# Language Reform as a method of hiding the past and altering the present.



## alltheleaves (Sep 12, 2021)

Not only has English been greatly changed, so have, in two examples, Turkish, and Chinese.

The Turkish language reform of the late 1920s has been described as a catastrophic success. (4mb pdf/Geoffrey Lewis)

Texts of Olde English, in this example of Chaucer from ~1400A.D. are all but impossible to understand.

1: Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
When April with his showers sweet with fruit

2: The droghte of march hath perced to the root
The drought of March has pierced unto the root

3: And bathed every veyne in swich licour
And bathed each vein with liquor that has power

4: Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
To generate therein and sire the flower;


Chinese as well. This example was originally shown to me by a Chinese friend and teacher who made it to the Ivy League before heading back home.

In Chinese, the ancient traditional character for "listen" is 聽 .

The upper left side of the character is comprised of "ear" 耳 and the lower left side of the character is "king" 王. 德 is the right side of the character and connotes "people virtue", notably with "heart" 心 in the bottom portion of the right side. So the Traditional Chinese character for "listen" literally means "king's ear of people's virtue and heart".

This positive notion of listen corresponds to an ideal of "sympathetic authority". Benevolent kingship.

The language changes mandated in the 1950s, introduced a new simplified character for "listen" 听. The left side of the character is "mouth" 口 and the right side of the character is "1/2 kilogram" 斤. This new character likely connotes "speaking heaviness" or "speaking weight", a distinct change in meaning, almost a reversal.

The change: old listen 聽 to new listen 听.

Ear 耳, King 王, Heart 心, and the Virtue of the People 德 were all made to disappear.

Highly educated Chinese can perhaps muddle through the old texts the way we might also be able to read Olde English.

Hong Kong (and Taiwan) have retained Traditional Characters.

The Mainland is itching to institute Simplified Characters as the predominant mode of instruction in HK. Less than 40% of HK primary schools conduct Chinese language lessons in Cantonese - survey - Hong Kong Free Press HKFP

The (men and women) persons of the world seem only able to watch and wait.


----------



## Grumpy Owl (Sep 12, 2021)

It is interesting how languages can change over time to an extent that something like 'Old English' can appear to someone like myself (fluent in English) like incoherent 'gibberish'.
We then have to rely on 'interpretations' in order to give them any sense or meaning to the 'modern' reader.
Same goes for older languages really. I recall recently a post from my local MP calling for teaching of Latin to be scrapped in state schools.
I did actually learn Latin at school and college, and while at college I did also take up Ancient Greek.
Admittedly its not served me any purpose since I left college, so I would partially agree that learning such 'dead languages' is probably a waste of time for many students. 
Though in defence, via learning of Latin, I was able to pick up and understand bits of Spanish and Portugese while on holidays in Spain and Portugal, so if anything its a good foundation for learning other languages.
But the main thing I took away from learning Latin and even ancient Greek, being such complex languages in their nature and structure, is that it is not often possible to 'directly translate' what was written in old texts into an English equivalent, so often when translating such texts there has to be an element of 'interpretation' of what was written. And of course as we know, such interpretations can be objective or subjective, depending on the viewpoint of the reader. 
When we reach a stage where there are very few people left who can read and understand these old texts, all we are left with are the existing translations. But could we 'trust' these translations without knowing if they have been 'reinterpreted' in such a way to suit a certain agenda?
Sorry if this is slightly off-topic, but I think it is relevant, especially if we consider the Orwell quote "he who controls the past, controls the future".


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 12, 2021)

Languages can change gradually. 

The Westminster/Oxford/Cambridge rewriting of the Bible at the start of the 1600s is an example of top down change in meaning.

The Maoist "simplification" of Chinese changed the meanings of many important words, like love....(the heart sign was removed from the character).

Yes, the study of Latin preserves a connection between linguistic past and present.


----------



## Septimus (Sep 13, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> The Maoist "simplification" of Chinese changed the meanings of many important words, like love....(the heart sign was removed from the character).



Original 愛 versus Simplified 爱

It is laughable how random and in many cases negligible the simplification process was for Chinese characters. If the real intention was to make writing Chinese easier, then they did a horrible job with about only a 20% increase in efficiency. Makes more sense that they did it to shut off the hearts and minds of the people.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 13, 2021)

Septimus said:


> Original 愛 versus Simplified 爱


All they did was take out the heart.

As with most things China in the 50s-60s, it was Zhou En-lai who kept the brakes on simplification, keeping the damage down to under 1k characters.



Return to Traditional Chinese Characters    By Xin Fei The Epoch Times Dec 13, 2007

At the Eighth International Chinese Character Symposium (ICCS), held on October 30 to 31 in Beijing, scholars from Mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan agreed that Chinese characters should be standardized, and more importantly, traditional characters should be maintained.

During an interview with The Epoch Times on November 6, several scholars said that traditional characters are the essence of ancient Chinese civilization andcan truly reflect the depth and richness of the Chinese culture.

The symposium also signified that although the CCP has tried since 1949 to eradicate traditional characters—and thereby cut off the connection to traditional culture—their efforts have been in vain.

On the whole, the majority of people at the symposium favored restoration of traditional Chinese culture. This indicates the failure of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) policies on language and culture. The CCP will be forced to change its approach.

The CCP implemented character simplification even before it took power in 1949. Mao Zedong was a strong proponent of abolishing Chinese characters and replacing them with pinyin (phonetic spelling of sounds). In 1956, the CCP announced its "Proposal to Simplify Chinese Characters." In 1964, it published "Summary List of Simplified Characters."

However, in 1977, its "Second Proposal on Character Simplification" failed to pass and was rescinded.

Now there are only several hundred simplified characters and radicals left.


