ISOLATING THE EARLIEST HUMAN SPEECH
The beginning of the process is to find those people who settled
somewhere at a very early time and were themselves isolated--for example in
the Amazon river region, in Australia and in areas which were not often visited
such as Siberia. Then, if available, study their vocabulary, in particular terms for
religious practices, family members, phenomena of nature etc. and compare these
terms with those of the other isolated people. Then we should verify if the same
terms are used among these isolated groups for the same objects or activities.
Finally, we should establish categories of these terms as to the precise relation
between the ‘subject’ and the ‘object’ which determined the syllables used in the
terms. And we should see if the categories and their syllables can be applied to
all languages, and note how are these applied in the various ethnic groups.
What was my experience in following each of these steps? We began with
our concept of human migrations at an early period--that human beings
originated in east Africa and by 150,000 BPE (before the present era) began to
enter the Near East heading towards, on the one hand, Europe, and on the other,
Central Asia. The very early humans crossed South Asia and ended in Australia;
others went into Siberia and reached the Pacific Ocean, and when conditions
allowed, crossed into the Americas. Those who entered Europe were the ‘old
Europeans’ in distinction from the ‘Indo-Europeans’ originating in Western Asia.
Also, humans began to populate all of Africa.
The anthropologists and ethnologists have studied the vocabularies of
these migrating peoples and some of the most interesting are the Siberian peoples
or the vocabularies of various Amerindian peoples (speaking nearly 300 different
languages). I compared the Siberian terms with those of the Amerindians,
especially concerning religion, nature and family life. The results of the
ethnologists’ language research was very valuable.
These comparisons of terminology appeared in my three books published
by Brockmeyer Press in Bochum (Germany) in the 1990s (Bochum Publications
in Evolutionary Cultural Semiotics)(1). I was particularly interested in Siberian
and Central Asian language terminology in relation to two main macrofamilies
(of language) established by the Russian linguists Sergei Starostin, Vitaly
Shevoroshkin, Oleg Mudrac, the Serbian scholar Vladislav Illich-Svitich and
some American linguists including John Bengtson and Joseph Greenberg. The two
main macrofamilies--‘Nostratic’ (of Illich-Svitich) and ‘Sino-Caucasian’ (of
Starostin) were presented for American and other scholars at the First
International Interdisciplinary Symposium on Language and Prehistory, Ann
Arbor, University of Michigan) 8-12 November 1988 (2) The two categories of
macrofamilies presupposed a common proto-language circa. 15,000 BPE. Some
Central Asian, Siberian or Amerindian languages fell into the ‘Nostratic’
category – others were ‘Sino-Caucasian’. The scholars could also envision a
separate Siberian-Amerindian category. The two main categories appeared
valuable so that if a language had features of both Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian
one might believe it was developed earlier than either of those which securely fit
into one or the other categories.
Some ancient languages were found among isolated people who not only
showed a pre-Nostratic-Sino Caucasian split but also were equivalent to other
very early languages and here I speak of languages such as Ainu (Hokkaido,
Japan); Australian Aboriginal, or in the Amazon region Machiguenka or
Yanonami. The noun and verb term near-equivalents among these groups raised
the issue of whether there was an original human language. When these common
human terms were found it was the moment to classify the terms according to
their meaning for the speaker. Were certain syllables used in all these primitive
languages meaning the same thing for each? If some syllables were used among
these languages for the same meaning, then an original proto-language could be
found. Then it would be useful to isolate each syllable according to its use in this
early language. For this we listed the syllables under one of eleven categories
which one could imagine covered all relations between a subject (a human) and an
object (in the human’s environment). So the 214 syllables were isolated--each
representing a category of meaning. In all world languages this syllable would
mean the same thing (3).
