the arcane perpetual guardians of the esoteric and ethereal earth science.


One Earth, One speech

In deciphering the meaning of Ma umau, the citation of divers global occurences certainly may have seemed rather arbitrary and opportunistic, as sadly as most etymological linguistics has degenerated into. Yet this is not the case for the universal singular meaning of ma umau, as is premised upon the arcane principle, that civilisation originated from a singular common.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. Genesis 11:1

Names are pictures of things, each letter having some resemblance to the thing named.-Plato in Cratylus.

Language is the system of words or signals that people use to express thoughts and feelings to each other. Speech is the spoken language. Language encompasses words, their pronunciation and the method of combining them used and understood by a community. A word on the other hand is the smallest element that may be uttered in isolation with practical or literal meaning. Words are composed of units of sound called phonemes, or graphemes when written. Concisely, language is the system of combining sounds to first form units of diverse meanings, and then using these meanings to express thoughts from one person to another who share the knowledge of the system of combination utilized.

Comparative linguistics as used by anthropologist seeks to discover the relations of tongues of people in bid to to peer into the history of humanity. This hinges on the understanding that people who have languages that share predominantly must of essence have diverged from a common ancestry and language. And it makes wonderful and perfect implications thus. Even as we in the present world witness the merging of cultures and speech to create new speech, as the older tongues are improved upon. Yet as much as man has studied language in aspiration to peer into the history of humanity upon the planet, and as diverse and profuse possibilities they end up suggesting, they have unfortunately extensively missed the one mark, that there was a time when the earth was of one language and one speech. And it was during this time that the entire earth was named appertaining to its attributes. Lingual anthropologists of the past may however be excused owing to the limited resources they worked with before the age of the internet. One would have to peruse through many books and languages then. Even with the ready resources of the present though, most scholars are constrained by the imprecise findings and fallacious conclusions of the erstwhile anthropologists.

For a language to be understood, the underlying principle is for its users to abide by its formulated structure and conventions. The simpler the structure and conventions of a language are, the easier it is to be learnt, understood and used. The meaning of words in modern language is largely detached from its composing phonemes and hence each word has to be related to its specific meaning. The english words bark, back, buck, balk and bulk essentially sound the same but mean totally different things. The English language is littered with numerous such confusing names, which requires one to only extract the meaning of speech from its context. The concept of the ideal language is of one that has the same sounds bearing the same meaning always, such that the diverse combination of any select particular sounds would always bear and portray the same meaning. The order in which these sounds are made would slightly alter the actual meaning of the word but would have the elements of the attributes of the sounds to bear. In the English language we use, an example would be as in the words lamp-oil and oil-lamp, where the first is about the oil used in lamps and the latter being about the lamp that uses oil. In these examples however, complete words have been used as the English language as well as most other languages used in the world, even words that phonetically sound the same bear different and unrelated meanings, which renders the languages pretty complex and unreliable. Sheep for instance is the domestic animal while Ship is a sea-going vessel. Sea and See likewise sound similar but mean averse. One will only find understanding of the English words only in the context they are used in the language, or by reading the manner in which the letters that make the sounds are presented. The original language of universality did not bear such inconsistencies for then it would not articulate with the simplest sounds applicable the required meanings, attributes, words and language. This language employed the diverse sounds or phonemes as the meaning bearing unit whether standing by itself as a word, or as in a morpheme. Each sound is a word, and also unit of a word holding meaning for the compound word. Now this would render the language really simple, given that each sound likewise had been formed and ascribed a meaning according to studies of the way the sound is made and the meaning it was intended to convey. The language being purely phonetic required its sounds to always represent what they mean.

The ideal language has the meaning of its words related to its composing sounds, such that a particular sound should always profer the same meaning within its compound word, sentence and speech. This was the origin of language. Just as we have the same words attributing their meaning to the sentence or compound words, the original language structure used the phoneme/sound as the meaning bearing component. The phoneme is still used in many instances as word by itself in modern speach such as in the case of prefixes to words. The concept of a language in which the meaning bearing component is the basic sound is the key to a perfect language, where a particular sound would always bear and portray the same meaning.