----------



## feralimal (Sep 14, 2021)

There is also the idea that Francis Bacon invented the English language, when taking time off from being Shakespeare   Here is an essay on this :
Bacon & The English Language


----------



## Nick Weech (Sep 14, 2021)

The Secret History of the English Language​M.J. Harper​
"In a hugely enjoyable read with gloriously corrosive prose, MJ Harper slashes and burns through the whole of accepted academic thought about the history of the English Language.

According to Harper:
1. English does not derive from Anglo-Saxon.
2. French, Italian, and Spanish did not descend from Latin.
3. Middle English is a wholly imaginary language created by well-meaning by deluded academics.

And that's just the beginning! Part revisionist history, part treatise on the real origins of English, and part impassioned argument against staid academe, _The Secret History of the English Language _is essential reading for language lovers, history buffs, Anglophiles, and anyone who has ever thought twice about what they've learned in school."

I found it an unusual point of view and am still digesting its points.
 He runs a website: 
The Applied Epistemology Library :: Index
 ...  which covers a wide range of related topics


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 15, 2021)

feralimal said:


> There is also the idea that Francis Bacon invented the English language, when taking time off from being Shakespeare   Here is an essay on this :
> Bacon & The English Language


John Florio, author of the first italian-english dictionary, was Shakespeare. An Italian.

https://engine.presearch.org/search?q=John+florio+shakespeare+pdf+italian+english+dictionary


https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=John+florio+full+documentary+shakespeare

The devere and bacon theories are controlled opposition narratives to keep the bard british.


----------



## feralimal (Sep 15, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> John Florio, author of the first italian-english dictionary, was Shakespeare. An Italian.


.... and there's another candidate   New to me.  I'd be interested to hear why you say so, but perhaps for another thread.  Are you Italian tho? Interesting that he was a linguist too.

My personal opinion is that Shakespeare is a brand name rather than an individual.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 15, 2021)

feralimal said:


> .... and there's another candidate   New to me.  I'd be interested to hear why you say so, but perhaps for another thread.  Are you Italian tho? Interesting that he was a linguist too.
> 
> My personal opinion is that Shakespeare is a brand name rather than an individual.


A very British brand.

Watched a documentary or two, read several books and articles (one attached).Took a look at his Italian-English dictionary. Thought about it, Merchant of Venice...and all that. Perhaps another thread but having one of the founders of "modern English" not be who he's supposed to be goes directly to the issue of "hiding the past".


----------



## Promethium (Sep 15, 2021)

Languages change for a bit of a different reason. It's not to hide the past but to redefine the values in all aspects of communication. The languages are used to program people's behavior, therefore as soon as there's some sort of paradigm alteration in a model of whatever society, then there is a need to alter the language. Today people, if you view them as "work force", need to execute more actions, than they had to in the past, they need to interact with more objects, many of which are completely new or improved or complex. The capacity of an attention span for an average human is very limited, it sort of acts like RAM memory in a computer, there is a limit to how many things a human mind can handle at any one moment. This obviously calls for some sort of an optimization of input commands, to stabilize the output intensity. And that's when the language reform happens. Some words are shortened or changed to have a more approachable phonetic structure and some words are dropped all together if they act more like a commentary to a process rather than a command.

A human language basically acts in the same way a computer language does or more like the other way around. The point is that all languages are used to program the human behavior, they are constantly modified because the world is always changing according with the plan which requires to increase the intensity of all processes. The reason why it all happens how it happens is another deeper matter.

In a sense sure, as the language changes the general appearance of the past in a textual context changes as well. But lets be realistic, an average human doesn't even think about the past in a sense where he would need some sort of a complex language or a well defined description of what happened. Nobody really cares. On the other hand those people who do care and think about the past, don't really rely on semantics, rather favoring abstract forms of perception like imagination in interpreting what went on in the past and the words come later, when you are trying to find a specific way to present your thoughts so that a contemporary reader would be able to understand you.

It doesn't really matter what a language looks like at any time as long as there are people who have interest in what you have to say. The issue is that the public interest changes with time. What you would have had to say 100 years ago isn't going to produce any sort of an audience today. And what would be a reason for you to speak or write if nobody is listening or reading?

You see, the system could have used the old "beautiful" version of any language and program the people to be a bunch of dumb ass drones. It would just overload the brain of an average worker bee. So they simplify the language and optimize the process. They aren't hiding anything. Those who are interested in looking will find everything laying in the open, but nobody is interested in stopping to look at it.. and when you try to tell them.. then you look like an insane weirdo.

Also I wouldn't really agree that the older versions of the languages were better. They were actually corny as fuck for the better portion of their content. Today we still may use all sorts of words, they didn't go anywhere, but it's just the general population doesn't care for it because they are programmed in a compact object oriented manner. Here they have a job, they need to pull a level here and put a box there, then they go home and use a couple of apps on their mobile, then they eat, fuck, sleep and repeat the next day. It's not really anything different from what they were doing 500 years ago, save for the upgrades like electricity and gadgets. Oh yeah and it is safer these days, plus porn.

Also if I were to write 500 years ago what I wrote now, they'd probably burn me alive or at least declare me a spy or some sort of a charlatan who's trying to fuck with people's minds. So you have to account for these nuances in how the language is reformed too. Many of the things you can talk about today, you weren't able to talk about 500 years ago. The same as some things that were used 500 years ago wouldn't be useful today, but if you wanted to say whatever you needed today, you certainly can do it.. as long as there are people who are able to listen or read for longer then 140 characters. That's the main issue. The attention span of a human has been altered. The language? Not as much.