In my three books in the series Only One Human Language (IVER
publications) (4) the 214 proto-syllables have been tested as to their relevance to
the world’s languages. Languages of the nineteenth-twentieth centuries in various
regions have been subjected to the test in these three volumes. The final volume on
African and Near Eastern languages confirmed the thesis of the 214 original
syllables and their categories. The implication is that early homo sapiens found that
the syllables were so useful that through much use, they were ‘coded’ in the human
brain, and also transmitted in embryo to the DNA of children.
The procedure of establishing these syllables was, in my opinion, related
to the search for food. As with other primates, food was a basic necessity for daily
survival. And so, the mouth was involved in the making of the early syllables not
only because it was required to make the sounds but also to create ‘meaning’ vis
à vis the object encountered. The ‘object’ was thought to be entering the mouth
(as well as the consciousness) and because it ‘stimulated the mouth’, the mouth
‘spoke’ the syllables in return. The important question as to why homo sapiens
speaks while other primates utter sounds but do not, in fact, speak, is based upon
this aspect of the mouth being involved existentially in the subject-object
But these sounds of the mouth in relation to an object were important in
many ways, because they became ‘social, communal’ and homo sapiens received
these sounds as ‘meaningful’ vis à vis what the relation really was between subject
and object. It was logical that neural circuits were solidified through repetition of
syllables that conveyed meaning and that, the society repeating these syllables,
such neuronal contacts were continued to be made in order to speak these syllables.
These neuronal relations then became ‘coded’ or became permanently-creating
aspects of the DNA of homo sapiens vis à vis parts of the brain controlling the
muscular organs of speech. This may explain why the language of homo sapiens
was very different from that of gorillas or chimpanzees. Through this coding
influencing the DNA structure of the brain and mouth and their interaction, such
DNA could be passed on to children who would--in principle-- be able to make the
same sounds vis à vis the subject-object relations as their parents, and the syllables
would fall into the same categories as they had done for the parents.
In other words, it was the search for food and the eating of it that brought
about the origin of language, and language had the aspect of a mouth-brain (and
later a brain-mouth) component. Apparently, the mouth was the earlier origin of
speech rather than the brain. Thus, language was not created by the mind absorbing
and reflecting upon the environment, but by the mouth providing sound syllables
which eventually through wide community use, became essential for survival.
The sounds began to stimulate the brain through neural circuits which enabled
repetitions of these sounds and, as time went on, neural circuits attained a higher
level of organization --each sound being related to its ‘meaning’ (its raison d’être
as a special ‘subject-object’ essence).
Early humans did not ‘tell’ their mouths to say such and such because they
‘decided’ to make sounds vis à vis such and such object. On the contrary. it
appears that the sounds of the mouth and its parts reacting to an object, and
repeated again and again in the community, began to be received by the brain as
elements which should be integrated into the neuronal structure--these being the
‘fittest’ for human communication, and thus sounds (syllables)--because they
were essential--became ‘encoded’ in the neuron-logical connections of the brain.
These phenomena were occurring no doubt before homo sapiens moved
out of Africa.
Was language thus ‘innate? No, it was developed in reaction to the
external objects, but repetition and widespread use, and ‘survival of the fittest’ of
these connections made a certain number of sound-syllables ‘innate’, i.e. part of
the brain neurology which became more and more developed and, through DNA
could be transmitted to children. The brain and mouth became accustomed to
certain syllables which had meaning rather widely, and the repetition of these
created a permanent set of syllables each having a particular meaning. Humans
could add to the basic syllables but could not remove them because their mouthing
had become an integral part of the brain’s working. Thus, the same syllables were
used not only in ancient Australia but also in the Amazon river basin.
And our studies of the various languages has shown that the 214 syllables I
have presented have infiltrated the noun and verb content of every language.
To summarize our argument: the brain was not highly developed in early
homo sapiens--it would be possible that while foraging for food, the mouth
utterances could, if repeated a multiplicity of times, and reinforced by spreading
within the society, begin to affect the neurons in the slowly developing brain and,
shape those neuronal circuits which control the organs of the mouth. Then
these neuronal connections could cause modifications in the brain mass, and if the
syllable continued to be spoken for the same subject-object relations, the
modifications could be strengthened to the extent where these could be
transmitted in the DNA to descendants.
