Anonymous
9/2/2025, 10:53:21 PM
No.17969963
>>17969969
>>17969982
>>17969984
>>17969990
>>17970029
>>17970056
>>17970103
>>17970423
>>17970665
>>17970673
>>17970893
The Origin of Ancient Languages
Let's talk about ancient languages. I'm fascinated by the association between so-called "Semetic languages" and "Indo-European" languages. It seems like some people have falsely claimed that Indo-European is the only white race, and so the Semetic group is "the other", but so much evidence points to the contrary. First of all, race and languages are distinct ideas, but let's more forward with the analysis.
Indo-European languages use Phoenician script. Why is that? It would seem to me that Phoenician and PIE had to have been mutually intelligible for that to happen, but PIE was a difference of dialect in speech, like Portuguese vs Spanish. They could have been more distinct, like Latin vs German, but still close enough that ideas were exchangeable. This to me suggests that they grew apart from a common origin rather than merely shared culturally. I would guess that if Atlantis was real, then when they came east, they settled the coasts, and in the Med, it became the Afro-Asiatic languages, and as it spread north it took on a new shape in the form of PIE, then that came south and replaced the pan-Mediterranean language group of proto-Semetic.
Another curiosity: Egyptian hieroglyphics are elaborate drawings that can boil down to simple letters. Supposedly you can also translate them to Mayan figures/letters. The book on Atlantis by Donnelly did this. Aside from mentioning this as evidence of unexpected language spread and evolution, I wonder what the purpose of this was.
Did we originally write in concepts, which had a grammar of their own, and then we took common sequences of concepts and turned those into words, thus almost every word referred to multiple concepts (except for individual symbols that could stand on their own as a word).
Would hieroglyphics have been a way to beautify language, to obscure its meaning (hide letters in images), to make it more transparent (show true meaning of letters), or to create an intelligible language for many dialects?
Indo-European languages use Phoenician script. Why is that? It would seem to me that Phoenician and PIE had to have been mutually intelligible for that to happen, but PIE was a difference of dialect in speech, like Portuguese vs Spanish. They could have been more distinct, like Latin vs German, but still close enough that ideas were exchangeable. This to me suggests that they grew apart from a common origin rather than merely shared culturally. I would guess that if Atlantis was real, then when they came east, they settled the coasts, and in the Med, it became the Afro-Asiatic languages, and as it spread north it took on a new shape in the form of PIE, then that came south and replaced the pan-Mediterranean language group of proto-Semetic.
Another curiosity: Egyptian hieroglyphics are elaborate drawings that can boil down to simple letters. Supposedly you can also translate them to Mayan figures/letters. The book on Atlantis by Donnelly did this. Aside from mentioning this as evidence of unexpected language spread and evolution, I wonder what the purpose of this was.
Did we originally write in concepts, which had a grammar of their own, and then we took common sequences of concepts and turned those into words, thus almost every word referred to multiple concepts (except for individual symbols that could stand on their own as a word).
Would hieroglyphics have been a way to beautify language, to obscure its meaning (hide letters in images), to make it more transparent (show true meaning of letters), or to create an intelligible language for many dialects?
