|
 72Languages.com The Original Language The Original Language Introduction to the Original Language Early Alphabet Equivalencies Original Language Numbers Dictionary of the Original Language Gathering the Pieces of the Original Language Assyrian, Akkadian, and Sumerian Cuneiform Hebrew Linear B Etruscan Hindustani Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic Early Egyptian Language Egyptian Hieroglyphic Hieratic Hieratic Roots of Arabic Coptic The Pyramids The Four Sons of Horus The Hall of Judgment Joseph Smith's Contributions to Egyptology Ancient American Archaeology and Linguistics Los Lunas Decalogue Jaredites: The First Americans The Jaredites were Black The Kinderhook Plates North America’s Lost Archaeology Ancient Scripture Hebrew Ten Commandments Phoenician Ten Commandments Greek Beatitudes A New Translation of Isaiah Commentary Honesty in Translations The Origin of Nations Chronology of the Scriptures The Seventy Nephi's Psalm Units of Time Linguistic Hoaxes The Michigan Tablets Burrows Cave Wisconsin Cuneiform Voynich Manuscript |
The Original Language David
Grant Stewart, Sr. © 2006-2007 David Grant Stewart, Sr. is a professional
translator who translates seventy-two modern languages and twenty-one ancient
languages into English (see 72languages.com). He now spends most of his time on ancient
language research. Origin
of Languages I have been asked to provide an
overview of the origin of languages. Here is a quick, oversimplified version:
Arabic - Hebrew written in
modified Hieratic - Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform - Sumerian cuneiform -
Language of Adam Coptic - Egyptian - Language of
Adam English - Middle English
(Scriptures, Chaucer) Norman French + Old English = Anglo-Saxon (Beowulf,
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) - Anglo-Saxon Runes - Gothic - Etruscan - Greek -
Linear B - Egyptian Hieroglyphic - Language of Adam. Finnish - Sumerian cuneiform -
Language of Adam French - Norman French - Celtic +
Latin - Etruscan - Greek - Linear B - Egyptian Hieroglyphic - Language of
Adam Hebrew - Assyrian and Babylonian
cuneiform - Akkadian cuneiform - Ugaritic - Sumerian - Language of Adam Hittite - Egyptian - Language of
Adam Mayan, Polynesian - Hebrew -
Akkadian - Sumerian - Language of Adam Japanese - Ainu [comes from
Indonesian] + Chinese - Median cuneiform - Egyptian hieroglyphic + Sumerian
cuneiform - Language of Adam Persian - Hindi - Sanscrit -
Egyptian Hieratic - Language of Adam Phoenician - Egyptian
Hieroglyphic - Language of Adam Russian - Old Church Slavonic -
Assyrian cuneiform - Sumerian cuneiform - Language of Adam Sanscrit - Egyptian Hieratic -
Language of Adam Scots Gaelic, Irish Gaelic -
Celtic - Egyptian Hieroglyphic - Language of Adam. After the great flood, the earth
was divided into seventy (sometimes represented as seventy-two) nations and
languages, representing the great-grandsons of Noah. You can count them yourself in Genesis 10. The origin and meaning of the seventy (or
seventy-two) are discussed in more detail here. Every language goes back to
Egyptian Hieroglyphic, Sumerian, or Akkadian cuneiform, or in other words,
back to Ham, Japheth, or Shem respectively.
In their earliest forms, Egyptian, Sumerian,
Akkadian, and Phoenician are all the same language, which I will demonstrate
in future installments. It is impossible to understand
any language alone, with the exception of the language of Adam, which circumscribes
all others. For example, it ought to be a requirement for English teaches to
spend at least two semesters learning Anglo-Saxon. Latin Greek, and French
are okay for learning loanwords in English, but the logic of the language
comes through only in its immediate ancestor.