Various peoples can be shown to have general DNA links and the oldest
populations have the same DNA as David Reich has shown about Australian
Aboriginals and some Amazonian Amerindians (6). So early homo sapiens’
speech could also be the same for the Australians and certain Amazonians. But
we have learned in our research which syllables made up such early speech, and
what each syllable meant (i.e. the category to which it belongs). Thus, in a way,
this proves that there was only one original language since the DNA structure of
these far-distant peoples is the same and their language terminology is the
same. These equivalences cannot certainly be simply coincidental.
Why this happened can only, we believe, be explained by the fact that
basic speech possibilities are related to heredity, as much as to environment. If
speech is related to heredity it must be transmitted through the DNA and neuron
arrangements related to speech must have been hereditary at a certain era and
since. If the shape of a bodily organ can be hereditary why not also the primitive
neuron arrangement in the brain--that which controls speech? For example, in the
human brain, fundamental neuro-muscular circuitry necessary for speech is
operative by the end of the first year of life; however, acquisition of multiple
syllables, words and sentences requires many more years and is under the influence
of both heredity and a nurturing human environment. Thus, neurons and their laws
of passage would be the same as other laws of hereditary passage from one
generation to another.
But, as with bodily parts which are hereditary, so also would be early brain
functions--these were ‘kick-started’ by the fact that early humans reacted to
objects by their mouths and the sounds they made were registered in the brain
and later controlled by the brain
Mouth movements were at first spontaneous but became ‘coded’ through
the ‘survival of the fittest’ syllables. The syllables ‘fit’ the subject-object relation
and early homo sapiens began to believe in these syllables and use them for the
purpose for which they were originally created. If these syllables were not the
original ones and if they were not arranged in categories which were consistent
(as we have proposed), then why can we see them and their categories again and
again--meaning the same thing--in all the language terminology we have
The Categories of the Syllables
The essential part of my research is the isolation of the 214 syllables
divided into eleven categories. These seem to be the original syllables spoken by
early homo sapiens to be enunciated by the mouth vis à vis what they as subjects
encountering objects wanted to say about these objects.
It is obvious that, in order to give a name (syllables) to certain objects,
humans gave it a name depending upon the ethnicity and the language spoken. For
this reason the word for an equivalent object is different in different human
languages (as de Saussure had underlined). It appears then that it is the culture, or
the ethnic group, which decides which syllable to use for such and such an
‘object’. But if the ‘oldest’ languages are compared i.e. the old most isolated
terminologies are compared (as we have done with Australian Aboriginal, some
Andean or Amazonian terms as well as with the four ‘control groups’ (Indo-
European, Burushaski, Japanese and Australian Aboriginal), it appears that the
syllables used to describe the same ‘object’ fall into the same categories each time.
This corresponds to what David Reich found comparing the DNA of some of these
They are the same because they were the descendants of the earliest homo
sapiens who had begun their migrations out across South Asia or Siberia.
These earliest languages and their terminology fully conform to our list of
The way we arrived at the list was a comparison of four kinds of
terminologies which were, in a sense, quite separate both geographically and in
terminology. They were: Indo-European; Burushaski (a ‘Sino-Caucasian’
language spoken in the Karakoram Pass area of South Asia and similar to Chechen,
Basque, Proto-Chinese, Navajo); Japanese (a mix of Siberian Languages such as
Yukaghir, Evenki, Ainu); and Australian Aboriginal. I believed these represented
the major world languages, the ‘Sino-Caucasian’ also including Thai and
Kampuchean; the Yukaghir being close to Kashmiri and Malay etc.
