What does this book declare and proof?
1. One folk, around 45 thousand years ago, inhabited Europe/Eurasia in its full length and breadth. They left many marks behind, even from the oldest time, like writings, numerals and beautiful paintings (several of them with text written on them)1 Scientists put the appearance of this folk in Europe for the time before 45.000 BC.
2. Around 30.000 years later, 6-8.000 BC, a new folks group appeared in Europe. These “later” coming settlers – to day being called Indo-Europeans – settled in smaller or larger groups, over or besides the original population. Necessarily, they took over a lot from the then homogeneous language and certainly culture of Europe as well.
It follows from this, that at least part of the “Indo-European”-named language-group’s common layer was taken from the same “proto-language.” The Latin and the Old-Greek as well were nourished by this old language. The Indo-Europeans received the common Sanskrit layer also from that old “Lingua franca” of Europe and not trough a direct, organic contact. I think, the wide spread acceptance that much of this old language made it look like, there is an “Indo-European language group”.
3. After all, it can’t be a surprise that the widely used old language of Europe remained not only in quite numerous IE takeovers, but survived although in almost original form until today.
We may call Europe’s 45.000 years old language the “proto-nostratic” language today Hungarian.2
I state and prove in this book that the European “proto-nostratic language”, called today Hungarian, is an artificial language and it was accomplished before 45.000 years.
Further, I state regarding its invention that those people did not invent a vocabulary to fill a whole dictionary – evidently, you can’t invent 30-50.000 words at once (not speaking from one million) with all the rules of the grammar – but they defined first 40 or rather less basic word-roots.
We don’t know, how they communicated before this, but they created this artificial “language” with its possible future writing. Therefore, this was not an accidentally gathering of words (I guess, no language is that in the beginnings), but a very deeply considered rational system was put in function on that day at least 45 thousands years ago.
Man invented the writing-signs and basic words in a way that they ordered to every defined writing-sign one signal-word (basic word-root). This way, the system could not be borderless, incalculable. Only as many words and signs were born as needed and were enough. Based on the VIth axiom, “Everything was developed out of the simplest condition.” We must consider that only a few words and signs could have been the starting base and not an uncountable, unmanageable number of them.
Following this idea, the writing-signs’ connecting-potential decided about the possible expansion of this language built on few words. The most characteristic attribute of our language, building words on basic roots, started from here. It is a method forced on by the necessity to be able to write it. The joint effort of some basic word-roots and the method of their use is the essence our whole language.
The so called “ligature” – pictorially assembling of writing-signs – has been found even on the oldest findings many times. We may even think that the old sign-collections were formed purposely using lines being able to build ligatures.3
I repeat it: “ligatures” existed already4 45.000 years ago. (See in my book: Signs Letters Alphabets, on pages 113-122).
Lead by growing experience, I think, the number of the basic word-roots has rather the size 20 than 30. This indecision in numbers comes from that I divide things being proved from those been only assumed. The 40 as largest word’s number can be proved easily and I will present it in the chapter: The number of word-roots. After all, it’s not understandable that jet nobody recognized this hidden secret of our language. He should have only counted.
If the right number is 20, 30 or even 40, is in the phase of investigation not important and proves the theory of dealing with an artificial language. Even the number 80 or 160 would do the same, but be unmanageable large and this would speak against the principle of simplicity. (see axiom number VI), however too small for being the vocabulary of a different language useful for speak.
I could explore part of the proto language’s vocabulary and I am going to present later in the book some of the most characteristic basic roots in wide connection. This will also proof for you that our language couldn’t have been built from more than 20 basic roots (words).
Now, we look more precisely for the principle, the need and goal of this shortness and usefulness of a language.
What could have been the goal by creating this language?
This language has been created in early time most probably as the language of science.5
And we recognized step by step that the words ordered to the writing signs are the shortest possible axioms. But more important, every basic word (root) represents a directly provable KÉP (picture, spectacle).6
Therefore, these basic words (word-roots) contain truths, of which’s real image can not be denied.
HAR, AR is everything definitely protruding, like mountains, smell, sound, body-part or gushes out like spring-water.
MOR (<mál-vál) is everything falling apart, disintegrates, is a part, separates from something. It could be raspberry, answer or even a child.
RO is the insult, injury of every undamaged condition.
