9/15/2020 0:00:01
How can you know if languages emerged from a single origin, and how can you explain the reasons for the diversity of dialects?
The truth is that talking about this topic is very important, because such knowledge of the concept of language is absent among many, and it is closely related to many issues in the Holy Qur’an and a Muslim must understand them well, which has made many easy prey for Western theories and their interpretations, which we find in articles. Many on the Internet and social networking sites by our historians and researchers.
A friend from Syria posted on his page a picture containing a number of vocabulary from eastern languages (Akkadian, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic) and compared it with vocabulary from the Arabic language as evidence of the similarity of the vocabulary and that it is of the same origin, in an attempt to refute and criticize the logic of the Syriac identity group that exploits the weakness of The collective cognitive mind in our societies, to create and consolidate a false collective awareness.
It is true that the logic of this group is wrong, but this friend’s criticism was not very successful.
Why ?
We have talked in previous articles about language, but there is no harm in summarizing the story of language.
We believe that the Western approach to understanding language is very wrong, and the mind that is founded on this approach cannot reach sound awareness.
how ?!
The Western approach to understanding language is based on three points:
● Humans acquired language from animals, learned it from animals.
This point is taken for granted in the awareness that was founded on Western approaches. …But the question is: If every animal on earth possesses a language to communicate between itself and its members.
How did bees acquire a language that communicates between them?
How did animals acquire this language of communication?
And did every animal acquire it from another animal?!
Languages that animals communicate are innately present in them.
If man is part of the animal kingdom, then why cannot man in this matter also be considered part of the animal kingdom, and look at the language that man possesses from the same perspective with which he looks at the languages of animal communication… What applies to Does the rest of the living creatures also apply to humans?
Why isn’t language an innate nature that existed with humans?
● Language is an evolving organism
Yes, language is a living organism… that is, language develops with the introduction of new vocabulary, and the vocabulary of the first language can develop and mutate.
But if language is evolving, was there in the past a single human language from which the rest of the human languages that exist today splintered?
This belief is completely consistent with our belief that language was an innate nature that existed with humans in the beginning.
Also, the development of language…….does not mean the disappearance of the first language, because there are vocabulary around us whose names cannot disappear from the first language that was with man.
● The Arabic language is a Semitic language and developed from previous languages.
The Western classification of languages, which was established by the West, placed the Arabic language in the category of Semitic languages, and the evolutionary plan for languages established by the West made Arabic emerge from previous languages such as Canaanite Akkadian, Aramaic, Syriac, etc.
This classification is not based on any scientific basis, but rather is based on Roman time only, and is based on the religious, temporal and historical centrality of the West, in order to make the other subordinate and subordinate to it.
The plan depends on the history and time that everyone studies, and history and time were written by the West and not written by a general reference.
Because according to the history and time that currently exists, Judaism appeared in time carrying a book written in Hebrew, and Christianity came after it in time carrying with it a book written in Syriac, then Islam came after it carrying with it a book written in Arabic.
This history and time…makes the ordinary, simple person…believe that the Akkadian language was the only one that existed in the world and that there were no other languages around it. Then it developed into Aramaic and Akkadian disappeared, and it became alone on earth and there are no languages around it. Then it developed into the Hebrew language, and became dominant, and there were no other languages around it. Then it developed into the Syriac language, and dominated for a period of time, and finally the Arabic language developed from it.
So, had it not been for this history and this time… the West would not have written language plans in this way… and no one, including Western scholars, would have been able to establish correct scientific rules to understand which language preceded the other, and which language split. From the other.
Here, history and time enter into the issue… and in formulating the foundations of linguistics according to Western approaches… and history and time are not reliable, and we do not know how true that time and history are.
The truth is that when the West came to our land to occupy it, carrying a printer with it, it took an important step on the ground that contributed greatly to shaping the current collective consciousness, and this step was dividing the region into border plots, and for each plot a political system was established, and then it By printing it by placing a comprehensive linguistic, religious, cultural and historical interpretation of the society that exists within each divided piece, and this comprehensive interpretation is the reason for the creation of a false collective consciousness, which I call psychosexual consciousness.