----------



## dreamtime (Sep 16, 2021)

Nick Weech said:


> He runs a website:



and he's here: @Mick Harper


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 16, 2021)

feralimal said:


> There is also the idea that Francis Bacon invented the English language, when taking time off from being Shakespeare   Here is an essay on this :
> Bacon & The English Language


Through your link I came across this book and the review of it. Really interesting thank you.
Apollo


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 16, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I came across this book



Fascinating. Seems that Joseph Scaglier (Mr. Chronology) was provoking abuse even back then:

"Learned Scaliger, the second of the twaine
Second to none in Arts did late complaine
To wise Apolo, of some strange *abuses,
Committed against him* and the Nine Muses.
Your Grace well knowes ( I need not to relate)
How Typographie doth concern your state,
Which some pernicious heads have so abus'd,
That many wish it never had been us'd:
This instrument of Art, is no interest:
For it is now imploy'd by Paper-wasters,
By mercenary soules and Poetasters,
Who weekly utter, slanders, libells, lies,
Under the name of spacious novelties."


----------



## Math & Physics (Sep 16, 2021)

Grumpy Owl said:


> We then have to rely on 'interpretations'


Is it not all subject to someone else's personal perception?
I've learned more 'factually relevant' history, through the perversions of language, than any history book.



Promethium said:


> It's not to hide the past but to redefine the values in all aspects of communication. The languages are used to program people's behavior, therefore as soon as there's some sort of paradigm alteration in a model of whatever society, then there is a need to alter the language.


Thank you for joining the post.  Seems to have influenced your screen name, as Prometheus was known for 'granting humans advance language' by the addition of vowels.  We were always worshipers of fire, even today the fire of an ICE gets us to our destinations.  (((They))) are trying to take that away by the farce of green energy.
My response is to point our your self contradictions.  'Truth is the enemy of government'~ AUK
What do they do when the Legend can't be contained, they change it's meaning.  A prime example would by Lakota Chief 'Big Foot' aka 'Spotted Elk'.  His corpse says so much U.S. Cavalry massacres Lakota at Wounded Knee
(Law~ From the Latin for 'ultimate' or highest truth.
Yet, in most legal dictionaries (which use to be spell books) you won't find any reference to the word truth, only rant's about the BAR's absolute authority.) edit
Black's Law 11th ed
The third pic reference goes to show how there was 'no such thing as child abuse' in NY, until 1874.
First pic, Witch Hunt wasn't used in the English language until 1885, and yet there was no such thing as a Witch Trial!  Really?

Yes, language is used to program the public, as a means to 'forget history'.  Otherwise the public would be less productive, due to cognitive dissonance.  The tactic you're using is what I call 'Blame the Dead', in which complacent people, spoiled by automation, believe all their woes can be place at the feet of the dead as a means of avoiding responsibility/accountability.  ie an excuse to wallow in ignorance
Took a while to realize what he meant by this, yet it's meaning is poignant.
"Knowledge means responsibility, and people avoid responsibility."~ Stefan Molyneux


----------



## Promethium (Sep 16, 2021)

Math & Physics said:


> Is it not all subject to someone else's personal perception?
> I've learned more 'factually relevant' history, through the perversions of language, than any history book.
> 
> 
> ...


There’s no contradiction in what I’ve said. My point is that the average human doesn’t care about the history or the language, but those who wish to research history would have no problem doing so using any language whatsoever either a reformed one or an older version. I was saying that language reform is done to optimise human training and performance. Language has really nothing to do with hiding things. It’s simply an instrument of programming the behaviour. The human can be programmed to be indifferent to history. Period. Most people are indifferent. But if you somehow avoided being programmed to be indifferent and wanted to research history then you would have no problem, but how many people are there actually interested in researching history? Not many. So the language isn’t hiding anything. The problem is that the research is done incorrectly. From what I have seen so far everyone is doing their research using the materials, texts, diagrams, pictures, etc., from the official sources which are falsifying the history. So it doesn’t make any sense to use false historical accounts to study history in the first place. It’s not the language that is trying to hide true history but the whole of historical documents or even artefacts which are false and fake. Literally everything that is available for a study in relation to history is fake. It doesn’t matter what type of language one would use to study history because all materials are fake.

The question is why would anyone dedicate time to study the fake history using the fake historical accounts? And the answer is trivial - people are programmed to be dimwits who would follow false paths, so that any kind of real research wouldn’t be possible and every curious person would be directed to run in circles indefinitely, trying to use the false information as basis for analytical conclusions which will always produce false results so that the truth will remain hidden.

It is ironic. The issue with research is that those who are promoting it are either intel agency agents who act as gate keepers or dim witted brainlets who think that simply by being curious and trying hard to work through tons of information they will be able to reach the truth. They will never reach any truth. All these efforts are no more than trying to learn about the world by studying Tolkien’s LOTR or any other fictional literature. All history is fictional. The whole historical narrative is based on carefully prepared information that has one purpose - to mislead anyone who would try to look in the past. Historical artefacts are made specifically to confuse people. Historical documents are made to contradict logic. Thus everyone who’s doing the research using either historical artefacts or documents are not going to reach any truth by default.

The only way to research history is to use fundamental observations about the nature of humans and other fundamental aspects of society. It’s possible to literally write history from scratch without using even one historical artefact or document. Simply by using the available information about fundamental aspects of nature itself it is possible to make a correct calculative assessment of what events took place since the beginning of time. I’ve done such assessment and the results are shocking.

The point is that language has nothing to do with hiding anything and all of the articles written here and everywhere else trying to research history are based on false premise thus producing false results in each case. Such situation is immensely frustrating and hard to accept by those who have done all this work. But that’s what happens when you are led by intel agencies down the wrong path. What you really think any government would actually allow any research group online to do some sort of independent research? Don’t make me laugh. Sites have been deleted for asking much more benign questions than questioning history itself, the most guarded information in existence, literally the top secret of all secrets.