Likewise, a minimum requirement for understanding Sumerian cuneiform
is an understanding of Akkadian, Finnish and Chinese. A minimum requirement
for understanding Egyptian hieroglyphic is an understanding of Hieratic,
Demotic, Coptic, Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Chinese. I will provide
examples of this as we go along.
Languages can only be comprehended in groups, never alone. A person
who knows only one language does not even understand the concept of language
itself. As in mathematics, you have to step outside of a coordinate system in
order to comprehend it at all. It is only by understanding the boundary
conditions that we even begin to comprehend the coordinate system we are in. Degeneration
of Languages Scholars
will tell you that older languages are more primitive than newer ones, since
this is what the religion called The all-pervasive trend in
language, contrary to what everybody says, is that over time it increases in
entropy (i.e. every language becomes more disordered, like a shaken jar of
colored sand). Every language has less power of description than its
predecessor. Modern English, for example, is comprised of nothing but
mindless labels which are attached to ideas and objects, but which have no
intrinsic meaning of their own. Practically every word in the language might
just as well be a number, which has no meaning of its own, assigned to some
object or concept. By going through these languages
briefly, touching on them only as they retain intelligence from the original
language, we will prove several simple facts: 1. That no group of people, once
they lose the memory of their writing system, has ever been able to regain it
again without outside help. 2. That no group of people, once
they lose the memory of their spoken language, has ever been able to regain
it again without outside help. That is, if you were to isolate newborn
persons and never speak to them, they would never of themselves create anything
like a spoken language. 3. That every literate language
(and practically every illiterate one) can be proven to be descended from one
and the same parent language. 4. That every parent language is
superior in every way to each and every one of its descendent languages. These facts shatter the religion
of Darwinian evolution; nevertheless, people have a right to worship tree
stumps if they persist in being so inclined. There has never in the history of the world been any
unknown language recovered without a key of some kind. Linear B was not an
unknown language; it was a known language in a previously unknown script. The
claim that “any language can be translated by programming a computer to look
for patterns” [Nibley] is in error.
Something is always needed: a translation of some text, or the Urim and
Thummim. Without these, an unknown language constitutes a perfect code that
can never be broken by anyone. There are no exceptions, nor indeed can there
be. I have already demonstrated this
repeatedly, and every language and translation will continue to demonstrate
this: the older the language, the more intelligence is embedded in it. In
mathematics, we look at boundary conditions in order to get an understanding
of the area enclosed by them. We can do the same thing by looking at
language. In the latest language, modern English, we have nothing left but
labels which might as well be numbers, because they are just as meaningless
unless we do the etymology correctly, which is seldom done. This is why we do
etymology: to restore the meaning we have been cheated out of. What happens at the other
extreme? It is a whole new world! I will show you that every character in the
language of Adam has a matrix of sounds, and every sound has a matrix of
meanings. The original language cannot be bothered with such puny, puerile
notions as mindless labels - it deals in attributes and concepts associated
with attributes. For example, in a great many
instances in the King James Bible, the word “gate” should be rendered
“council.” How can this be? No Hebraist or Hellenist would have a clue
because the Hebrew and Greek languages have already lost those attributes,
even at the stage of the creation of the Massorah, the traditional Hebrew
Bible, or the earlier Septuagint. The original hieroglyph translated as
“gate” was composed of two characters: the first,
representing an augmentative, and the second, representing an opening or an
enclosure or a circle, exactly as radicals 30 and 31 in modern Chinese, which
used to be a single radical: 30. 口 kou3, mouth, opening 31. 囗 wei2, enclosure The hieroglyph conveyed the idea
of a great enclosure or opening or a great circle. Therefore it conveyed the idea
of the mouth, the greatest opening in the body, and by extension of the
