A science built on uncertainty or the part and the whole
It does not need much proof to see that to how much extent we work on the accuracy of the parts, that extent we are going to loose the overview about the deep coherence of the whole. But, how much attention we spend to the whole that less we are going to see the parts, but we will more and more recognize the large coherences, inter-connections.
Further, if we come to near or go to far from something, we will see nothing. This is true for everything, for the investigation of word’s history as well; our recognition has a lowest and highest limit. It means, man can’t explore and learn every part neither can the recognition of interconnections become complete.
To make matters worse, we also can’t work without mistakes, because the past, even that of the words as well, can’t be learned in all details. This is true in general. We may have luck in case of few words (known artificial words or abbreviations …) Following this, even finding close approximations, we won’t find every details of history. We cheat ourselves if we think, continuing the investigation tomorrow and after tomorrow until all the partial-questions will be answered. Answering most/some of the questions we stop investigation for running out of patience, time or money. Some important but not answered questions will be swiped under the carpet but later we do as ob no carpet and broom would be there.
But, because we don’t openly admit that there is a wall limiting the total recognition, we don’t even try to look through the wall.
After all, how could we get further, how could we learn about the unknown over the wall also?
Only, if we stop accepting the till used self-deceptive world-view of the linguistics and accept the uncertainty as a rule, as one of the rules. In a way, that we degrade the till most important reference, the warranty of the parts to the second place and put on the first place the assurance of the large interrelations. We will see that even due to this change will the world deeper open for us, because we fall into line with it and the investigation will nearly take wings.
This kind of world-view moved into the physics and opened in reality doors to new worlds over 100 years ago. It received its name by its developer: “the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg”
First we have to accept that the reason for the uncertainty and limitation of our knowledge is over a certain level not our limitation (it may happen occasionally). See for this a quotation from Erwin Schrödinger:
“/…/ the ‘uncertainty principle’ has nothing to do with the imper-fection of our knowledge. Compared to earlier conceptions, it limits the extent of obtainable observations about particles (in our case, about words, V. Cs.). We have to draw from this the conclusion that our ideas were false and we have to give them up. We should not think that a – by us required – more complete description of the real happenings is imaginable in the material world, just is in reality beyond once reach. This would mean that we still hold on to the old conceptions” Erwin Schrödinger: “Selected studies”
It is evident, he speaks here about particles, but particles and words are equally parts of our world, therefore, there is something identical in their function and cognition. What in physic the particle is in our case the fixed word, what in physic the wave-quality is in our case the word’s life, it’s history in case-time continuum. I repeat, the world of physics and the words is not identical, but their function in the above presented form, as a model, should be acceptable. See an example in physics, how it works:
We know the half-life, which means that during a certain time half of the amount of a radioactive material will disintegrate: it becomes an other material. Taking an other piece, after the same time, half of this will dis-integrate as well. But what happens if we examine carefully its tiny particles one by one?
We will be very surprised. If we take one atom of a radioactive material, we don’t see, not even a hint for the disintegration-time of the whole group, because, it is possible that it disintegrates few seconds later, but this could happen just then thousand years later as well. It does not matter, which little particle we investigate, the disintegrations happen always randomly.
However, the changes al together will give always an exact order; the complex of randomly disintegrations of the same material has always the same value.
Therefore, if we say that the acceptable truth is only the common attribute of the separately and thoroughly investigated particles and we accept this as a common attribute, then we stand not for the accuracy, but we rather prevent the success of the more overall and larger scaled truth. (Like, the disintegration looking at the tiny single particles is randomly, but this is not trough in their entirety.)
And the same gilt about the investigation of the history of words. Imagine, we build a statement about a group of words. But taking the words one by one, the identity can be made uncertain, because who could know it exactly? And the linguistics works hard even today this way against the overall evidences – probably with clear confidence – because those are not in the words one by one. The scientists think if in the small parts – investigated by qualified knowledge – could not be find the kind of common attribute brought up by somebody speaking about the whole, then, he – believing only in the certitude of the parts – will not accept this observation. Namely, the linguistics did not yet take over the basically new worldview of the physicists, it suffers an over one hundred years of lateness.