To make the sound Sa for example is made with the tongue straight but slightly pulled back as one softly exhales and then terminates the exhalation. The air kind of passes along the tongue for short duration and then moves out of the mouth portraying the idea of motion along a defined path without restrictions but well modulated. The word morpheme Sa thereby portrays motion and means along, among other words that derive from motion such as way. To make the sound Na, the tongue is pressed against the mouth palate in a semi rolled position while some little exhaled air is made to seek its way out from the blocking tongue. Apparently the sound Na should portray blockage, or negation and this precisely it what the sound conveys. In its English counterparts, the ‘Na’ sound as in ‘Naught’, ‘Nein’, ‘never’, ‘nor’ and ‘no’ have been thus derived from the N sounding of the tongue blockage within the mouth of the exhale air. In contrast, in making the sound ma, the lip have to part with the tongue held within the mouth and low more than allowing the exhalation process in forming the sound. And the examples do continue wide and true, that each phonetic sound has the manner in which it is made that can be used to portray a meaning, and then these sounds are used to compose complex words that derive meaning from its constitute sounds. The Na sound likewise means only, given that only is a negation of all else to retain the one. Hence ‘only’ would also mean addition of ‘one’ more. Indeed, from the parent language, to the Indo-European languages, most words encompassing ‘N’ suggest negation or singularity, which is the negation of all else save one. The association of sounds with meanings thus transcends through all tongues and languages. Contrary to what conventional linguistics has derived, the first language was the perfect mode of communication and most of human speech has instead been undergoing decomposition rather than improvement. The same sound in these latter earth languages is ascribed diverse and often opposing meanings. In the perfect tongue however, the principle is consistent all throughout, that each phoneme maintains its meaning and contribution to the speech. There are no silent letters as we find in the latter tongues of earth, for then that which is not sounded requires not to be written. The ancient tongues of earth were the simple and perfect means of expression. Modern speech when compared to the ancient is inferior and actually qualifies to mere babblings.

During the age of the discovery of the new world, apparently by the Europeans, and then only new to them, they aspired to rename some of the places which they supposed to have discovered. As such they named the lands they came upon according to a strange new way of naming places, such as ascribing to the places the title of their Kings and queens whom they had left back at home, or to the leader of the expedition that purported to chance upon these new lands. The manner in which the Europeans renamed the lands they chanced upon was purely opportunistic and had absolutely no basis nor criteria in reason. It is in the same line that we presently name roads and streets after the honour of persons rather than descriptively.They even had the audacity of renaming their new locations according to their locations of origin. Such places as New York, or New Orleans, Lake Victoria just to cite a couple had no basis in science except for the whims of the explorers. The diverse locations named London is the USA indeed would confound one as to the location London. That was just at the birth of the agrarian and thereafter industrial revolutions which have been the parents of the current civilisation.

Several eons before this time, another global exploration had taken place. This was at the time when all the earth was one speech and one language. They too had discovered the lands and truly were the first explorers in that they encountered no native populations on those lands they discovered. It was their right therefore to name the lands and fortunately, unlike their latter counterparts eons latter, they had a basis of naming the land and its features, which is to say according to the attributes of the land. This was a generation of scientifically minded explorers whose goal was to name the land for posterity and thus would first evaluate the land for its quality and environmental function or properties and ascribe a name to the land according to these certain attributes. Our ancestors also were pioneer environmentalists and as such understood the earth and the dynamism of the hydrological cycle with the sun disc as its driving force. This essentially is what latter generations of humanity misconstrued into observing the sun as a deity and culminated into sun worship, where before the sun had only been scientifically evaluated and ascertained as the driving force of the life sustenance fluid of the planet, water.

To discover which common language was used to name all the earth is the initial step to accurately decipher history and to understand the nature that was so named. For not only the land was originally named in this language but also the animals and the other elements all around us. But animals in diverse tongues latter came to bear different names. Yet to a large extent, and averse to improper alliteration of names of diverse toponym upon the planet according to later records of the Europeans when they discovered these places and in the wonderful chance that they recorded from the natives the toponym, all around the earth the toponym bear specific meaning when dissected in specifically one language. But language likewise undergoes transformations and this ancient language of learning too certainly is affected. Fortunately, the principles behind this ancient language when applied revives the language to as close as possible what it was once when the earth was named in it.