attributes of the mouth, the concept of counsel and a council. This corresponds to the Egyptian hieroglyph
called “paut” often translated as “company,” which is an inadequate expression. It should be translated as “a circle of
council” - it is written as a mouth contained in a circle. It conveys the
idea that ancient quorums or councils always sat in a circle so that all
members were equal in their contributions of knowledge and intelligence. This
is where Arthur’s Round Table came from and why he presided over a Quorum of
Twelve as a table top, preserved in a cathedral in The hieroglyph
previously mentioned is literally the great enclosure, the great opening, the
great circle. It also can mean “many
mouths,” or in other words, a multiplicity of counselors. Having an
understanding of the language which was the direct ancestor of Hebrew, it is
perfectly obvious to me that “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the
land” (Proverbs 31:23),
describing a virtuous woman, does not refer to a shiftless, lazy husband
watching travelers pass through the city gates, but rather suggests that she
has supported him in his professional and community efforts to the point that
he “is known in the councils” and is a judge and advisor of his fellow men. Capabilities
of Early Civilizations In Daniel’s interpretation of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel
2:31-43), the Babylonian kingdom (“the head of gold”) was observed to be
superior to the later kingdoms represented as silver and brass. This deterioration runs contrary to
Darwinian notions of civilization becoming more advanced over time, yet
external evidence corroborates Daniel’s interpretation. For instance, the pyramids of Lucy Lamy observed: “The predynastic remains from the
Let the evolutionists attempt to explain away this
innocent observation of the greatest Egyptologist of them all, Champollion: "... il faut le dire, les
monuments Egyptiens des temps les plus antiques ne montrent aucune trace de
l’enfance de l’art; tous le manifestent au contraire une age adulte et plein
d’experience. ... c’est toutefois dans cette contree que nous devons chercher
les origines de la civilisation comme les arts de la Grece, et par suite le
point de depart de notre civilisation moderne."[2] [“it must be said that the Egyptian monuments of the most
ancient times do not show any trace of infancy of art; they all point on the
contrary to a mature age and full of experience. ... it is, however, in this
land that we must seek the origins of civilization such as the arts of The more we learn about the past, the more we realize how
much we underestimated the intelligence, the science, and the technology of
the ancients. Here are some simple observations that vindicate ancient
legends of “eternal fire” on the one hand, and pay due tribute to the
resourcefulness of the ancient Chinese civilization, which, notwithstanding
Marco Polo’s attempt at technology transfer, we of the West were painfully
slow to emulate. From the Encyclopedia
Britannica: Inflammable gas is formed in
great abundance within the Earth in connexion with carbonaceous deposits,
such as: petroleum; and similar accumulations not infrequently occurring
connexion with deposits of rock salt; the gases from any of these sources,
escaping by means of fissures or seams to the open air, may be collected and
burned in suitable arrangements. Thus
the “eternal fires” of One of the earliest Babylonian sites at Uruk– believed by
some scholars to date to the era of “Gilgamesh” – contains an “incredibly
sophisticated system of canals” described by researchers “like The only way around these embarrassing, nay, devastating
facts, is to do what they all do: to claim that the crude developmental
vestiges of ancient civilization were all swept away; that they existed, but
of course for some strange reason they are never found. It is this sort of
hoping beyond reason and defense beyond fact that slides evolution onto the
foundation of a religion rather than a science. There is not a shred of
evidence to support any part of it, other than what Darwin himself observed,
that species adapt to their environment, which of course we all do. When you
move to a new country, you learn their language simply because your native
one isn’t worth much any more. Does it occur to anyone to question the universal, a
priori opinion that Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian cuneiform are crude
picture writing rather than highly developed means of communicating knowledge
and intelligence? Anyone would be flunked out of a laboratory class using the
"it agrees with my theory, therefore the datum point is valid" and
"it does not support my theory; therefore, the datum point is not
valid" yet this is precisely the metric of all our paleontologists