I’m telling you.. all this “research” you do isn’t anything but running in circles along the controlled narrative. There’s no way out for you unless as I’ve said - you need to use a completely different approach in researching history which should not use the existing historical data for its basis.

Of course this isn’t happening for one simple reason - the people are programmed to follow the narrative and that’s exactly what you or anyone else is doing.

I don’t follow the narrative but that came at a cost which hardly anyone would agree to pay.
In any case the truth is protected by the system and anyone who would even remotely try to come close to opening it will face resistance. On the other hand those who allow themselves to be led by the narrative and the gate keepers would be left alone in their little clubs which serve as containment areas for cases of abnormal curiosity. That’s why all these “conspiracy” “research” sites exist in the first place. They fit the narrative by allowing every curious normie to join the club and run in circles along with everyone else while the gate keepers lead the way.

I mean simply by looking at how much of utterly retarded takes on reality is being allowed to be posted on all these sites means the whole purpose of these sites is to cause massive confusion instead of actually doing a careful research.

A genuine research is always done by defining the method first and then staying on course of that method. A research isn’t done by piling a bunch of weird shit that hardly makes any sense and then trying to sense of it all - that’s how a classic disinformation campaign is done.
Anyway… it’s ironic to talk about it here because you’re a part of the club and already quoting retarded Mollymeme. Knowledge doesn’t carry anything but the truth if it is knowledge, otherwise it false information which is nothing more than a command. Responsibility doesn’t even have a clear definition, besides that it’s some sort of an ability to respond to commands. It has nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge is the known truth and truth is hidden. Knowledge is a rare object which is hard to find. You mistook verbal commands for knowledge.

Ok I think I will just leave. I’ve read this forum and it really isn’t anything but people arguing about shit they have little to no idea about. That’s not a way to do research. That’s just another obvious psyop.


----------



## matematik (Sep 16, 2021)

You would be hard pressed to find another language that has changed as dramatically as English from Old English to Modern English.

Old English compared to modern English just looks like another language entirely, someone who hadn't studied it would have practically zero chance of recognising it as a form of English. The difference between old and modern German, French and Spanish for instance is relatively small by comparison.

The idea that the way the English language has changed is completely organic is stretching the limits of credulity in my opinion. It's certainly highly atypical in language development, very few other languages show the level of historical change that English does.


----------



## trismegistus (Sep 16, 2021)

Promethium said:


> The only way to research history is to use fundamental observations about the nature of humans and other fundamental aspects of society. It’s possible to literally write history from scratch without using even one historical artefact or document. Simply by using the available information about fundamental aspects of nature itself it is possible to make a correct calculative assessment of what events took place since the beginning of time. I’ve done such assessment and the results are shocking.





Promethium said:


> I’m telling you.. all this “research” you do isn’t anything but running in circles along the controlled narrative. There’s no way out for you unless as I’ve said - you need to use a completely different approach in researching history which should not use the existing historical data for its basis.



Before you decide to leave the site, perhaps you can share with us (in a new thread, of course) your assessments of history. Sharing strategies of how to perform research is a valuable tool - perhaps instead of chiding others for not approaching your standards of research you could choose to educate. Otherwise you seem to just be “taking your toys and leaving”, to use an aphorism.

This site exists for all forms of alternative historical research, for discussion, and to connect with others who know that we have been lied to. I certainly do not agree with nor promote every idea on the site, but I am in full support of alternate ideas to be presented, researched, and debated.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 16, 2021)

Promethium said:


> The only way to research history is to use fundamental observations about the nature of humans and other fundamental aspects of society. It’s possible to literally write history from scratch without using even one historical artefact or document. Simply by using the available information about fundamental aspects of nature itself it is possible to make a correct calculative assessment of what events took place since the beginning of time. I’ve done such assessment and the results are shocking.


If you take a moment and have a look around this place you will see a few people like me for example who have no clue what passes for evidence of a past nor where to look for said evidence. Please consider posing the assessment locked ino a pdf if that suits insead of running to a snap judgement or tarring us all with the same brush.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 17, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> If you take a moment and have a look around this place you will see a few people like me for example who have no clue what passes for evidence of a past nor where to look for said evidence. Please consider posing the assessment locked ino a pdf if that suits insead of running to a snap judgement or tarring us all with the same brush.


Archive.org and libgen have dictionaries from centuries past. Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster are two key dictioneers 1700s/1800s. At least can do side by side comparisons. It could take several lifetimes to uncover the whodunit.


I mean. How did 1984 end up in every classroom? its not easy to find out how the system works or who is behind it.

Words can be invented. And by changing the meanings. The past obscured. Newspeak etc.


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 17, 2021)

> You would be hard pressed to find another language that has changed as dramatically as English from Old English to Modern English.


So why not draw the obvious inference? It didn't. You might as well say: "You would be hard pressed to find another language that has changed as dramatically as English from Danish to Modern English." Or you could put French in there. Or any other language that is reasonably closely related.  

The Chaucer lines (which I assume have been used because I use them in my book) have not changed nearly as much as_ alltheleaves _has 'translated' them. It's practically word for word save for spelling and poetics. The idea of such a puny force as the government being able to change languages I find difficult to accept. Maybe the Chinese government if it pulled all the stops out. At the margins.

PS I show that 'Geoffrey Chaucer' is a fake in my new book. The poetry is Elizabethan or later.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 18, 2021)

Mick Harper said:


> The Chaucer lines (which I assume have been used because I use them in my book) have not changed nearly as much as_ alltheleaves _has 'translated' them. It's practically word for word save for spelling and poetics. The idea of such a puny force as the government being able to change languages I find difficult to accept. Maybe the Chinese government if it pulled all the stops out. At the margins.
> 
> PS I show that 'Geoffrey Chaucer' is a fake in my new book. The poetry is Elizabethan or later.