It appears that one could isolate how each of these terminologies used the
same syllables to explain the same subject-object relationship. That does not
mean that the terms in the four groups, in each case, used the same syllables or
words, but that each group used one of a series of syllables which we have
attributed to a certain category. The fact of the existence of the use of same
categories was the proof of our thesis, rather than the equivalences of the
syllables or terms themselves – which was obviously quite different in each
So, the proof of the validity of the thesis of 214 proto-syllables was simply
to see if a term in one of the four above-mentioned languages included as
principal syllable a syllable which fell into the same category of syllables as
that of the syllable used for the same term in one of the other languages. In
fact in most cases the same syllable was used. In my three volumes of Only
One Human Language I have tested the 214 proto-syllables in many
world languages and found that these proto-syllables have been used in the
same way in forming terms (mainly nouns and verbs) everywhere without
How did we determine the eleven categories? And how did early homo
sapiens use the hypothetically-arrived-at categories we have determined? It
was only by a common sense approach we asked ourselves by which type of
relations did a subject (homo sapiens) relate to an object in his
environment? Common sense arrived at primitive reactions: love or mild love;
opposition or mild opposition--the most primitive of subject-object relations.
Secondly the subject may see the object as something or someone to control.
Thirdly, the object could be seen neutrally as to be explained or to be
described. The four other categories include a quizzical one, i.e. the subject
does not know what to think about the object. Or a subject could be affected
by the object so that a musical or at least a musing aspect to the relation
occurred in the brain. Again, an object could provoke in the same homo
sapiens’ brain an expressive reaction--a crying out or showing strong emotion.
Finally, we could not omit to include another important reaction in the subject:
remembering. The brain recalls, through repetitive experiences, that it has
encountered this object previously. Or, remembering what happened previously, it
believes it will encounter this object once again.
As we can see in the chart (pp.18-23) there are various syllables in each
category. So in our three volumes Only One Human Language we have submitted
many nouns and verbs of each language--spoken even today--and we have found
that the syllables used in each term fall into the category we have established for
Besides the four types of language used in the original survey to determine
the proto-syllables, we investigated Siberian languages, Ainu, Amerindian
languages; Kashmiri, Burushaski and languages of the Karakoram region, Malay
as well as Thai and Kampuchean; Chinese; Pacific languages; A multitude of
Amerindian languages ending in the Amazon region; Near Eastern language
vocabularies such as Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic: terms for ancient Greek and
Egyptian deities; Kabylie language terminology, proto-Bantu as well as two
Bantu languages: Swahili and Zulu. Terminology in these languages conformed
to my system of syllables in 95% of cases. Any exceptions were explained in the
text. Some words could, according to the specificity of the ethnic or national
group, fail to fall into its normal category of meaning and was termed by us as
‘ambiguous’. This did not obviate our theory, but in all cases proved that our
proto-syllables’ language structure was being questioned somewhat because of
divergent ethnic beliefs, while not being rejected.
We have a possibility to test the hypothesis with a term from a language;
Usually the term can be broken down into two or three syllables, Using the chart of
syllables we can see if the syllables used in the terms fit the categories holding
that or these syllables in the list. We could make comparisons of a hundred terms
of any one language as its vocabulary is given even today and see if each syllable
conforms to the category which, in my theory, the syllable should belong i.e. if
the category gives the proper meaning. For example, often domestic animals fit
into the controlling category when the subject regards them, or some
excitement-provoking terms would at least contain one expressive syllable.
Sounds or music-related terms would include a muse/musical syllable.
Readers may well ask the question--how can a professional theologian
arrive at conclusions on the realm of linguistics? My studies have been mainly in
the study of the history of religious thought--my doctoral thesis was on the
religious philosophy of the Russian theologian Sergius Bulgakov 1870-1945 (7,
But the use of Russian language was very helpful for my books published
in Bochum on religious practices in Siberia, Central Asia and for the
Amerindians--where the religious terminology was found to be parallel in both
sides of the Pacific Ocean.