without exception: "if it is primitive, it is old." Obviously our
kindergartens are the source of some venerably ancient works of art. Restoring the Original
Language The original language and those immediately descended from
it used several writing systems simultaneously. In this writing system, each
character had several sounds and meanings which were classified into
degrees. The fragments at the One example of this is the root BEL which in all Romance
languages means "beautiful" and in all Slavic languages means
"white." The original character conveyed both meanings. Another
example is the root MAL which in Romance languages means "bad, evil"
and in the Slavic is "small, little, few." The original character
had both meanings. For another example, here is a
Chinese character which is preserved straight from the language of Adam: 左 It is pronounced ZUO3 [pronounced differently in
the language of Adam] and means left, east, unorthodox, improper: This is
exactly the set of meanings possessed by the original hieroglyph in the
language of Adam, with exactly the same logic: First, it represents the left
side or left hand. Second, it represents the direction East. Why? Because we
are facing South, which in the beginning of all ancient civilizations was the
top of the map. Third, the left hand is unfavored - called in Latin sinistris
meaning unorthodox as opposed to the right hand, dextris, also meaning
orthodox. A fourth meaning in the language of Adam was the heart, since it is
on the left side of the human body. Now you see, if you went around the world
and picked up all such fragments, and reconstituted what was still missing,
you would have the language of Adam. That is exactly what we will do. I have
already done this, but I will take you by the hand and we will retrace the
steps so you will have a perfect understanding yourself. If you haven’t seen
it already, you will see that there is nothing special about Chinese. We can
do this with any language, and in fact we must, in order to gather all the
fragments and put it all together. Chinese is unique in one respect, though,
in that it is the only language in the world still written entirely in
hieroglyphs. Linear B is likewise a set of
simplified hieroglyphs. In Linear B the symbol that we recognize as being
called ANKH in Egyptian, supposedly meaning life, is pronounced “ZA”. Why?
Because ZA is the archaic Greek word for life. For example, the Greek word
for EVE is ζώη [whence our word zoo, zoology, etc.]. The
original Greek writing system was a set of hieroglyphs, each of which had
meaning. Every other language in the world was originally written as
characters with innate meanings. The vestiges of the original meanings are
preserved in the consonants of every language in the world. The original
representation of a pair of legs walking 8, which looked rather like an upside down V,
became the Greek Λ and is preserved this day in our word WALK, although
we no longer pronounce it. This is what happened to every
language in the world. Originally we had several writing systems, but we each
took only one, and then our speech departed from the writing system’s
original sounds - just like Mandarin and Cantonese use the same writing
system but pronounce things differently, so much so that they cannot be
mutually understood. This fractionation continues to
this day. Let’s cite some examples: “chauvinist” has been pressed into the
service of the feminist movement; its real meaning is an excessive zeal in
any cause or for any group; “ethnic” is used as if it were exclusively
foreign, whereas in fact it simply means any people, whether ourselves or
another; “delve” has been limited to a negative connotation: “delve into the
mysteries” or “delve into one’s past,” as if we were trespassing. As I have
demonstrated, it simply means “dig.” See how our language has become impoverished
by our own biases! The original language is so powerful that in having
something described to you, it can actually overpower your senses as if you
were actually experiencing it. No modern language comes close to this
power. It is for this reason that we read ancient accounts which seem to us unimaginable
- a rebel chief has his entire army wiped out, but then, by using language of
a power which no language on earth today approaches, he his able to excite
commiseration in the hearts of his captors to the point that he is set at
liberty! (see Ether 8:2-6).
The original language was “pure and undefiled” (Moses 6:6), and its
writing were powerful “unto the overpowering of man to read them” (Ether 12:24). This
language will be restored again in the last days (Zephaniah 3:9). It is not possible to pursue a direct
single-path course of any language and arrive at the language of Adam.