I *sourced* the Chaucer translation from
Internet History Sourcebooks Project

As for government force, tens of millions of chinese died in the 1950s-70s due to the policies and actions of china's maoist communist party.

The puny force you find difficult to accept killed tens of millions; DEAD from policy induced famine and fanatical hardcore political persecution.

Changing several hundred word characters was all part of the insanity. If you complained. You'd be sent down to labor in the countryside or maybe beaten to death!

Also you may want to read or browse Lewis' book on Turkish gov imposed language reform in the late 1920s, linked in the original post.


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 18, 2021)

Mick Harper said:


> So why not draw the obvious inference? It didn't. You might as well say: "You would be hard pressed to find another language that has changed as dramatically as English from Danish to Modern English." Or you could put French in there. Or any other language that is reasonably closely related.
> 
> The Chaucer lines (which I assume have been used because I use them in my book) have not changed nearly as much as_ alltheleaves _has 'translated' them. It's practically word for word save for spelling and poetics. The idea of such a puny force as the government being able to change languages I find difficult to accept. Maybe the Chinese government if it pulled all the stops out. At the margins.
> 
> PS I show that 'Geoffrey Chaucer' is a fake in my new book. The poetry is Elizabethan or later.


It is not so much the government that change it, it is more the lawyers, there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes that then filter down through the teaching protocols, believe it or not this company hails from or is a least second only to one of the major religions, this company is called Unidroit and is and has been in various guises responsible for big hitters such as the Cest Qui Vei trust acts, the papal bulls Unum Sanctum, the terrorism act, the patriot act are just a few examples. They have an almost complete monopoly on the issuance of language.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> It is not so much the government that change it, it is more the lawyers, there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes that then filter down through the teaching protocols, believe it or not this company hails from or is a least second only to one of the major religions, this company is called Unidroit and is and has been in various guises responsible for big hitters such as the Cest Qui Vei trust acts, the papal bulls Unum Sanctum, the terrorism act, the patriot act are just a few examples. They have an almost complete monopoly on the issuance of language.


So "one law" (uni droit) or "no law".

Is that the false choice humanity is presented with?


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 18, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> So "one law" (uni droit) or "no law".
> 
> Is that the false choice humanity is presented with?


Yes, there is no new world order it is the same order it has been all along.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Yes, there is no new world order it is the same order it has been all along.


Uni Form. (Ucc) you see sea.

In formation.

Sadly there's nothing new about tyranny.

Or people (bred 2b) eager for it.


----------



## Mick Harper (Sep 18, 2021)

> I *sourced* the Chaucer translation from Internet History Sourcebooks Project


Sorry. Then it is they who have provided the duff 'translation'.



> As for government force, tens of millions of chinese died in the 1950s-70s due to the policies and actions of china's maoist communist party. The puny force you find difficult to accept killed tens of millions; DEAD from policy induced famine and fanatical hardcore political persecution.


Killing people is easy,  everyone does that. It's changing what they say that's the hard part.



> Changing several hundred word characters was all part of the insanity. If you complained. You'd be sent down to labor in the countryside or maybe beaten to death!


As I said, at the margins.



> Also you may want to read or browse Lewis' book on Turkish gov imposed language reform in the late 1920s, linked in the original post.


As I said, at the margins.



> It is not so much the government that change it, it is more the lawyers, there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes that then filter down through the teaching protocols, believe it or not this company hails from or is a least second only to one of the major religions, this company is called Unidroit and is and has been in various guises responsible for big hitters such as the Cest Qui Vei trust acts, the papal bulls Unum Sanctum, the terrorism act, the patriot act are just a few examples. They have an almost complete monopoly on the issuance of language.


Actually lawyers always make sure nobody can speak their language. Academics do the same with 'academese'. Just standard 'making sure it's jobs for the boys'. However, modern English -- RP English, the Queens' English,  BBC English, standard English, like what I speak -- is the product of literate people communicating to one another, over hundreds of years, that they are literate (i.e. educated, a bit superior) by speaking as they write. Nobody has the power to control the process (except at the margins), it is thousands and then millions of people contributing to an organic process.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes


Here they are. Scriveners Company in London
They write EVERY statute and instrument that goes into the book.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 18, 2021)

Mick Harper said:


> Sorry. Then it is they who have provided the duff 'translation'.
> 
> 
> Killing people is easy,  everyone does that. It's changing what they say that's the hard part.
> ...


Blacks dictionary and its redefinitions over time...


CCP's great firewall and looming threat of the gulag do quite well at containing historical and other knowledge from being spoken about and texted.

Were there dictionaries that documented/codified the shifts from chaucerian to later English?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> It is not so much the government that change it, it is more the lawyers, there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes that then filter down through the teaching protocols, believe it or not this company hails from or is a least second only to one of the major religions, this company is called Unidroit and is and has been in various guises responsible for big hitters such as the Cest Qui Vei trust acts, the papal bulls Unum Sanctum, the terrorism act, the patriot act are just a few examples. They have an almost complete monopoly on the issuance of language.


Excellent point. This has been going on for centuries. For example it was a bunch of monks who invented the Cyrillic alphabet, which to my mind is not any kind of development at all, but merely a total perversion designed to give them a monopoly on written communication. This happened in many places, Cyrillic is just one example that managed to survive somehow.


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Here they are. Scriveners Company in London
> They write EVERY statute and instrument that goes into the book.


Thanks, I was unaware of this group of "worshipful brothers", although maybe I should right that(wrong) as "WORSHIPFUL BROTHERS".