Let me demonstrate the different worlds of the parts and the whole with help of the English vocabulary.
We keep some common English-Hungarian words in evidence which will often be mentioned: ‘paprika’, ‘csardas’, ‘goulash’, ‘hussar’, ‘sabre’ . Is that all? Really?
Reading the dictionary many other words became suspicious. We may be unsure looking one by one at the words, even the letters are often different in the adequate words, for instance: ‘leak’ = ‘lék’, ‘bidon’ = ‘bödön’, ‘field’ = ‘föld’, ‘gob’ = ‘göb’.
Words like these will be most called as possible ‘randomly’ identities1 by most linguists, based on their antiquated theory. In this, unfortunately plays also roll of the grouping by important/not important, desirable or not wanted and the people’s or science’s interest. However, man finds often a not existent needle in a haystack. This way, it can an immeasurable disproportion and partiality – even unintended – develop and finally be built up a false worldview.
It means, the overall deeper truth disappears.
I bring some words below and ask you to look at them without stop-ping before the end of the presentation and think about I wrote on the previous pages. Furthermore, bring in first line examples, not needed much explanations, not even as much as: languid = lankad, lanky = langaléta (the word long is also in it), sparks = sziporkázik =szikrázik, sweeper = seprő, bark = bárka, barber = borbély, balance = mérleg (billencs), puff, puffed = puffad, puffasztott. We just have to read and listen to the pronunciation:
| English: | Hungarian: |
| anger | inger, ingerültség, harag düh |
| babe | baba, (bab, báb, bábú, búb, bibe) |
| bag | bog = g>gy: bugyor, bögy |
| bale | baj, csapás, bal l>j baj |
| baleful | baljós |
| bat | bot, ütő |
| buck | bak, (kecskebak = he-goat, őzbak=roebuck |
| bug | bogár |
| chirp | csiripelés |
| chunk | csonk, fatönk t>cs: csonk, tuskó |
| eat | enni, étek, étel, étvágy: appetite) |
| field | föld |
| fig | füge |
| fine | finom |
| fresh | friss <frish> |
| harsh | hars <harsh> (-ány, -ogó, -an, -ona) (loud, thunderous, blare, trumpet) |
| house | ház |
| heap | halom, hupa-hepe, huppanó |
| high | magas like hágó, felhág (mountain-pass, step up) |
| lance | lándzsa |
| lapel | lapolás, hajtóka |
| lock | lakat |
| loch | lyuk |
| leak | lék, szivárog |
| lack | hiány therefore a loch |
| lazy | rest: lézengő, lusta, z>zs-vel: lazsáló |
| loose | laza |
| lava | láva, leves |
| laver | lavor |
| lush | lés, leves, beszívott (=drunk) |
| low | lenti, alacsony |
| mere | merő, csupa |
| merely | merően, merőben |
| morsel | morzsa |
| neck | nyak |
| pair | pár |
| par | egyenlőség, pár > párhuzam |
| pap | pép |
| petty | pöttöm, pötty (spot) |
| piece | pici |
| point | pont |
| reek | rakás, halom |
| riot | riadalom, lárma |
| rip | repedés, hasitás |
| sack | szák, zsák, zacskó |
| wanly | ványadtan, sápadtan, v>f : fonnyadt |
| waste | puszta, p>v: veszt, elvesztett |
| wandering | vándorlás, kószálás |
| zigzag | cikcakk, cikázik, cakkos |
Looking at from far, the combined image presents an exact regularity; this word group is part of the Hungarian vocabulary as well, and this we can recognize even without any linguistic education. Of course, we can say about any of the word-pairs that their identity has not been proven to 100%. But who would swear that exactly this or that one can’t be an error?
However, just this kind of duality can be anticipated, this is the nature of the world. Accepting this however, some uncertainty of results -handling the particles one by one – can’t be the disproval of the unified coherence, unfolding from the whole.
This is true in the reverse direction as well; coherence effective on the whole won’t verify the perfection of each entity.