History came to every Sykes-Picot piece… from Mecca.
And religion came to every piece of Sykes-Picot… from Mecca through the conquests.
And the language came to each of Sykes-Picot’s pieces… from Mecca through the conquests.
This psychosexual awareness of society has become easily preyed upon by Western theories and interpretations.
how ?
For example….. …How would a Syrian, for example, explain his dialect that contains the word “meh” and how would he also explain that his dialect does not say “water” but rather “meh”?
From this approach, the Syriac Identity Group set out to provide explanations to the society that possesses this for the wrong collective consciousness (psycho-consciousness).
They presented to him a theory and idea that the Syriac language was the language of society before Arabic, and that he still maintains the Syriac language, which contains the word (meh), while the word (water) is foreign to him and came after the word (meh), and the correct one is (meh) and It is the first original.
From this entry, my friend also published that picture on his page to provide another explanation for the society that has this wrong collective awareness (psycho-consciousness), and to criticize the Syriac identity group.
He presented the idea that the Eastern vocabulary is similar, and that all the Eastern languages (Akkadian, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic) are all of one origin, there is no difference, and they are all of one origin, and that there is nothing radically different that came to Syria after the conquests and Islam. One origin.
The truth is that both are wrong
Why ?
Because the question is, how can we understand the language without this Western approach?
The truth is that the issue cannot be understood without believing that there is an innate first language that was among the first man on Earth, and because of the migration of the first man and his settlement of the rest of the Earth and his settlement there, the language developed and the rest of the languages arose. Therefore, all the languages of the world emerged because of their development from the first language. .
This is the innate sound awareness when trying to understand the issue, and this awareness does not exist in both.
– The Syriac identity group in Syria, which carries a religious book (the Bible) written in the Syriac language and which resembles the Qur’an, does not know, does not realize, or is not aware that the reason for which the religious text was found is to protect the memory of the first man, realize the awareness of the ancients, and preserve his belief. The first, and this necessitates the survival of the first language to understand the beginning memory of the first man on earth, and the existence of the Book of the Bible in a Syriac language containing texts similar to the Qur’an does not mean that it is a book and its language is about a truth, but rather it is only an expression of the consciousness of Sayksbekoy.
Also, although Al-Siddiq’s approach seems logical according to this approach, which is different from the Western approach, his criticism is unsuccessful. Why?
Firstly……. Because the similarity of language vocabulary does not mean that they are of the same origin, for several logical reasons:
Because the friend did not understand the point that he is comparing the vocabulary of non-living languages with the vocabulary of a living language, Arabic.
Because I can write three dictionaries for hypothetical new languages and give them many names, such as (Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic), and make the names for (water) in them (Mihu, Mao, Moh), and then after a while my friend comes and publishes an article on his page and says in it : That the Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic, and Arabic languages are of one origin, as evidenced by the fact that they contain similar vocabulary such as (mihu, maw, moh, water), which indicates that they are of one origin.
And here is the error
The friend talks about the Akkadian and Aramaic languages, and he does not realize that they are purely hypothetical languages, found only in books, and are not spoken by any living community. Even Syriac is the language of a religious text and is not a living language.
It compares a virtual world with a real world, places the virtual world before the real world, and makes the virtual world the origin of the real world.
Secondly… He believes that the Syrian dialect is Syriac, but he believes that this dialect is an ancient language and is of the same origin with Arabic.
But society in Syria has many dialects and accents, and there is a different vocabulary, and the West tried to contain this with the theory of the Syriac or Aramaic language, which the friend did not understand.
This friend does not know that the dialects and accents in Syria cannot be separated from the rest of the dialects and accents of the region, and realizing this point represents a difficult matter for the Syrian mind.