The language in which the world was named is ancient Sanskrit. Sanskrit is said to mean the pleasant speech or also the perfectly formed. Indeed, Sanskrit refers essentially to ‘the way of creation’. Creation was all pleasant and perfect at its inception and thus the speech to describe and name it too had to be pleasant and perfectly formed.  As already encountered Sa refers to way, n would mean only, while kriti means creation or nature. Whereas scholars have sought the meaning of the language itself and have attributed it as to mean refined speech, the direct and true inference of Sans-Kriti is the way of Creation. Indeed, the actual word for creation is derived from the Sanskrit word kriti, which also means nature. The original use of ancient Sanskrit has in fact been found in the Vedas which are the ancient poems and songs collections extolling and personifying the attributes of nature. Sanskrit is the oldest language of scientific and liturgical instructions whose elements yet survive, and was prominently used in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Although the Sanskrit that is presently available is a denatured form of the original, it however still retains the basic principles by which the meaning of the original can be retrieved.

Gîkûyû language is similar in its structure and conventions to ancient Sanskrit, which would render it the same language, if not a relation. The name for nature in Gîkûyû for instance is kîrîti. Numerous other words are shared between the two languages as in the instance of Eni, which means a spring in both languages. The knowledge that Sanskrit is in Gîkûyû and other African languages remained elusive due to the disinterest in the study of African languages, the subsequence of the colonial mindset, which appraises the European language and culture at the expense of all else. As much as most Indo-European languages are known to be linked to Sanskrit, the same is extant of African languages, yet remains unrecognized. The colonial mindset trivializes the native African and his culture, suppossing them to be less in value that that of the colonial masters. The pity is that the Africans themselves have believed this and become assimilated to the European culture bothering little to enquire of their own origins and wealth culture. Just as in the wars of Asia and Europe, when one culture supplanted the subjects they defeated in war, obliterating their records and books lest these find common ground and aspiration in their culture to revolts, so has the African been subjected in neo-colonisation. Entire libraries were razed down, and the wisdom holders of the conquered were often targeted, this being apparent in the ransacking of temples and places of worship which held this portfolio. It was the same aspect of destroying all links to past knowledge when the new religions replaced the old, and the books of the old were sought out and burnt. Adherents of the old likewise were sought out and persecuted. This continued from the days of the Romans even to the era of colonialism. In colonizing the native races, the colonialists sought to transpose the culture of their subjects with their own. The greatest evil of war and of colonisation essentially is not the period in which the invaders occupy the land but rather the aft lingering eon in which the substitute culture lingers.

It was ingenious of humany’s ancient ancestors to safeguard the ways of natural wisdom from all envisaged forces of destruction, which is what they achieved by naming all the land features of the world in the perfect speech for all posterity. As long as humanity would abound in these diverse regions, they would keep remembrance of the names of the regions and identify with them. Invading armies and new cultures would not esteem the necessity to alter the names of places and would rather be content to subdue other parameters of the cultures they displaced. Thus has been to a large extent preserved the wisdom of the ancient world. The key to unravelling this wisdom is the perfect speech, that which is the speech of creation. And the other imperative factor indeed is to obtain the most accurate and ancient name of the regions and natural features of the world.

Anything can be proved by the judicious use of etymologies and the fortuitous resemblance of words from different languages. In fact, the function of probability of sounds combinations to form intelligible speech is not infinite given that the different sounds of speech that exist are themselves limited. Similarities of words therefore between languages does not necessarily point to their common origin but may as well have been the result of pure chance. Especially is this true when the actual words being compared are subjected to alterations and modifications so as to appear to sound similar to each other. This has resulted in numerous and oft dubious theories of etymologies being proposed and results in unscientific conclusions. In proposing any etymologies and theories subsequent to such studies, it would be imperative to maintain consistency and have a critical threshold of a certain number of words similarities. Most impassioned seekers in quest for accolades and recognition rather than accuracy however are content in drawing quick conclusions from comparing a few odd words in between languages; a careless and unscientific trend.

The use of Sanskrit albeit in its modern version has been conserved relatively in India. Sanskrit predates Hebrew and Latin that were in latter times used in similar capacity in the west, while Sanskrit maintained its niche in the east. The oldest histories of the planet are found in the ancient Vedic records of the east in Sanskrit. Likewise, the oldest unbroken records inscribed upon the landscape of the earth are deciphered in the context of this ancient language. As old as the hills is an adage that serves true. For the hills of the earth remain long in their particular locations age after age. They remain when empires rise and fall, and when cataclysms or peace abounds. If and when these hills remain attached to their original names, these then serve as the retainers of the speech in which they were anciently named. Rivers, seas lakes and plains in supplementing the landscape likewise were named in similar aspects and in the language of creation, the primordial and ancient Sanskrit.

Back to top

©2018 Ronata Rajabhu. All rights reserved. Blessings. Contact.