The organically built language and the root-system - Proto-Nostratic Language

The organically built language and the root-system

Varga Csaba, out of the book “A nyelvek anyját tudtam én”  (I new the mother of all languages)

The language of an “organic” culture (tightly organized by natures’ rules) needs to be built organically as well; as it mirrors the speaker’s worldview.

A) How can we call a spiritual product like a language “organic”?

1) A growth can only become organic, if it starts from a central kernel and every part of it is built by the same principle. Such growths are the trees as all the plants and animals, but our vascular system as well. Mathematicians call these features “fractals”. It means that from every newly built unit of the kernel new outgrowths are built by the same principle. (See more details about this in my book “The English Language from Hungarian view”)

2) This is natures’ only possible method (fractal) to create organically built features. Only a construction made this way makes it possible that every dot of it is connected to every other dot of this creation. Therefore any torn off part dies. Consequently a language built by an organic culture has followed natures’ deepest essence. Cultures and languages, not following natures’ path of creation, are necessarily becoming injured, sick or acting strait against nature.

3) Every part of an organic creature is organically built like the vascular system of our body and it is a perfect fractal by itself. The language built by an organic culture can be very similarly viewed as the vascular system in our body.

B) What is the compact core?

This core, the kernel of the organic language (like the seed of a tree) is the collection of a few basic roots, which complement each other to become the whole kernel. These roots were “grown”, expanded by agglutination. More and more roots or words were added to them and the language got its wide extending branches. A steady renewal without hurting the organic system became possible by this construction. This assures the capability of self-improvement. An organic vocabulary eliminates the mistakes, if it was not able to correct them. It may even rebuild torn off parts.

C) How does this kind of word creation work?

A word always starts with the root expressing the deepest sense of that what should be named. All what we hang onto this root is just gradually giving a hint of what we wish to determine inside the meaning-area of this basic root. The real meaning of every word is therefore exclusively the essence of its root.

To prove this take as example the root kör = ker <kœr = kεr> (circle).

Every word starts exclusively with this root to name something in connection with the circular form independent from its topic. The following examples demonstrate that the parts put onto the root are not widening its meaning; they rather narrow down its broad sense to a required specified area of the kör:

körte <kœrtε> (pear)
kerek <kεrεk> (round)
körlet <kœrlεt> (district)
kerít <kεriitesh> (fence)
körzet <kœrzεt> (area)
körözött <kœrœzœtt> (wanted)
környék <kœrnjek> (vicinity)

körbe <kœrbε> (circle round)
kerék <kεrek> (wheel)
keret <kεrεt> (frame)
kerekít <kεrεkiit> (make round)
köröz <kœrœz> (hovers)
körlet <kœrlεt> (province)
körös-körül <kœrœsh-kœruel> (round about). Etc.

To demonstrate the definite importance of the roots, let us take off the added suffixes of a couple of words. Their deep sense won’t change by this procedure, just getting broader and broader.

An intelligent word remains after every step by taking off the suffixes:

körülötte <kœruelœttε> (around him)
körülötte <kœruelœtt> (around)
körülötte <kœruel> (about)
kör ülötte <kœr> (circle)
or: környezetében <kœrnjεzεtebεn> (in his vicinity)
környezete ben <kœrnjεzεtε> (his vicinity)
környezet ében <kœrnjεzεt> (surrounding area)
környez etében <kœrnjεz> (surrounds)
körny ezetében <kœrnj> (periphery)
kör nyezetében <kœr> (circle)

However, the word becomes meaningless by cutting off the root. For example keríthetetlen <kεriithεtεtlεn> (unfenceable) without the root keríthetetlen is senseless. We can’t put it in the right place of the vocabulary. Otherwise, it will become a word with a sense again by putting different roots before “Íthetetlen”. The newly given root will determine a new sense:

meríthetetlen <mεriithεtεtlεn> (not immerse-able)
vetíthetetlen <vεtiithεtεtlεn> (not project-able)
téríthetetlen <teriithεtεtlεn> (not divert-able)
sűríthetetlen <shueriithεtεtlεn> (not condense-able)
lapíthatatlan <lapiithatatlan> (not flatten-able)
kábíthatatlan <kaabiithatatlan> (not daze-able)

As demonstrated above, the word-roots are the pillars of the language. They carry the sense and the rest is acting like the rudder of a ship, which navigates it into the right haven.

