
Theory that explains the formation of languages - shivpuri
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx1BHtAwYHm5Mk1xdThPTHc3Z1E/view
======
dalke
This is fringe science. It says there are certain intrinsic sounds which are
universal to all languages, and these are present in many modern words.

For example, it argues that "cop" is understandable through the following
decomposition:

> cop /kɒp/ [police] - /p/ protection /kɒ/ acceptability of consciousness;
> protection with acceptability of consciousness;

However, the etymology of "cop" is nothing to do with that. First, "cop" is
short for "copper", which come from "to cop", meaning "to take, capture".
Quoting
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cop](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cop)
:

> 1704, northern British dialect, "to seize, to catch," perhaps ultimately
> from Middle French caper "seize, to take," from Latin capere "to take" (see
> capable); or from Dutch kapen "to take," from Old Frisian capia "to buy,"
> which is related to Old English ceapian (see cheap). Related: Copped;
> copping.

The term "cop" is used for things besides police, such as "to steal", and used
in phrases like "to cop an attitude" and "to cop a feel." These are much more
closely related to "to take" than anything to do with protection.

Also, "bobby" is the UK equivalent of "cop", from the name Robert Peel. This
cannot be traced back to some fundamental concept of "protection", etc.

Or consider the decomposition of "ink" from this document:

> ink /ɪ ŋk/ [a fluid for writing] - /ŋk/ lively consciousness /ɪ/ visibility;
> lively consciousness invisibility; /ɪ/ दृश्यत /ŋk/ जीवंत चेतना; दृश्यत
> म�जीवतं चेतना.

The normal etymology for that word, at
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ink&allowed_in_fram...](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ink&allowed_in_frame=0)
, goes back to the Greek "enkaiein" \- "to burn in". This has nothing to do
with visibility, but rather from "the name of the purple-red ink, the sacrum
encaustum, used by the Roman emperors to sign their documents; this was said
to have been obtained from the ground remains of certain shellfish, formed
into writing fluid by the application of fire or heat, which explained the
name."

Now, there may be some sounds which trace back to a proto-human language. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-
Human_language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Human_language) . But this
paper comes across as a big hammer used to force everything to fit into its
pattern, or at least to only pick out those words which happen to be
explainable by its scheme.

Also, various African languages use click consonants. Yet this pseudo-
scientific book says nothing about clicks. Either there is no phonosemantics
to clicks, in which case why are they used?, or there is phonosemantics, in
which case what is missing from all the languages which don't have them?

I am reminded of the line from "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" \- "Give me a word,
any word, and I show you that the root of that word is Greek."

------
shivpuri
The period of evolution of languages is 30000 to 70000 years back from today,
when there was no language, and humans themselves were converting from animal
to human and communicating using different natural modes (including facial
expression, gestures, and vocalization). Sound was one of them. The natural
process of formation of words is very simple. An observer observes an object.
The visuals are perceived in the form of a sequence of psychological feelings.
Phonosemantics (the natural converter) provides appropriate phonemes to these
different psychological feelings, and the sequence of feelings is converted
into appropriate sequence of phonemes (or sounds). The sequence of those
phonemes is called a word. For example, a group of people was passing through
a forest. On their way, their movement was restricted by a ‘pond’ or a ‘wet
place’. The sequence of psychological feelings will be; “clarity in
acceptability of restriction in moving further”. According to phonosemantics,
we have ‘clarity’ = /g/, ‘acceptability’ = /ɒ/, and ‘restriction’ = /b/. In
all they named it /bɒg/ (clarity of acceptability of restriction). As on
today, the phenomenon seems to be a bit difficult, because we already have a
known word ‘bog’ for ‘pond’ or ‘wet place’.

Formation of languages depends on the following seven factors:

(1) Phonosemantics (meaningfulness of every sound).

(2) Biological needs (geographical situation, food, act and sex)

(3) Biological availability (vocal and listening organs, environment).

(4) Psychological needs (fear, desire, loneliness, ego satisfaction etc.).

(5) Psychological availability (ego, courage, faith, religion, and social
values).

(6) Intellectual needs (curiosity, purpose).

(7) Intellectual availability (education, notions).

As regards animals of the same species, the first five factors are the same.
That is why “the overwhelming majority of animals are born knowing how to
speak their species’s language. It doesn’t really matter where those animals
are born or raised, because their speech seems to be mostly imprinted in their
genetic code”. As regards animals of different species, we have differences in
factors from 2 to 5, but factor 1 (phonosemantics) remains unchanged. A goat
may not understand the psychological message of a lion’s roaring. But the
evolution of fear cannot be denied. The evolution of fear because of roaring
sound is due to phonosemantics which is applicable to all entities including a
goat, a lion, and a human. As regards humans, we have differences in factors
from 2 to 7, which is the reason for difference in languages.

Website: [http://soundmeanings.xyz](http://soundmeanings.xyz)