Anyway, what should we do, if we understand the ‘English’ sentences built the ‘Hungarian’ way: ‘petty house’ = ‘piti ház’, ‘pair (of) fine fig(s)’ = ‘pár finom füge’, ‘(it is) lazy wander(er) = ‘laza vándor’, (it is) ‘mere(ly) a heap of calamity’ = ‘merő kellemetlen hupa’ (calamity = kellemetlen, kalamajka). Some change of spelling, pronunciation and the building of sentence happened.
A debate of the two worldviews, part and whole, is therefore absolutely meaningless.
An important lesson we learned from above: the overall picture won’t degrade, if there are unsuitable words as well in a word-group. The certitude of the comprehensive view is quite large. Man can make a satisfying statement about the whole even with 50% failure of the words, if the one part of the group is unified and the other disordered. The worth of the statement lessens above 70% of the failures. This is like specialists say about advertising: “half of the money spent on advertising is for ‘down the drain’, but nobody knows which half”. But it is worth spending on it.
Further, the parts can be ordered in groups, like word-clusters which again build a whole and we are able to make ‘general statements’ about these groups.
Only few people can look into the high specialized microscopes of the physicists, but the images (pictures) presented by our words are by everybody every times to be recognized. Thus, Hungarians can’t loos in this “game”, because we can overview and evaluate the statements and theories of persons roaming in the labyrinths of pronunciations, alphabets and spelling. Those may become controllable and even correctable.
It does not have to be proved. A person able to see has always an advantage over people not able to. The proving power of spectacle is invincible. I will demonstrate for you its use by identifying Hungarian words in chapter 14. Here, I show you tit-bit of it: the base of the method. It presented itself, after the differentiation of part and the whole that the English and Hungarian vocabulary do have since the far past a largely spreading common layer.
We have chosen for this procedure the word ‘tomb’.
The image, picture makes the observation unshakable that the whole of this word cluster belongs together and trough this we proved that the parts (the words) descended from a common root (same basic root). Even then, we didn’t discuss the relation of tomp and döng separately. But if we continue here, we run into the world of tomp’ and ‘domb’ and further:
domb > d – c modification: comb (thigh, shank),
d>t : tomb = tömb (block, chunk),
a b>t change: tompor (buttok, trochanter)
only with ‘t’ , the clear root : töm, tum, tam.
See: ‘tampon’ =
‘tumid’ = tömött, puffadt
‘tumular’ = t>d: domb-formed
‘tumidity’ =daganat like a tömb
‘tumor’ = tömör
A military unit ‘tumen’ (1000 man)
tömetnyi (a pipeful of tobacco)
tömöszöl, gyömöszöl (stuff)
töm (cork in Hun), we close a hole, but we töm also dead
people into a hole eltemetjük (entomb), they are tömedék as well.
From tömet > temet, temető (temet, t>c change = cemet, cemetery)
Therefore, the meanings of the English tomb: place for cemetery, crypt and dead is right.
A ‘temple’ is a holy ‘domb’ in reality two words: ‘temp’ and ‘lom’.
Lom is an artificialheap + temp = t>d, p>b,
together templom= temple.
It was not a building in the beginning. We can extend our sentence: ‘the petty house on tomb is a temple = a piti ház a dom-on az egy templom.
This kind of thinking is definitely new in etymology, but is known in other scientific branches and well used. We can’t speak about a totally new finding, a recent invention of newest time. There is nothing new in it, only an obeisance before an ancient axiom: ‘sok lúd disznót győz’ (many geese win against a pig).
Let’s go for it, it gives power and prospering.
Note: The Hungarian layer of English vocabulary can be investigated by some other ways as well. One method is to put the basic images of adequate word-clusters parallel to each other.
For inst.: peak = everything peaky csúcs, orom
peck = csípés v.inst.: by a beak, (bökés)
peg = pöcök, ék, anything which bök
pike = dárda, lándzsa, basically bök <bɶk> (prick)
picket = hegyes karó (picky stale)
poke = bökés
These are all one word with different pronunciations and a shade of different meaning. We can’t argue about that these English words are identical with the Hungarian bök, bökő, bököd, bökés, bika, pöcök és pöcköl words, just it happened a b >p sound change in English.
1 See about randomly word-identies in Chapter 4 previously.