D) The most basic root-words (root morphemes)

The word-root kör (example above) is already an extended, agglutinated, word like sá r <shaar> (mud), vá r <vaar> (castle), bo r (wine). Therefore, the basic root of kör is , is built from ko (kou) and its dialectical variation pronounced softly became even goguga.

Similarly to kör, the words

l á t <laat> (sees),
f u t <foot> (runs)
v i sz <vis> (carries)
ra k (puts onto, stacks)

                               are agglutinated, extended roots (in this cases verbs) as well. The added suffixes here signalize the single third person in present. It’s easy to recognize these roots, when used in other connections: “ott van la” =  sd, ott van <laashd, ott van> (see, there it is),

 tó <laató> (who sees, seer)
 tás <laataash> (sight)
 tható <laatható> (visible)
 tszik <laatsik> (it’s visible)          and so fort

fu means sweeps, rushes forward, advancing fast.
                                      / as a verb is built like sü t <shuet> (bakes),
                                                                       kö t <kœt> (binds),
                                                                       ve t <vεt> (sows) /
                                                                       fu t <foot> (he/she runs)
and figuratively, the tool you run with, is named “foot” in English.

The root vi or ví (vo, ve, va) means a movement, which forces something else to move:

visz <vis> (carries)
z <viiz> (water) is carrying everything in it
vezet <vεzεt> (guides)
zvezeték <viizvεzεtek> (a pipe carrying water)
vitel <vitεl> (carriage)
v <viiv> (fences, fights)
vő <viivœœ> (carrier)
vonz (attracts)
viselet <vishεlεt> (wearing)
vet <vεt> (sows)
vedlik <vεdlik> (sheds)
vesz <vεs> (buys)
vesződik <vεsœdik> (struggels)

visel <vishεl> (wears)

vezér <vεzer> (leader)

vitorla (sail) it is pulling the boot
vó <viivó> (fencing man)
vontat (tows)
vonszol <vonsol> (hi or it drags)
viszony <visonj> (relation)
bevet <bεvεt> (sows, throws in)
vetkőzik <vεtkœzik> (undresses)
felvesz <fεlvεs> (picks up)
vetekedik <vεtεkεdik> (competes)

The meaning of ra in rak is onto, like ház-ra (onto the house). The verb rak is built like lök <lœk> (pushes), bök <bœk> (pricks), csuk <chuk> (closes)

Roots like these – containing one consonant and a vowel – are called the basic roots (root morpheme). All basic-roots together build the kernel. The whole vocabulary with ramifying branches was “grown” out off this.

It should be emphasized that this is not a theory. The Hungarian language is built that way.

E) About the wholeness of the kernel made out of the basic roots and the number of these roots.

The core built from the basic roots is essentially a whole and closed system. Everything whatever could be needed must be in it. It couldn’t function, even if just one basic root missing.

1) Creating words with basic roots would not function if these roots could be mixed up easily.

2) The number of these basic roots must be very small, only then is the choice of the necessary root become easy. Otherwise the system wouldn’t work well. As an example in the music: man divided the space of frequencies between a certain frequency and its double by twelve (see the keyboard of the piano). One could divide it by 100, but then we were not able to differentiate the sounds and music had no sense for us. (We could call it the musical laws of nature.) Decisive factors, which we are not able to see and depend on in one second, are practically not existent to us.
What is really a primeval, a primordial root?

F) The system of the primordial roots is part of our mind.

The root, once audibly expressed, as any other word, is just a sound or a sign. Compared to the sirens of an alarm-system, nobody would seriously think, that by examining the siren’s sound, they would find out the alarm’s trigger. The sound is not identical with the meaning. The essence of a word, of the speech is in our mind. The word is just the coded expression of what is in our mind.

Therefore, we have to look for all secrets of the primordial basic roots in our mind, or more precisely in the connection between our mind and the external world.

G) The basic root and the external world.

The balanced motionless condition looks neutral for every living creature. First the breakage of this condition will be registered by a bird, a roebuck or by any other living being. After this the reason for the breakage has to be examined and decided about, if the change is good or bad. Further examination of the details has to follow. We may perceive this procedure with the help of the following example:

The light in itself (in motionless condition) is transparent, not visible. Put a prism in its way and it will revive immediately. The prism separates its components, thus we are able to recognize and evaluate them. We must have an “etalon” of all colors in our mind, in case not all components are presented for making a decision. For example, if only the green color is present, we don’t need to see the whole spectrum in order to recognize the green. (Certainly, some people are able to differentiate colors or sounds better than others.)