Will Scarlet said:


> Excellent point. This has been going on for centuries. For example it was a bunch of monks who invented the Cyrillic alphabet, which to my mind is not any kind of development at all, but merely a total perversion designed to give them a monopoly on written communication. This happened in many places, Cyrillic is just one example that managed to survive somehow.


Another layer to this rotten onion is the further debasement and obfuscation through the capitalisation of words to serve as bridges between realms, like barbed hooks that once inserted are extremely difficult to remove without causing much damage.

These are literally the spells/curses/cursives that bind us to what I like to call the land of the living dead, all of the important documents are written in this language, not only acts and statutes but the things that bind even those together, namely, international treatise.

UNIDROIT - Wikipedia


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> the capitalisation of words



@kd-755 is quite an expert on that subject.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 18, 2021)

Membership explained.



> ​
> The Company is always pleased to hear from prospective new members who have an affinity with its interests and traditions. The core profession of the Company is that of the Scrivener Notary (the Company sets notarial examinations) but membership is by no means confined to that profession.
> 
> There are three ways of becoming a member: by SERVITUDE (if you have been apprenticed to a member), by PATRIMONY (if your father or mother was a member when you were born) or by REDEMPTION (payment).
> ...


Note well the middle category or rank of member.



> those whose professional activity involves *close connection with the Law, the Church, Accountancy, Banking or Insurance*;



These are the people who craft statutes and instruments. The spell makers or word smiths. Legal practitioners cast the spells. Practising is all they are permitted to do by the bounds of the BAR.
Scriveners really are the authors of the codification of spoken sounds into written and printed words. Were it possible to establish when in any calendar such magicians were first thought up then we may will find an actual bona fide reset point.

Edit to add this observation.
*Law, the Church, Accountancy, Banking or Insurance*;

Recognise them?
Conquest, War, famine, and death


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Membership explained.
> 
> 
> Note well the middle category or rank of member.
> ...


They are literally writing themselves into existence, in the corporate world of course.

The Quill Pen Reception for the Sheriffs took place at the Old Bailey in The Lower Grand Hall on Tuesday 25 February 2020. The Master presented the Sheriffs with the quill pens with which they signed themselves into office, along with Scriveners' fountain pens, and added a donation to the Sheriffs' and Recorder's Fund.

News | Scriveners Company in London

Talking of languages, I wonder why this oath is written with some words where the letter s is an f where some is just an s.




​Funny that it is also the name of a word processing software.

Wiki give us a little interesting info but not much.

They must be fluent in one or two foreign languages and be familiar with the principles and practice of foreign laws.

Worshipful Company of Scriveners - Wikipedia

Also, open to interpretation, the Scriveners' error.

The doctrine of a "scrivener's error" is the legal principle that a map-drafting or typographical error in a written contract may be corrected by oral evidence if the evidence is clear, convincing, and precise. If such correction (called scrivener's amendment) affects property rights then it must be approved by those affected by it.

Scrivener - Wikipedia

As for dates to their formation, they have a date for incorporation which is really just a date for the, as they put it "establish a monopoly".


Although the exact date when the 'Writers of Court and Text Letter' formed some sort of guild is not known, they are mentioned, with the limners and barbers, as an accepted professional class as early as 1357. (fn. 4) Seven years later, in 1364, the Writers doubtless considered that the general direction for the good government of all the crafts in the City of London applied to them because a copy of the enrolment of that article is the second entry in their records. (fn. 5) Decisive action to establish the monopoly of their profession was taken by the Writers of the Court Letter on 26 September 1373 when they delivered a petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of the City which resulted in the promulgation of simple ordinances for the control and administration of this particular craft and the appointment of two Wardens

Introduction | British History Online

Funny that they are said to have had to rebuild the HQ twice, 1666 and during the blitz, i have no way of confirming the two are connected other than trusting my own bias.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 18, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Were it possible to establish when in any calendar such magicians were first thought up then we may will find an actual bona fide reset point.



My guess would be that they arrived in The City of London with the Normans (or do I mean Romans?) along with all the other record keeping and accounting systems, eg. The Domesday Book(s), etc.


----------



## trismegistus (Sep 18, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> It is not so much the government that change it, it is more the lawyers, there is one company of them that writes almost all of the acts and statutes that then filter down through the teaching protocols, believe it or not this company hails from or is a least second only to one of the major religions, this company is called Unidroit and is and has been in various guises responsible for big hitters such as the Cest Qui Vei trust acts, the papal bulls Unum Sanctum, the terrorism act, the patriot act are just a few examples. They have an almost complete monopoly on the issuance of language.



Admittedly I went down a rabbit hole late last night on this UNIDROIT. Do you have any supplemental evidence for this organization being responsible for such contributions? All I have really found is their own website which is obviously bereft of this information, and it coming up on various sovereign citizen boards as the root of all evil.

Best I could find is this US code 

https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/88/244.pdf


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 18, 2021)

trismegistus said:


> Admittedly I went down a rabbit hole late last night on this UNIDROIT. Do you have any supplemental evidence for this organization being responsible for such contributions? All I have really found is their own website which is obviously bereft of this information, and it coming up on various sovereign citizen boards as the root of all evil.
> 
> Best I could find is this US code
> 
> https://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/88/244.pdf


This is something that I picked up on many years ago and used to have some paper work(pdf) that went into it in more detail than I remember however the hard drive containing that went down a couple of years ago so have nothing to really back it up other than what they say on their site.

ABOUT UNIDROIT​The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) is an independent intergovernmental Organisation with its seat in the Villa Aldobrandini in Rome. Its purpose is to study needs and methods for modernising, harmonising and co-ordinating private and in particular commercial law as between States and groups of States and to formulate uniform law instruments, principles and rules to achieve those objectives.

