. It took a hell of a long time for one tribe to dominate the whole region and teach everyone their own tongue!

~ By the way, did you know that your tongue makes the shapes of the Saxon alphabet? This is based on, for example, the tongue curling around to make a "s" sound, and a click for the "a" where they syllables are founded on tongue motion, if you will.

[John Cuthber]

48 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

did you know that your tongue makes the shapes of the Saxon alphabet?

I never thought about the Saxons having an alphabet, but I guess their rune system counts as one.

Never seen anyone whose tongue was the shape they use to represent "s"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_runes

Is this another example of you not really knowing what you are talking about?

[Brett Nortj]

1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

I never thought about the Saxons having an alphabet, but I guess their rune system counts as one.

Never seen anyone whose tongue was the shape they use to represent "s"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_runes

Is this another example of you not really knowing what you are talking about?

A Germanic alphabet, then.

If you feel your tongue move, it shapes like that while it is moving. This is reflex to the emotions you are feeling or expressing, yes?

[John Cuthber]

Apart from a few special letters, (that thing they use for double s and a few accented letters)  I don't think there is a Germanic alphabet.

Do you mean the Roman alphabet (which is the one used on this web page)?

[studiot]

Do you not think that the shape of written characters in language is mostly conditioned by the media and writing tools used/available?

 

[Brett Nortj]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Do you not think that the shape of written characters in language is mostly conditioned by the media and writing tools used/available?

 

Well, it seems to be based on something, maybe the emotions one feels while saying these characters leads to the symbols manifesting shape?

[studiot]

Well Cuneiform was definitely conditioned by the combination of tools and media.

[Brett Nortj]

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well Cuneiform was definitely conditioned by the combination of tools and media.

 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well Cuneiform was definitely conditioned by the combination of tools and media.

Well, let's look at one, and, see how it shows to hold true to my beliefs?

As ancient languages were written from bottom right to top left, this would follow that there is a lot of activities in the beginning, maybe a store house or ceremony for spring? This would follow that the next step would be where the pots on the left hand side of the second indent would signify the pottery of the preparation being prepared, from right to left, of course. the basics of dams or irrigation are obviously observed here, in the middle we find a body connected to a artificial inlet.

And, "God does not build in straight lines," ~ Clip from a movie, Promethues, that I like.

That is my attempt, you up for it?

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

 

Well, let's look at one, and, see how it shows to hold true to my beliefs?

As ancient languages were written from bottom right to top left, this would follow that there is a lot of activities in the beginning, maybe a store house or ceremony for spring? This would follow that the next step would be where the pots on the left hand side of the second indent would signify the pottery of the preparation being prepared, from right to left, of course. the basics of dams or irrigation are obviously observed here, in the middle we find a body connected to a artificial inlet.

4

So it doesn't represent a spoken language, it's an audit trail, so how exactly does it hold true to your beliefs?

[Brett Nortj]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So it doesn't represent a spoken language, it's an audit trail, so how exactly does it hold true to your beliefs?

This thread must have been derailed, this other guy was mentioning this type of thing, why not take a peek?

I would say it is imagery of nature, as this is a harvest of some sort, important to ancient man,  no less.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

This thread must have been derailed, this other guy was mentioning this type of thing, why not take a peek?

I would say it is imagery of nature, as this is a harvest of some sort, important to ancient man,  no less.

Maths is a written language but we don't, generally, converse in it.

[John Cuthber]

There's some element of truth to the idea that people map shapes to sounds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect

but it's not clear that it applies to complex alphabets, nor that letters are defined by  the shape of the tongue or lips.

 

There are alternative explanations for the shapes of letters- they represented object whose names started with the sound.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_aleph.html

Obviously, it's very hard to be certain.

 

 

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, Brett Nortj said:

This thread must have been derailed, this other guy was mentioning this type of thing, why not take a peek?

Was this other guy meant to be me?

Being rude whilst I am on my lunch break is not an acceptable discussion style.

 

You need to distinguish between the physical representation and the message or meaning.

I was only talking about the former. I have no idea as to the mindset of the scribe all those thousands of years ago.

 

I cannot read Cuneiform and guessing the meaning of a sample is counterproductive.

What I am talking about is the difference between Heiroglyphics and Cuneiform.

Heiroglyphics, like Chinese writing, is drawn on flexible material with a brush like instrument.
This technique allows much more elaborate and curvy, even joined up, symbols to be employed.

Cuneiform is created by pressing the end of a shaped stick into a wet clay tablet and creating a series of impression.
The tablet is then baked hard and suffers shrinkage etc.
So the symbolism is necessarily bold and simple as fine markings may well not survive the process.

 

Talking of even earlier development,

It is likely (and museums have archeological specimens to demonstrate) that the first 'writing' was not in fact words, but numbers.
Many have looked for evidence of writing in cave paintings (with little success), and every time new such paintings are discoverd theyn look again, such is the Scientific Method.

So imagine a stone age society.
There will not be enormous cities or congragations of humans.
Their spoken language is unknown, but vocabulary will not have been extensive. Perhaps many did not even have/know names.

But they could, because they needed to, count.
As a written record they cut notches on sticks, bones etc, probably with a stone knife.
Such a system one slash, two slashes etc would have been easy, reliable, durable compared to say dots like on a modern die.

Once again the practicalities dominated.

You can follow this trend into the early civilisations in Babylon and Egypt and beyond,

And then into the times between the 'ancients' and more modern times and even today this conditioning continues into the typwriter and now the computer age.