Missing information must be supplied at every step. In making the hike from
Middle English to Old English, we subtract Norman French but we add a lot
that was in Saxon that the The
modern fields of Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform need an
overhaul. Cyrus Gordon observed: "… even among the senior citizens of
academia it is exceedingly hard to find anyone well-versed in both cuneiform
and Egyptian. Since those two fields remain the cornerstones of our topic,
the limitation is serious."[7] As Cyrus Gordon came very close to
saying, knowledge of Sumerian is necessary to understand Egyptian, and vice
versa. Yet as he acknowledges, practically no one in the world is
skilled in both languages. A knowledge of a great many languages is essential to the
restoration of the earliest forms of both Egyptian and Sumerian. A more detailed discussion of the
shortfalls of modern Egyptology with examples is presented here. The
ancients used the language of Adam like we use Latin and Greek today, as a
naming convention (cf. Gen.
35:7). Although fragments are preserved in Hebrew, all of Jacob’s
children’s names are in the original language. Therefore, attempts to derive many Biblical
names from late Hebrew alone have fallen short. There are countless ancient
records which reveal a great deal of information which the world has not had
for thousands of years because they have not been translated correctly. Many,
if not most, of the ancient records thought to be lost are right under our
noses, but have either not been translated, or the translations are so far
from correct that the apparent resemblance to the original record is either
faint or nonexistent. The so-called Book of the Dead is
the most obvious example, but there are countless others - the so-called Tale
of Two Brothers, which is really the story of Joseph and Potiphar; the
Metternich Stele, which contains the account of Eve finding the dying body of
Abel, the Ziudsudu tablet,
which contains the original account of Noah and the Flood; Gilgamesh, whose very name
is mistranslated; the original Egyptian account of
Joseph interpreting Pharoah's dream, Egyptian records indicating what they
did with the Ark after the flood and where it is now, and on, and on, and on.
You really have enough information now to restore the original
language, but as long as I am still alive and functional, we will continue
the march and eventually spell everything out in detail. The
original language can only be translated correctly and completely by one who
has a working knowledge of the seventy-two languages into which it was split
up at the Here is my approximation of the
correctness of the translations which have been made of ancient records so
you may understand: 1. Anglo-Saxon: 99.99% 2. Late cuneiform [Assyrian,
Babylonian]: 95% 3. Late Egyptian Hieratic and
Hieroglyphic: 95% 4. Middle cuneiform [Akkadian,
Ugaritic]: 70% 5. Middle Egyptian
Hieroglyphic: 60% 6. Middle Egyptian Hieratic:
40% 7. Early cuneiform [Sumerian]:
20% 8. Early Egyptian Hieroglyphic:
10% 9. Early Egyptian Hieratic: 0% Indigenous Words vs.
Loanwords It is critically important to be able to sift out what is
indigenous to a language, and what is not, in determining its origin and
history. Everyday household words are
always indigenous to a language and are never loanwords. Loanwords are always
items or concepts which were not previously familiar to those of the
borrowing language. For example, the
Japanese word for "table" is v_*[,
pronounced TEH-EH-BOO-RU. The fact that it is written in katakana already
indicates that it is a loan word, but there is a kanji [Chinese character]
pressed into service for the word also. Japanese traditionally do not use
tables. They sit on the floor; they eat on the floor; they sleep on the
floor. Their language tells us that the idea of a table was introduced to
them by English-speaking people (Note that the transition from TABLE to
TEHEHBOORU demonstrates the well-known R/L transformation discussed here. The Japanese
words for "bread" and "butter" Hg and ^z_ are pronounced PAN
and BATAH respectively, the former being the Spanish word for bread, the
latter being the English word for butter. Table, bread, butter -- all Western
concepts, without which the Japanese did quite nicely, thank you, for
thousands of years. Now we are in a position to ask questions like: "is
the Malay word for grass, RUMPUT, a loan word?" It is not. If the Malays
were Eskimos, the concept of grass might be novel to them. But not in the
jungles of Innovation and Acceptance I
do not expect any scholar to come forward and say, "Gee, thanks for
sharing your discoveries!" Cyrus Gordon perceptively noted:
"Scholars belong to guilds held together by common opinions, attitudes,
and methods. As a rule, innovation is welcome only when it is confined to
surface details and does not modify the structure as a whole. For this
reason, new interpretations of a problematic word or verse may be applauded
by the very academicians who will stop at nothing to discredit a breakthrough
destined to touch off a major reappraisal of the entire field." [Gordon,
op. cit., p. 36.] If you are a few
inches ahead of the scholarly community, they will heap praises and honors
upon your head. But if you are a block or a mile ahead, those same
individuals will crucify you. It has always seemed to me that discoveries and
inventions of real value are indistinguishable by the masses from absurdity
and insanity for the simple reason that they are outside of the norm. This is
perhaps more true in Characters and Degrees The original logic behind the Roman alphabet we use today
is based upon this chart: 1st degree 2nd degree 3rd degree 4th degree 5th degree A E I,J O U,V,W B F K P,Q,R X C G L S Y D H M,N T Z Every consonant in the original language had a hard and
soft form -- like our letters C and G.
