Part III: Dialogue between Fernando Aedo and Charles William Johnson

Earth/matriX
Forum

Part III

Dialogue between Fernando Aedo and Charles William Johnson
about Linguistic Correspondence

Fernando AHEDO wrote:
Hello,

>>Thank you very much for your insight. Also, I appreciate the comments towards my own work.<<

It's all my pleasure; you deserve it, because I know what the efforts are in order to realize such a tremendous work.

>>Receiving recognition for my research efforts as you have commented in your email makes all the tedious investigations worth while. Some of the comments regarding the idea about linguistic correspondence in my work, as far as I can tell from blog reports on the internet, are negative. <<

Actually, you're not the only one who by doing this kind of work is isolated by academia researchers or linguists or even lay persons. My friend Isaac Mozeson's articles were banned from appearing in a periodical thanks to Noam Chomsky threatens, even if Chomsky accepts that man's brain was cabled to receive language, and from an alien source.

There is too much skepticism towards the approach you and many others present, because it interferes with what the establishment wants the whole world to know.

>>The negative comments, however, generally are posted by persons who have not even read my work, but merely heard about it from others. This confirms a deepfelt prejudice against comparative linguistics within some realms of scholarship. Whenever I read such comments, I have the impression that certain scholars are afraid to re-examine history in the light of such comparisons. <<

When a new theory comes along, it is normal that those that didn't see what you saw, or didn't want to see it on purpose, are going to defend theirs in order to protect their income, imagine all their books and their pride would have to be forgotten and be replaced. So a history re-examination is not in their schedules. And when someone like you titillates their world, they're not happy.

At least there are new linguists that are accepting the theory that all languages come from a unique one. Things are changing. Maybe by getting them reading your essays and book, it would create more interest in the realms of scholarship.

>>I imagine that you have also seen the work that I have done regarding a few of the Native American Indian languages posted on the earthmatrix.com website. <<

I hadn't until receiving this e-mail. I understand you are using the same approach others in the eighteenth century did. Unluckily for them (the establishment) there must be physical contact in order to give credit for that to be accepted. Since there is none, historically speaking, then it isn't possible. Then whatever is said or thought is discarded.

It is clear that your work is identifying possible contact between these civilizations. Then, it also identifies that the Aztecs and the Egyptians come from a single and pristine source. The first settled in the north of Africa, the second in Mesoamerica. Their languages kept the roots, sounds and senses, and similitude in their hieroglyph system, as you have seen and even more. This raises the following questions: where or what is that source language? Which language is the mother tongue of Egyptian and Nahuatl? Where can we find it? Why did the Nahuatls have an L in their words? And the Egyptians didn't? Who decided to make the changes in Nahuatl? Or vice versa.

ACA[L] is AQAI in Egyptian, MET[LATL] is MET. It's crystal clear that what you are identifying has a common root between those words.

If there are ancient written documents that have been preserved from millennia, isn't there where someone must look up? If the Hebrew Bible contains a written history, the words inside haven't been changed neither, then it allows a comparison with ancient languages that are still spoken at present. Especially with those languages that separated from the pristine one. That is one of the reasons why I have also seen so many Amerindian words connecting with Hebrew. I will check all of your lists with what I have gathered and also see the Hebrew counterpart.

>>The examples that you offer in your email cause me to want to extend the research even further. I have my eye on comparisons with the Tslagi (Cherokee) language, among others, but at present find myself in a state of inactivity. I have recently moved from New Orleans to Wichita and am still in the process of settling down. So, my research efforts are placed on hold for yet a while longer. <<

What I have shared in the mail is just one biblical Hebrew word connecting with several Amerindian languages as well as with Egyptian. I am happy to know that what you have seen in this example intensifies the desire to go further. Does the Tsalagi language belong to the Uto-Aztecan family? If it is so, then it will be easier to find correspondences, since you have already done research on the Nahuatl language.

Are you in a state of inactivity and settling down in Wichita because of the Catherine Hurricane? I hope not.

>> The first draft of my book The Sound of Meaning explored not only the sounds and the meaning, but also the glyphs of the Maya and the ancient Egyptians. However, I left that part out for the sake of economy. The significant point, in my view, is that the comparisons arise not only in linguistics, but in the ancient reckoning system and in the accompanying math and geometry of these different peoples. When one examines all of these different possible points of contact and coincidence, it is difficult to imagine such comparisons as having arisen from happenstance. <<

You have gone beyond linguistics though. It means that your research on the matter covers many subjects at the same time. Whatever was the common source for all these things (language, math, geometry, art, etc.) there is abundant information out there to help us rebuild brick by brick things of the past, so that we may understand them in our present time.

Best regards.
Fernando
PS: Please replay to this e-mail address. Muchas gracias

next : e-mail four