The mind functions the same way. It switches on the “prism” immediately, when something breaks the balance of the outer world. (The sleeping dog’s ear startles due to a scarcely audible sound.) It unfolds the incoming fused message by the primordial etalon and directs the interest to the shrillest change. Staying with the example of light, it can only this way determine immediately , which color’s balance – red, green or yellow etc. – was most disrupted. Our mind deals first and mainly with the most disturbing message. This is why we can handle just one thing really well at a time, and why so many accidents happen.

The simple form-recognition functions the same way. In this case the primordial pattern contains the sum of all three-, four-angle and circular forms. (For example: two circles beside each other will be identified as eyes. Lines breaking angularly signalize jeopardy, but curving ones cause pleasant feeling. It is interesting that a repeatedly broken line makes a masculine and a softly curved line a feminine impression.)

It is evident that these forms are “stationary pictures”, sharply seen pictures. Contrary to this, it has to be emphasized that a particular change is a procedure happening in time. The recognition of form seems to be connected to the part of the picture sharply seen, but this is only a little part of the picture seen. However, the recognition of a change happens outside of the sharply seen area. We see changes best at the periphery of our field of sight but over there we can’t recognize forms in exact matters. As well, the changes are perceived bluntly even at the most sharply seen areas.

The mind differentiates and identifies the perceived but diffusely incoming information with the help of its “prism” by the primordial patterns. In conclusion of the above matters, these patterns have to be distinctly different. But being different is not enough. Any possible change of the outer-world must be able to connect to one of the patterns. The possibility of a sharp judgment would cease otherwise. (A mistake could happen any time: connecting to a wrong pattern causes panic.)

The primordial patterns must be very distinct prototypes of movements because they deal with changes. The only exception is the one dealing with sounds. (Touching may have specific patterns; as yet I couldn’t find any of them, which did not derive from the patterns seen through the eyes).

H) The primordial pattern and the word.

The primordial patterns are therefore a constant measure-assortment inside of our mind. It is there even if we don’t speak. A language won’t stop to exist, if all speakers are sleeping. The basic roots, as words, are nothing else than the names of these primordial patterns.

One should not forget that it is only necessary to name these patterns, because words make speech possible. There is no speech necessary for the worldview guided by the basic patterns. The point is that we observe the world and do our orientation without speech as we demonstrated previously.

Therefore, the root is only a name of the primordial pattern, a naming as well as the numeral is not the number and C, Cis, D, Dis are not the sounds themselves, only the names of them.

In the followings there are some names of possible changes, which are capable to disturb the balanced state-of-rest of the universe, as our mind separated and evaluated them. These are basically different and a mixing up is impossible. In the examples shown only a few dialectical variations are presented..

something breaks the silence: rolo [roppan (cracks), lotyog <lotjog> (gurgles)]
something spreads away: toszo [tova (forth, away), szét <set> (asunder)]
something not moving straight: kogo [kovályog (strolls), rbe <gœrbε> (curved)]
something is raised, being above something: ho [ (snow)]
the position of something is changing: mo [mozog (moving), motor, etc]
something bent, curving: bofo [lint (nods), ja (buoy), fodor (flounce)]
vivo [z (water), von (pulls), vet <wεt> (sows)] is a movement making something else to move.

Certainly not all the basic roots are presented above. The row is noticeably incomplete. The research on this topic will probably never be complete. But there can’t be a great number of these basic roots. Their number is very limited. I have identified more of the word clusters, but they seem to be the derivatives of basic roots, which I couldn’t certainly identify yet. It is possible that the presented roots carry some additional meaning, which I didn’t connect to them.

Furthermore, it is not easy to describe a basic root (root morpheme) with the words of other roots. Describing the meaning of them is only a paraphrase, a circumscription. Using an animated film could demonstrate the sense of a basic root much better. This method (using pictures) has been successful in the book “HAR” of mine in 2003.

We may assert correctly that the words built from the basic roots above represent around 2/3 of the Hungarian vocabulary with far over one million words.
This is one more reason to talk about the limited number of these roots. It is well possible that a variation of a basic root became a separate entity with somewhat tainted meaning and developed a separate branch of word clusters. The basic roots represent patterns of movements; therefore the research of them is not easy after a certain point.