After attending a conference in New Delhi on the peoples of the
Karakoram region in India and its political and ethnic issues (8) I once again took
up my research on the origin of languages after I found a surprise parallel
between Kashmiri terms and Malay terms. So, I became a linguist in the sense I
was trying to prove a hypothesis related to linguistics. Afterwards I made a study
of the working of the brain, which could use to explain my theory, and made a
quick review of some of the major linguistic theories today.
Nobel Prize winner the Prof. Eric Kandel has taught us to inquire: ‘in what sense – biologically-speaking – were syllables encoded in the brains of early homo sapiens? (9) Kandel has presented in his book the physiological basis of certain aspects of memory and the unconscious which provides much material for thought. ‘Consciousness’ involves sensory neurons, motor neurons, mouth muscles (for speech) and several other brain parts for the production of syllables. Have linguists been able to describe the neural pathways leading to the pronunciation of these syllables and which of the brain’s areas are involved? What is the role of ‘genes’ in the determining which syllables are used for each of the eleven different categories I have described? Is it true that, as shown in the diagram on p. 24 that certain subject-object experiences seem to ‘penetrate’ the brain (beyond the mouth) e.g. remembering, emotion, music etc.? How are these experiences circulated in the brain and how do their neuronal connections pass through various areas of the brain, and which areas are these?
- Graves, C. (1994). Proto-Religions in Central Asia Universitätsverlag Dr.
Norbert Brockmeyer, Bochum (BPX 34) 223 pp.; (1995) The Asian Origins of
Amerindian Religions, Bochum (BPX 37) 268 pp.; (1997) Old Eurasian and
Amerindian Onomastics, Bochum (BPX 38) 254 pp.
- For example: Vitaly Shevoroshkin, Ed. (1989) Reconstructing Languages
And Cultures Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer. Bochum (Bochum
Publications in Evolutionary Cultural Semiotics (BPX 20) 176 pp.; Vitaly
Shevoroshkin, ed. (1991) Dene-Sino-Caucasian Languages, Bochum (BPX 32)
- ‘Proto-syllables’ mean two or three vowels or consonants grouped together.
A ‘phoneme’ would be another word for these. ’Terminology’ means the sense of
the main syllable used in a word (noun, verb, adjective) and, in our system, can be
compared with similar essences (i.e. ‘terminologies’) in various languages.
- Only One Human Language. The Unique Language of Homo Sapiens
(2016). Iver Publications, 393 pp.; Asia-Amerindia Language Comparisons. Only
One Human Language (2018,). vol. II; Iver Publications 411 pp.; The Speech of
Early Homo Sapiens. Only One Human Language, (2019). vol. III; Iver
Publications, 344 pp. (listed on Amazon.com)
- Explanation of the above phrase “These sounds of the mouth in relation to
the object are important in themselves…” The sounds (syllables) emitted by the
mouth have meaning in themselves. Here we approach what Beneviste has
inferred: that original human language expresses some primitive ‘ideas’. Beneviste
hoped to find these proto-ideas in studying early language. On the other hand, C.G.
Jung has presented his ‘archetypes’ found in dreams i.e. certain primitive
‘creaturely’ essences which are part of a collective unconscious. Our eleven
‘categories’ of the proto-syllables could be seen along this line, perhaps. For
example, the ‘philosophy’ of the category of loving or mildly loving could be
related somehow to an archetype of optimists; the category of controlling be
related to farmers; the category of muse/music related to poets; the category of
remembering related to researchers. So, these proto-syllables within their
categories have a kind of ‘philosophical’ aspect. Thus Beneviste was proposing
something valuable. However, his method could not establish the proto-
(6) Reich, D. (2018). Who We Are And How We Got Here. Ancient DNA and
the New Science of the Human Past New York; Pantheon Books 335 pp.
(7) Graves. C. (1972). The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergius Bulgakov
(University of Basel D. Theol. Thesis 1972), 190 pp.