Because all of these dialects are not of ancient origin, but rather are the result of a mutation in the language of the first ancient human from which people emerged, and these dialects required a long period of time to form, and their formation is the result of many factors, including external and internal, including stability and isolation, People do not have a single voice, but stability and isolation preserve the accent and make it colloquial. Also among the reasons, stability requires simplifying words, etc.
For example, around a 10-kilometre plot of land in Yemen, there are isolated residential clusters that carry two dialects (Mwayh, Mai).
This is the reason for the existence of all the dialects of the region.
It is true that the dialects of the region are Arabic, but they are not the first origin and are not the first tongue on earth in all the countries of the region. Rather, they are the result of a long period of stability and isolation, because the first tongue that was spoken by the first ancestors of the inhabitants of the region is the same tongue as the Qur’an.
All the dialects of the region emerged from a single origin, and are not first languages, but rather dialects that split from a first language, which is the Arabic tongue, the tongue of the Qur’an.
Therefore, the reality of the region is the natural reality that occurred on Earth, but such a reality does not exist in Europe.
It is true that the dialects of the region contain many similar vocabulary and it is easy for people to understand each other, which confirms that they are dialects of one origin and of one language from which they emerged. But even if similar vocabulary is found in the languages of Europe, they are not of one origin.
Why ?
We spoke about the matter in a previous article, but from a realistic perspective on the spread of European languages, without going into language analysis.
1- The linguistic reality of Europe.
According to Western scholars, all of Europe’s languages are Indo-European languages. This means that they are of one linguistic origin, or of one Indo-European language.
Are Europeans of one origin?!
The answer: They say yes…of Caucasian ethnicity
The logical question is: How did this Caucasian race spread in Europe?!
It is natural that the spread of this race is the result of a single migration from the Caucasus and it settled in Europe… and during its spread and settlement in Europe, it is supposed to lead to the emergence of a single and dominant language in Europe and it spreads with the same spread and settlement, and if a linguistic difference occurs in Europe There will be dialects and dialects, but everyone understands each other, and if a major linguistic difference occurs, it is assumed that all of these divisions will be within one linguistic faction and will place all of Europe within a linguistic faction, just like the dialects of the region.
But this did not happen
For example, notice:
There are more than seven linguistic classifications………..and these divisions are not close to each other, but rather far apart from each other with an unnatural distribution.
No realistic, natural movement on earth can create these languages and divisions.
There are, for example, Slavic languages, Germanic languages, Hellenic languages, Romantic languages, Celtic languages, Albanian languages, and non-European languages.
Rather, what is strange is that there are languages in Europe that do not belong at all to European languages and are not from the Indo-European family (such as Finnish, Hungarian, and Basque).
The logical question is: How did a Caucasian people appear in central Europe (Hungary) who were Indo-European and did not speak an Indo-European language, and were surrounded by European peoples from everywhere and these peoples spoke languages of one family (Indo-European), while they were in central Europe and did not speak an Indo-European language? Does it belong to the surrounding language family?!
Did this people suddenly fall from the sky and be placed in the middle of Europe while they speak a language completely different from the languages of Europe?!
How did the Finnish people appear, who do not speak an Indo-European language, while all their neighbors speak an Indo-European language and are Caucasian people?
Also, if we look at the Hellenic languages, we will find that there is only one language (Greek).
What is strange and strange is that Greece is where the Greek civilization appeared, which produced all that literary, scientific, and intellectual legacy, which was supposed to influence Europe and whose language would overshadow the entire reality of Europe, but this did not happen. .
Even if we assume that there are political and historical reasons that removed this Greek language from its influence on Europe…but those reasons do not prevent the spread of this language in its immediate surroundings at least (Albania, Italy, etc.).
Also, if we look at Greece… we will find that it is located almost on a (peninsula), which is a very small area, and within this small peninsula, there is a language that is not from the group of Hellenic languages, which is the Albanian language. It is from a different group called (languages). Albanian)…and it is radically different from it.