The concept of hard and soft consonants is not well understood by
English speakers (remember that English is the least complex of
all major languages), but is seen in Slavic languages such as Russian where
hard and soft forms exist for most consonants, in addition to voiced and
unvoiced consonant pairs: b/p, v/f, d/t, g/k, z/s, zh/sh. It is important
to note that consonants in the early language softened in different ways than
ours. An example of this is the word The Latin characters above correspond to the Phoenician alphabet: (download the font here if these characters are
not displayed correctly): Sign Name Meaning Greek Latin A Aleph Ox Α A B Beth, Bait House Β B C Gimel, Gamel Camel Γ C/G D Daleth, Dal Door Δ D E He Window Ε E F Waw Hook Φ F G Gimel, Gamel Camel Γ C/G H Heth, Hait Wall Η H I Yodh, Tad Hand Ι I,J K Kaph Hand Κ K L Lamedh, Lam Goad Λ L M Mem, Mai Water Μ M N Nun Fish Ν N O Ayin Eye Ο O P Q R Pe Qoph Resh, Ras Mouth Head Π Ρ P Q R S Sin (Sh consonant) Tooth Σ S T Taw, Tah Mark Τ T U Waw Hook Υ UVW X Samekh, Sheen (S consonant) Fish Χ X * Γ Y Z Zavin Sword Ζ Z *: No direct Phoenician equivalent This will have to do for now,
although I can't put much weight on conventional charts until I go through
them myself in more detail. For
example, some years ago I discovered that the Late Square Hebrew "theth"
was a stick figure of the Egyptian sky goddess, Nut. Qoph is the Phoenician
word for "head" - the ancestor of Greek KEPHALOS and Latin CAPITOS
and so on. It will take quite a bit of research to produce a truly accurate
Hieroglyph--> Phoenician correlation chart. As this chart demonstrates, both Greek and Latin letters
have much older origins. The Greek letters Ξ (Xi), Θ (Theta), Ψ
(Psi), and Ω (Omega) have no direct Phoenician equivalents, but
correspond to Egyptian hieroglyphics. C/G: Both Latin C and G and Greek Γ are derived from
the Phoenician Gimel. M/N: The wavy hieroglyphic lines for water J are the ancestor of our
letters M and N. M is usually represented as three wavy lines of water d,
while N is usually represented by a single wavy line for water J. Note the similarity of
M and N in later languages also (cf. Etruscan M: M, N: N),
reflecting the common earlier origins seen in Egyptian. M/N shifts are frequently seen in
transitions between languages. For
example, the suffix for the plural and dual plural, respectively, are –IM and
–AIM in Hebrew and –IN and -AIN in Chaldaic and Arabic. P/Q/R: The simplified hieroglyph
in Phoenician, P. The Greeks (and later, the Cyrillic script) took its sound
as R (letter ρ), the Latins as P. The original hieroglyph carried both sounds
simultaneously, but separated into levels or degrees governed by certain
logical rules which made ambiguity impossible. It is this hieroglyph, represented in
Egyptian as the mouth K, having this characteristic,
which should be read PH rather than R in early Egyptian. |