Disclaimer - Unidroit

The wiki also implies as much.

UNIDROIT has prepared multiple conventions (treaties), but has also developed soft law instruments. An example are the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Distinctly different from the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) adopted by UNCITRAL, the UNIDROIT Principles do not apply as a matter of law, but only when chosen by the parties as their contractual regime.

Off the top of my head it was like a flow chart of the corporate structure with the HOLY SEE at the top leading to City of London, Crown Corportation etc.

Heaven forbid it may even have been the David Wynn Miller stuff or even Jordan Maxwell but hey we all have an internet viewing past right...


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 19, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> This is something that I picked up on many years ago and used to have some paper work(pdf) that went into it in more detail than I remember however the hard drive containing that went down a couple of years ago so have nothing to really back it up other than what they say on their site.
> 
> ABOUT UNIDROIT​The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) is an independent intergovernmental Organisation with its seat in the Villa Aldobrandini in Rome. Its purpose is to study needs and methods for modernising, harmonising and co-ordinating private and in particular commercial law as between States and groups of States and to formulate uniform law instruments, principles and rules to achieve those objectives.
> 
> ...


My friend, buy and use an external hd to backup daily.


Mason Maxwell does have a lot.
THE PRIEST HOOD OF THE ILLES II : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This is the first rome trust. 1302.

Crown (aka Corp. of London), Holy See - Global Slavery system based on a Vatican Papal Bull of 1302 [History of Trusts]


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 19, 2021)

Citezenship said:


> Another layer to this rotten onion is the further debasement and obfuscation through the capitalisation of words to serve as bridges between realms, like barbed hooks that once inserted are extremely difficult to remove without causing much damage.
> 
> These are literally the spells/curses/cursives that bind us to what I like to call the land of the living dead



Since you posted this, It has occurred to me that I have never seen a gravestone where the incumbent's name is not written in all capital letters. Pretty much impossible to remove from 6 feet under as well.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 19, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Since you posted this, It has occurred to me that I have never seen a gravestone where the incumbent's name is not written in all capital letters. Pretty much impossible to remove from 6 feet under as well.


Thanks, rewriting my will as we speak.

5 demands, not one less.


----------



## space966 (Sep 21, 2021)

English is not a language, it's computer code.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 21, 2021)

space966 said:


> English is not a language, it's computer code.



Evidence please.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 21, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Evidence please.


01!
It's obvious!!


----------



## space966 (Sep 22, 2021)

English was invented with the only purpose - to develop computer science in 20th century, thus it also became lingua franca of the world in 20th & 21st century.


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 22, 2021)

space966 said:


> English was invented with the only purpose - to develop computer science in 20th century, thus it also became lingua franca of the world in 20th & 21st century.


Which crystal ball did you see this in?
This is twice now you make the same claim and provide nothing for anyone else to look at and come to their own conclusions. I don't get it what do you get out of making this claim?

You may be bang on the money and if so it would be a game changer for sure but it seems you have another motive in play.


----------



## space966 (Sep 22, 2021)

You don't know how languages are invented, magic tricks are observed, not proved..


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 23, 2021)

space966 said:


> You don't know how languages are invented, magic tricks are observed, not proved..


It's like pulling teeth.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 23, 2021)

space966 said:


> You don't know how languages are invented, magic tricks are observed, not proved..


Magic tricks are illusions and have been proved to be such, they're merely entertainment. 

If something can't be proven, its NOT science (and I don't mean what passes as 'science' today).



space966 said:


> English was invented with the only purpose - to develop computer science in 20th century, thus it also became lingua franca of the world in 20th & 21st century.


Please take the time to elaborate on your claim and offer a source or sources so that others are given an opportunity to consider it's possibility.


----------



## Citezenship (Sep 23, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Please take the time to elaborate on your claim and offer a source or sources so that others are given an opportunity to consider it's possibility.


Even if you are the source, and it is just a feeling, tell us why you feel that way.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Sep 23, 2021)

space966 said:


> English was invented with the only purpose - to develop computer science in 20th century



Invented by whom? Are you therefore claiming that the English language didn't exist prior to 1900? That would require ignoring centuries-worth of documentation written in the English language.

One of the earlier computer programming languages was COBOL - "common business-oriented language." It was developed in 1959 by CODASYL, the Conference/Committee on Data Systems Languages - a consortium formed in 1959 to guide the development of a standard programming language that could be used on many computers. COBOL statements have an *English-like syntax*, which was designed to be self-documenting and *highly readable*. It uses *over 300* reserved English words. (_Sources_: Wikipedia, plus my own personal experience of it.)

Post 1959, people in English schools weren't taught COBOL, they were taught English In fact the COBOL computer language would have been totally useless if people didn't already understand English. Also, if you check any pre 20th century dictionary there are far more than 300 English words catalogued.

Perhaps this is a case of 'putting the cart before the horse?'


----------



## space966 (Sep 24, 2021)

Yes, I claim, that English language not existed prior 1900. All pre 20th century dictionaries are fake.
I cannot prove it, because it was done with magic. It's like discussing: did universe began from big bang, or was created by god.
Magic stays real, until it's proved, that it was illusion.
All European languages were created this way. Exemption is Chinese & Japanese, which is priestly code, but even they were simplified.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 24, 2021)

space966 said:


> Yes, I claim, that English language not existed prior 1900. All pre 20th century dictionaries are fake.
> I cannot prove it, because it was done with magic. It's like discussing: did universe began from big bang, or was created by god.
> Magic stays real, until it's proved, that it was illusion.
> All European languages were created this way. Exemption is Chinese & Japanese, which is priestly code, but even they were simplified.


Ahh the joys of legal mary jane.

A lot is fake but Samuel Johnson wrote a english dictionary in late 1700s.