Thus, this would mean that we might never reach an absolute completeness with this research. But that can be expected everywhere.

new tool is very helpful in etymology: the picture expressed by the basic root. The roots are only the names of these primordial pictures. The picture shows always the original intention of a word-creation. The picture is helpful, because by comparing two roots there can’t be any doubt about their identity, if those basic pictures are identical. For example kaptár (<kaptaar> (beehive) and kapisgál <kapishgaal> (begins to grasp) are built from the same root, because both are expressing “catching” bees or thoughts like the capitalist catches the money. Its picture can best explain the sense of a root.

To compare two randomly chosen roots by their sounding is occasionally an uncertain method. It is like a chair with two legs. With the picture we got a third important fact therefore, a “third leg” to the chair, which makes it stable. For a demonstration let us see an example. To reach our goal, we have to start with the ancient pronunciation.

The root of szablya <sabya> (sabre) is szásza <saa, sa> means separation and in the old dialect with two vocals szau. The u became very often v, finaly b, as in this case: from szau became szav >> szab. Szablya was originally szaula, meaning “separate”. [From this root derived száj <saay> (mouth), because it separates by opening or szabó <sabó> (taylor)].
                                                 Szaula >> szavla >> szabla >> szablya.
                         In the variation of other dialects the u of szaula have been lost
                                                                                 [like köü >>kő (stone)]
and                                             szala >> szelő <sεlœ> (a thing, which separates)

                                                  Szau > szav > szab + l szabla > szablya
                                                  Szau > sze + l szel > sze

Both variations are now used in our vocabulary. In the second part, we will see more successful results by using this method for etymological examinations.

I) Summary and conclusion

It has to be emphasized that nothing is named directly with a basic root or a word. The words only express the mode of disturbance of a neutral state. Therefore, to name material things can’t happen in this spiritual world. A man of an organic culture won’t take anything out of the world; he won’t separate or cut the whole into pieces, not even with words. Nothing can be independent from the whole of the universe. People thinking this way are watching everything from the whole and call the disruption of the wholeness “unnatural” and sometimes they call it even a sin.

A man thinking through this “organic” worldview sees the universe as a Wholeness, as One, as God self. God is the number Egy <εdj> the One, the Jó – Jav (good, God), the [Eli – Eleve (First)], (Eli >> Ila >> Alah), the Ős <œsh> (ancestor) >> Is-ten = Almighty Ancestor, who was not born (these were the names of the “One God” for at least 20 thousand years in our language. These names are still in use and even the Israelis and Arabs inherited these God-names used In Canaan (It was then the dominating language of Egypt and Asia-minor). Therefore, ONE equals with everything. The deep sense of this philosophy is best expressed in the ancient script of the “Tabula Smaragdina” by Hermes Trismegistos: “I see everything in myself and myself in everything. I’m in the sea and the sea is in me, I’m in the trees and the trees are in me.” Therefore everything is One, there is no extra tree, no extra sea and no extra me. Clear metaphysic like this dominates our vocabulary.

The same thinking dominates the whole of the primordial roots, the spirit of the Hungarian language and even the world of numerals.(See more about this in the book of mine: “A kőkor élő nyelve” (The Living Language of the Stone-Age) 2003.

There we got a problem. We have to find an explanation for this deep spirituality of the Hungarian language, which must have been in it for manythousands of years. This could not occur by itself and not just randomly.

I repeat, what I have told earlier in my previous books: some intelligent people very long time ago (certainly many ten or hundred-thousands years ago) got to the same conclusion as Czuczor Gergely, Fogarasi János in 1830 and myself following their thoughts that the vocabulary and the speech as well as mathematics is based on primordial patterns. Our early ancestors, well armed with intelligence and knowledge, restarted building their language based on nature. Their goal was to get close to the deep sense of the universe as we can see from the final results. They formed the speech based on natures’ rules to a language of science and certainly not by chance, they kept the organic structure of it carefully intact. This is the only explanation, how this language itself could become the mirror of nature.

Zoltán Sütő wrote about this topic: “The Hungarian language is for me a prehistoric language created artificially to express the metaphysical knowledge of the ancient culture of our ancestors. My viewpoint will be well supported by the results of the mathematically clear research of signs and language by Varga Csaba. The knowledge and use of the Hungarian language and culture is certainly the best tool to represent the paradigm of thought of the ancient tradition

I know, it is astonishing, what I have written above. I hope, it will be accepted sometimes. Let me quote (immodestly) Schopenhauer:

“Every difficult question goes through three stages until its acceptance: At first man laughs about, later they fight against and at last man finds it obvious”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *