Part IV: Dialogue between Fernando Aedo and Charles William Johnson

Earth/matriX
Forum

Part IV

Dialogue between Fernando Aedo and Charles William Johnson
about Linguistic Correspondence

Charles William Johnson wrote:
Hello Fernando,

Please, excuse me for my tardiness in answering your e-mail, but personal circumstances in my life have caused me to lose about eight months of downtime in the Earth/matriX project. Hopefully, I will be able to address now some of the most significant issues that you have raised in your email.

I look forward to reading the work of your friend Isaac Mozeson. Undoubtedly, many scholars search the concept of linguistic correspondence in order to obtain a better understanding of what has happened in the past regarding the history of humankind. The fact that many scholars (and non-scholars) refuse to even toy with the idea that some kind of contact existed among the ancient cultures is disheartening. For known reasons many scholars wish to keep the ancient cultures apart, each one isolated on the face of the Earth.

The reasoning that they employ, however, is contradictory. At the same time they speak about evolution, migrations of entire peoples across the different continents, they then, in the same breath, state that each culture was born and developed in an isolated fashion, each separate from one another. The first idea regarding movement and migrations would suggest similarities in language groups. The second idea of physical isolationism would suggest no similarities in language. The majority of the scholars appear to accept the idea of movement (migrations), yet somehow come to rest upon the thesis of static, stationary societies, who forgot how to travel/move about on the face of the Earth.

Obviously, by ignoring the concept of movement among human societies their studies in linguistics benefit: it is much easier ignoring the tedious task of linguistic correspondences. From that perspective, as you say, scholars wish to deny any finding that may disrupt their paradigm of languages. Especially, if they have written extensively on the subject and need to make some adjustments and recognitions. It is much easier to continue writing in error, than rectifying previous works. Writing within an old paradigm is always safer than exploring new thought patterns.

The questions that you pose in your previous e-mails regarding the similarities between ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl demand answers, and those answers require further research.

"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." - Fernando Aedo

Right on the money. Recently, it has been brought to my attention that "el" represented the concept/word for "God" in ancient Mesopotamia. It is intriguing to think that the letter/sound "L" was a way of referencing the word-concept of God within the ancient Nahuatl word. Consider then, the Nahuas possibly referenced God and paid homage to God in nearly every one of their spoken words. The ancient Egyptians/Kemi, on the other hand, may have paid respect out of the idea that one could not mention the word-concept of God as a way of paying homage to God. In other words, there existed two ancient opposing beliefs: those who thought it proper to mention the word-concept of God every step of the way as paying homage to God; and, those who considered one should not even mention the name of God, for God was too sacred.

One could imagine a situation where some humans wanted to pay homage then by mentioning the word God as often as possible, while others thought one should not invoke it at all. Such opposing views of religious ideas is not uncommon even today throughout the different world religions.

"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." - Fernando Aedo

Perfect reasoning. Your synthetic manner in proposing research along these lines points everyone in the right direction. Know the past. All of the presentday hoopla over the Bible Code and similar code-building constructions merely blind everyone with regard to the basics. The spoken word, language, is the written record of history. We all speak history every day; linguistics is our natural heritage. Yet, many overlook its meaning and source. The question is valid: why do I speak the way I do. I remember having read when I was twenty years old or so, The Story of Language by Mario Pei. That book holds the key to understanding the dynamics of language. And, fortunately, I had Maurice Swadesh as one of my university professors, and his insight and inquisitiveness into a source language laid the foundations for much of the questioning in my research. Your ideas and questions posed follow along those lines of pointing in the natural direction: see what history says, see what the languages are telling us. Concentrate on the word-concepts; each word-concept represents an encyclopedia of information.

As I mention throughout the Earth/matriX essays: the existence of only a single cognate or linguistic correspondence between ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl, or between ancient Egyptian and the Maya language, or between ancient Egyptian and other Amerindian languages could mean or reflect some kind of contact. That could mean a proto-language, or a pristine language as you mention, or contact between two co-existing language systems. Numerous examples are not necessary; only one will suffice. And, as may be observed in the two books on The Sound of Meaning from Earth/matriX, innumerable examples do exist; not just one.

Now that I am out of that relative-rest state that I have been in for the past eight months, I am anxious to learn of your recent findings. I look forward to your sharing your thoughts with me. And, again, please excuse my tardiness in answering your previous email.

Best wishes,

Charles