(8) Graves, C. (2013). ‘Origins of Peoples of the Karakoram Himalaya’. In:
Himalayan and Central Asian Studies, New Delhi vol. 17, No. 1 January-March,
(9) Kandel, Eric R., winner of the Nobel Prize. In Search of Memory. The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, see especially pp. 282-3, 308-9.
(10) My language abilities began with Latin studies and continued with French at University and. German language studies for the doctorate. Language skills in Russian were completed at Oxford with a tutor and after this I learned the Japanese terms with my wife. In 1972 I studied Finno-Ugric culture as well as Russian at Turku and Helsinki in Finland during one summer. All these elements were used in my three books published in the series Evolutionary Cultural Semiotics in Bochum University press (1990s).
From my mother’s side I have elements of haplogroup ‘G’ in my DNA which is attributed to the Alans / Ossetians, a Scythian group as Georges Dumézil has categorized it, which may explain my propensity for Russian studies.
My work as secretary-general of Interfaith International 1993-2019 has introduced me to many cultures and terminologies including some Amerindian languages, Indo-Iranian languages, Burushaski, Baluch, Sindhi and Kashmiri,
CHART OF 214 SYLLABLES IN ELEVEN CATEGORIES
Syllables beginning with a consonant:
Opposing: kl, no, ne, ni
Mildly opposing: fre, go, gi, ja, pa, pl, sw, vu, vl, za, zl
Loving: chu, do, di, fa, ha, zhi, kh, ji, li, ma, nu, ro,
so, ta, vo, vi
Mildly loving: bo, bi, bl, cha, cho, gu, gh, zhu, ku, lo, re,
So, sy, te, tw, wo, wi, zu
Explaining: ba, br, che, da, du, de, dw, fe, ga, ghe, ka, le,
na, pl, sa, wu
Controlling : bu, chi, dr, fi, ko, ki, me, pu, sl, sr, tr, wr
Quizzical : be, fo, mo, qua, ru
Muse-Music: fu, ja, mu, su, yo
Describing: fl, ga, ge, gr, gl, kr, lo, lu, li, mi, no, pa, po,
pl, pr, pi, rta, se, si, to, tu
Expressing : ri, yi, zo
Remembering : he, hi, hu, ki, ko, pe, wo, wu
Syllables beginning with a vowel:
Opposing: er, ig, op
Mildly opposing: ag
Loving: am, em, af, ip, ez, iz, eu, iu, oi, ui, uo, oqu
Mildly loving: eh, uh, ao, ou
Controlling: im, um, at, et, ot, as, uk, al, el, il, ol, an, en,
in, ed, id, ih, uz
Quizzical: om, is, od, oh, az, oz, ei
Muse-Music: or, on, og, ug, ao, ou, uqu
Describing: it, ir, os, ek, ok, eb, uf, ep, eo, io, ia, oe, aqu,
Expressing: ar, ek, ob, eg, ah, ap, ai, ie, ou
Remembering: et, ur, ae
Another version of the 214 proto-syllables
There will be more than 214 examples, since some are included in two separate categories (see below).
Preliminary analysis of these syllables and the phonemes involved
In my list the juxtaposition of the phonemes is related existentially to the ‘gestalt’ of the particular category (one out of eleven of them).
Regarding the pronouncement of the phonemes in this article, and in my books on Only One Human Language, the vowels (i, e, a) are to be pronounced (in English) more like bit, bet, bat than like bite, beet, or bait. For the vowels o, u they are to be pronounced like bought / boat and like but / boot.
Ai is pronounced like the vowels of bat/bit
Ie is pronounced like bit/bet
Re is pronounced like the vowels in rest/rain
Og is pronounced like phonemes in ox/go
Ug is pronounced like under/go
Uqu is pronounced like ung; Equ is pronounced like eng
Opposing and mildly opposing syllables
kl, pl, vl, zl
ig, ag, go, gi
ni, no, ne
Opposing: rejection is shown by either first or last phoneme whereby mouth rejects outside influence
Mildly opposing: Opposition is shown by the failure of the last phenome to eliminate the earlier ‘mild’ phoneme. This ‘mild’ is shown by the combination of last and first phoneme
Loving and mildly loving syllables
am, em, ma, eh
am, af, fa, zha, ma, ta, ao
do, ro, so, vo, ou, cho, lo, so, wo
di, ji, li, vi, sy, wi
ez, iz, zha, zhi, eh
ui, uo, oqu, nu, zu
zha, zhu, chu, cha, cho, zhu
bo, bi, bl
Loving: The last phoneme is ‘open’ (it ‘receives’) or the last phoneme (am, em, af, ip, ez, iz) is ‘inclusive’.
Mildly loving: The first phoneme is ‘mildly’ non-opposing, or a bit opposing (gh, gu (m.loving) with go gi (m. opposing); so, sy (m. loving) with sw (mildly opposing); zu (m. loving) with za, zl (m. opposing).
im, um, me, ed, id
at, et, it, ol
an, en, in, un
dr, sr, tr, wr
chi, fi, ki
Controlling: the phonemes ‘elide’ like the remembering category. But their eliding is with ‘strength’, not simply with openness
da, du, de, dw
if, fe, pi
ba, da, ga, ka, na, sa
ghe, ga, ka
che, de, fe, ghe, le
Explaining: The second phoneme is ‘inclusive’, ‘wraps around’ and ‘lingers’ whereas the controlling syllables don’t ‘linger’ in order to explain. Cf. controlling pu with explaining pl.
it, ir, io, ia, iqu,
li, ti, pi
ek, ok, aqu, equ, iqu
eb, ep, equ, eo
ga, ge, gr, gl, aqu
gr, kr, pr, rta, vr, wr
fl, lu, li, pl, sl
wa, wu, we, wr
to tu, ti
ya, yu, ye, ia, oe
eo, io, ia, oe
eo, no, po, to
pa, po, pl, pr, pi, eb, ep
Describing: is like explaining. Their second phoneme is ‘mildly inclusive’ Cf. controlling al, el, il, ol with describing lo, lu, li; Cf. controlling pu with describing pa, po, pl, pr; Cf. remembering pe with describing pa, po, pl, pr; Cf. remembering et with describing to, tu. Describing has much nasal elements (aqu, equ, iqu as well as ek, ok, eb, ep, io, ia) which may indicate ‘negative describing’ e.g. ng
or, on, og, ou, yo
fu, ru, mu, su,
ug, uqu, qua, ru
Muse / Music: the phonemes ‘elide’ together but (in comparison with remembering) include an ‘added emphasis’
ar, ah, ap, ai
ai,. Ie, ri, yi
ob, oa, zo
Expressing; the phonemes, both first and last, either ‘go to the top of the oral cavity’ (ri, yi, zo, ar, ek, eg) or they show much openness (ah, ap, ai, ie, ou). These aspects show a certain emotion
he, hi, hu
wo, wu, ur
om, od, ob, oz
Remembering and Quizzical:in remembering the phonemes ‘elide’ whereas in quizzical the phonemes ‘oppose’ each other (one is ‘closed’ the other is ‘open’). Remembering shows wide openness especially in the last phoneme which ‘lingers’. With quizzical the second phoneme does not ‘linger’, but ‘opposes’.
Syllables used in two different categories
wu (in expl. and remem.)
et (in contr. and remem.)
ki, ko (in contr. and remem.)
pa (in oppos. and descr.)
ou (in loving and muse/music)
Therefore, the significance of the relation between the two phonemes of each syllable and the nature of the second phoneme defines the co- incidence between the syllable and the ‘gestalt’ of the subject-object relation it represents. We could, of course, try to see how the shape of the mouth producing the two phonemes may show certain patterns for each double phoneme (i.e. syllable), and how these shapes may coincide with certain ‘gestalts’ related to the subject-object relation concerned.
Photograph: ‘rock painting’ in Australia photographed by Graeme Churchard, Bristol (UK)