IVER PUBLICATIONS
IVER PUBLICATIONS
  • Home
  • About us
  • Books
    • Biological Origins of Religion >
      • The Incarnation of Christ and the Brain
      • Biology and Christian Community
      • The Biological Community of the Church
      • The Divine Family in Christian Theology, and the Genome
      • Disease and Theology
      • Virgin Birth and Incarnation
      • Theology, Racism and Religious Intolerance
      • Saints, angels and Atonement
    • Christianity and Special Topics >
      • PTSD and Religious Belief
      • Brainwashing and Religious Belief
      • LGBT and Christianity
      • Human Rights and Religious Belief
    • Isolating the Earliest Human Speech >
      • Only One Human Language and the Scythians
      • The Implications of Finding the Earliest Spoken Human Language
      • Only One Human Language (2016)
      • Reconstructing Languages (2016)
      • Addenda to New Book (2018)
      • Only One Human Language ; Asia-Amerindia; The Speech of (2019)
    • Families of the Domesday >
      • Introduction
      • Sample family: Avenel, Waleran and Estouteville
      • INDEX
      • Addenda & Errata to Families of the Domesday Book
      • Addenda & Errata II to Families of the Domesday Book
      • Addenda & Errata III to Families of the Domesday Book
    • 27 Essays on Edward de Vere
    • Essays 28-32 on Edward de Vere >
      • Essay 28 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 29 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 30 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 31 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 32 on Edward de Vere
    • Essays 33-38 on Edward de Vere >
      • Essay 33 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 34 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 35 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 36 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 37 on Edward de Vere
      • Essay 38 on Edward de Vere
  • Our authors
    • Charles Graves
  • Blog
  • Reviews
  • Contact us
  • Links

ISOLATING THE EARLIEST HUMAN SPEECH
by
Charles Graves



​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
 
relation (5).
 
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
 
researched?
 
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
 
particular groups.
 
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
 
syllables.
 
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
 
case.
 
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
 
exception.
 
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
 
that syllable.
 
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,
 
10).
 
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?
 
Notes:


  1. 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.


  1. 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)
 
264 pp.


  1. ‘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.


  1. 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)


  1. 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-
 
syllables themselves.
 
(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,
 
pp. 3-18.
 
          (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
Explaining: if
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,
equ, iqu
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
er, fre
ig
kl, pl, vl, zl
ig, ag, go, gi
ni, no, ne
pa, pl
vu, vl
za, zl
ja
 
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
eh, uh
bo, bi, bl
gu, gh
ta, te
 
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).
 
Controlling syllables
im, um, me, ed, id
at, et, it, ol
an, en, in, un
ed, id
id, ih
dr, sr, tr, wr
chi, fi, ki
bu
 
Controlling: the phonemes ‘elide’ like the remembering category. But their eliding is with ‘strength’, not simply with openness
 
Explaining syllables
da, du, de, dw
if, fe, pi
ba, da, ga, ka, na, sa
dw, wu
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.
 
Describing syllables
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
 
Muse/Music syllables
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’
 
Expressing syllables
ek, eg
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
 
Remembering syllables
he, hi, hu
ki, ko
wo, wu, ur
et, ae
pe
 
Quizzical syllables
om, od, ob, oz
is, az
fo, mo
ja, az
 
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.


Picture

​Photograph: ‘rock painting’ in Australia photographed by Graeme Churchard, Bristol (UK)
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.