It is assumed that the natural reality will cause the ancient civilization (Greece) to influence that small peninsula, and if there is a realistic and logical reason that prevents Albania from having a Greek language, then this reason will not prevent the Albanian language from being from the (Hellenic languages) family at least. But this did not happen.
Rather, what is very strange… is that after the Greek and Albanian languages, and at a short distance, comes the Romanian language, which is radically different from the Hellenic and Albanian languages, as it belongs to the (Romantic languages) family.
Also, when we notice (Germanic languages): Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, German, Danish, and English, we will find that these languages reach Britain, stop, and a small spot appears, and they have a radically different language, which is Welsh, and it belongs to To the family (Celtic languages).
How did this spot appear and where did it come from, when it is surrounded by Germanic languages and behind it is a vast ocean of water?! …Where did this people who speak a Celtic language come from?
Also note (the Romantic languages): Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. We will find that not all of them are connected geographically, that is, they are not all next to each other, but rather separated geographically. Geographically, there are languages from other radically different families, such as Romanian.
2- Analysis of European languages
If we assumed that the situation that Europe reached was identical to the situation in the region, and that Europe’s dialects were numerous, and then Europe decided to transform its dialects into languages, it would be assumed that Europe’s linguistic reality would be completely different from its linguistic reality today.
Because even if the languages of Europe were splintered dialects of a first Indo-European language, there would be no difficulty in understanding the languages of Europe among the inhabitants of Europe, because in our reality there is no difficulty at all in understanding the dialects of the region, and without the need to learn them.
Evidenced by… that despite the fact that the West has made the dialect of the Maltese population an official language and introduced Western vocabulary into their dictionary, we do not find it difficult to understand complete phrases and sentences in the Maltese language.
Also, adopting the approach of similarity of vocabulary between languages in proving one common origin is not a correct approach, and this is the approach that my friend and another person adopted in his comment on my friend’s article comparing European languages, to confirm that they are of one origin.
Why ?
Because we have vocabulary in our dialects that is identical to vocabulary in European languages, are our dialects and European languages of the same origin?
The Maltese language now has English and French vocabulary in its dictionary. Are Maltese and English of the same origin, knowing that Maltese is an Arabic dialect?
Therefore… if we want to adopt a scientific method in understanding whether languages are of one origin, we must rely on a different approach, and if we think about adopting a method in researching the common vocabulary between languages, it should not be in the previous way, but rather in a different way that depends on On scientific grounds, including:
– Do not compare hypothetical languages in books with living languages
– Excluding vowel sound values in vocabulary
– Do not search in the vocabulary of modern things in human life, but rather in the vocabulary of ancient things that were associated with the first man on earth.
This is what shows us, with a high degree of probability, whether the languages are of one origin?
Just an example
There are many words in the dialects of the region that refer to the liquid that a person drinks and quenches his thirst, and they are (mei, meih, moih). As is clear, there is a great similarity in the names of something that is necessarily related to the first man, and these words must have been split from a single origin. Linguist.
So what is the origin?
The word (water) is the first root from which these words emerged, and from this origin many words were derived in the dialects of the region (mee mee moe), etc.
Does such an example apply to the reality of European languages?
In English…..string
In French……or
In Greek… Nero
What is the first word of origin from which the words (string, or, nero) were split? Or what is the first word in the first Indo-European language from which all the words found in the current European languages were split?
Or is there a similarity or correspondence in these terms?
nothing
The vocabulary is not similar or identical… and there is nothing in common between the vocabulary so that it is possible to believe and assert that there is a first vocabulary from which these vocabulary emerged.
Is it possible that a simple word for a necessary thing linked to the first European man, who spoke an Indo-European language and migrated from the Caucasus and spread throughout Europe and settled there, would be forgotten by the European while it is linked to him on a daily basis and his name was inherited from his ancestors, and would make him pronounce the name of this thing with completely different names? There is no similarity or correspondence between them.
These are the reasons that make us believe that all European languages are not of a single origin, but rather a linguistic engineering that took place in a recent period of time.