NE is every creation, size-increase, nevelés <neveleesh> (nourishment, education).
GUR, KÖR is everything looking curved, bent or moving not strait. And so forth.
It is easy to accept that these basic word-roots act like axioms. (See further explanation later in the chapter The deepest secret of the word-roots.)
A language built on axioms – namely on abstract pictographic and change-expressing axioms – can only express the truth, even the most abstract parts of it. Therefore, it was built to explore and express on it the essence of the World, to explore, present and maintain the truth.
Thus, we can’t say it better at the first step that our language was built to serve the science.
All in all, I state that:
- The language, named Hungarian today, has been artificially built.
- It was built around 45 thousand years ago.
- It was built on less then 40 words (roots) (See chapter The deepest secret of the word-roots.)
- This has been the “proto-nostratic” language of Europe around 45 thousand years ago and in it, like in a crib, were the so called Indo-European languages (Old-Greek and Latin as well) born, nourished and developed to culture-languages.
- The language, called Hungarian today, keeps almost perfectly its origin and investigating it properly you may arrive to the beginnings.
Creating new languages is still a custom in Asia and it was certainly more often in old times. We can say that once our early ancestors did a very good job: their creation survived 45.000 years and people in the Carpathian Basin are still speaking it.
The Hungarian sign and conceptual system of numbers proves as well the tight connection to the Stone-Age’s language and spiritual world. The expression of the vital importance of numbers is the same as 17.000 years ago and before that. Száműzött <samuezoett> (person with banished number), számkivetett (person with thrown out number), számomra <saamomra> (fore my number – for me), nem számítok (I won’t be counted) and so forth.
Our number-names can be lead back at least before 10.000 years, and prove the fact of being built artificially for science. They express the system of number-writing.
This kind of number-writing, named by me “pont-pont vesszőcske” <vessoechke> (dot-dot rod) was still in use at the beginning of XXth century in Transylvanien (now belongs to Rumania).7 People in old Egypt used the same number names and writing system and changed as well around 10.000 years ago to the decimal system introducing the number ten.8
Thus, Hungarians preserved the original number-writing until 100 years ago and we can take it granted that the change to decimal system happened in the Scythian speaking culture and spread to Egypt. Old Egyptian mathematical text exercises were written in old-Hungarian-Scythian language close to 4.000 years ago and ccan only be read directly (not translated) and solved in Hungarian. See J.Borbola’s readings.
Think of the “Tamana” phenomenon: Over seven thousand ‘Hungarian’ local-names found around the world all over, which also are present as local or family-names in the Carpathian basin.
We may assume that 10.000 years ago several different cultures were living in Eurasia and they spoke different dialects of our (Scythian) language, but could largely understand each other.
Not just the ancient numeral-writing and number-names remained. The 45 thousand years old sign-collection remained as well with minimal change: the Scythian-Hun-Hungarian writing, called rovás. It has been continuously used and still taught in some schools in Hungary. A part of this sign-collection is widely known as the large letters of the Latin alphabet, it was used by the Sumerian people before they changed to cuneiform writing and this was the base on which the Chinese people started their common writing, ordered by an emperor of Hun descent. (try to write Chinese words or expression using a ballpoint-pen called also Biro instead of a brush and you will recognize the ligatures).
The large spiritual trinity remained together intact in the Carpathian Basin.
writing, numbers, language
We told it previously and repeat again: our language had been built most probably for science. Now read the opinion of Ove Berglund, Swedish physician and translator about it:
“Today, since I learned the language’s structure, my opinion is that the Hungarian language is the peak product of human logic”9
This intense statement may only be refined in that way: the intelligence, hidden in it, is not a separable, alienable “product” of thinking but it is the true mirroring of well working logical thinking. It is the visible rationality.
Of course, looking at its origin – as an invented language – is really an offspring of logic, since it is the computation of a previously huge knowledge. But a huge knowledge can only be built by using a multifold language and if it was already there, why did man need a new one? I don’t have an answer for this question.
However, this looks as the problem of: “which was first, the egg or the hen?” The wrong in this question is that we let act the hen and the egg at the same time. Waiting 3-4 weeks, we recognize that only their form differs. I think this is the answer in the case of language as well and this will emerge further awkward questions. But this “side effect” won’t lessen the worth of any already proved solving.