Florio (who wrote shakespeare) wrote an italian english dictionary around 1610.

Anyone can find Johnson's dictionary on archive.org or wherever.

I have florio's dictionary if you want to see it.

English evolved with major influences from latin, french, saxony, greek...and the pc crowd, dictioneers, and bestsellers like the westminster/cambridge/oxford kjv manage the meanings to serve power.

So....


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 24, 2021)

I think @space966 could be onto something. Maybe English is truly born around 1900 and the previous language was submerged under a mudflood


----------



## Jd755 (Sep 24, 2021)

space966 said:


> Yes, I claim, that English language not existed prior 1900. All pre 20th century dictionaries are fake.
> I cannot prove it, because it was done with magic. It's like discussing: did universe began from big bang, or was created by god.
> Magic stays real, until it's proved, that it was illusion.
> All European languages were created this way. Exemption is Chinese & Japanese, which is priestly code, but even they were simplified.


Well it took a while but thank you. I must also have a small book collection of fakes that's a bit of a shock to be honest.
I also have a couple of hand written letters and a train timetable which must be fakes as well. 
Oh well they can be used as fire starters so all is not lost.


----------



## Safranek (Sep 24, 2021)

space966 said:


> Yes, I claim, that English language not existed prior 1900. All pre 20th century dictionaries are fake. I cannot prove it, because it was done with magic.


Most here go out of their way to consider the unexplained, unlikely and even the unthinkable, but this is a far stretch to consider without some serious evidence which it seems you can only attribute to magic.


space966 said:


> All European languages were created this way. Exemption is Chinese & Japanese, which is priestly code, but even they were simplified.


According to this statement, Europeans were either speechless or were speaking Chinese and Japanese before the 20th century. Once again, there's no evidence for this and plenty of evidence for the contrary.

The purpose of these discussions it to state our ideas, hypotheses, and back it up with some resources for others to consider, or in the absence of that, to use logic and deductive reasoning to compensate for the lack of resources. To merely make a claim and offer neither resources nor logic and reasoning is not conducive to any discussion and is considered *low effort*.


----------



## space966 (Sep 24, 2021)

I don't want to derail thread. All I wrote is just my opinion.
To get back on track, and how language reforms are made, I would refer everybody to first op post: reform of Turkish language 1920 year.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 24, 2021)

space966 said:


> I would refer everybody to first op post: reform of Turkish language 1920 year.


Yes, in the OP it is stated that it was a catastrophic success. I think it was catastrophic for a reason: the previous language DIED. Maybe due to a huge mudflood. What do you think of my theory?


----------



## space966 (Sep 24, 2021)

I don't believe in mudflood. I mostly relay on Bible, where Solomon rented Hiram, king of Tyre, to build temple.
There's some group of people, who know how to build houses, cities, canals.

Languages don't die, they're modified, for some purposes. Many of my presumptions I base on official table count of number of humans on Earth. From year 1850 line goes suddenly straight vertical, something strange happened in this year.


----------



## matematik (Sep 24, 2021)

English as an artificial, created language makes no sense. It shows a clear relationship with the Germanic languages as well as a lot of influence from French. Why is only English artificial, why not the others?

If anything I would say Japanese fits more as an artificial, created language, because it's an isolate that shows no clear link to any other language group and grammatically it is almost completely regular. Then when you consider Japan's links to Tartaria, the killing off of the Ainu people, etc, there is a much stronger argument that the Japanese language was created as a replacement for the original language spoken there.


----------



## alltheleaves (Sep 25, 2021)

matematik said:


> English as an artificial, created language makes no sense. It shows a clear relationship with the Germanic languages as well as a lot of influence from French. Why is only English artificial, why not the others?
> 
> If anything I would say Japanese fits more as an artificial, created language, because it's an isolate that shows no clear link to any other language group and grammatically it is almost completely regular. Then when you consider Japan's links to Tartaria, the killing off of the Ainu people, etc, there is a much stronger argument that the Japanese language was created as a replacement for the original language spoken there.


Korean language was designed by their royalty.

Its been suggested that many japanese came over from china btw. Chinese characters are used in japanese and can be understood by the chinese.

Japan to china...A one day boat ride these days. At least if you have a yacht. Public boats are not running...


----------



## yoxdo (Sep 26, 2021)

Promethium said:


> The only way to research history is to use fundamental observations about the nature of humans and other fundamental aspects of society. It’s possible to literally write history from scratch without using even one historical artefact or document. Simply by using the available information about fundamental aspects of nature itself it is possible to make a correct calculative assessment of what events took place since the beginning of time. I’ve done such assessment and the results are shocking.


Agreed and I’ve said the same thing myself. Really all you have to know is the nature of man especially in his extreme to understand  and see through this thing called government.  Man at his extreme is greedy, murderous, selfish etc. The world we live in is no different than the jungle except the lions and tigers have somehow convinced the sheep and others who can’t defend defend themselves that they are their protectors who have their best interest at hand and that it’s amongst their own whom they can’t trust. Deep down or if they ever took time out to think they’d know this to be a lie, but they’d rather go along to get along in order to maintain some semblance of “peace”. Also history(his story) is something that is promoted that we should learn, huge red flag. I’ve found trying to study chronology is far more important. The study of chronology of course is something I’ve never seen promoted because after all the  given chronology isn’t to be questioned as n the first place same with his story.


----------



## Promethium (Sep 27, 2021)

yoxdo said:


> Man at his extreme is greedy, murderous, selfish etc.


Selfish yes, it's a fundamental reaction which has been given a negative connotation in culture.
Greedy and murderous are not fundamental reactions in humans.

Greed is caused by torturing people from the young age through deprivation, so that a lot of people develop paranoidal behavior in respect to anything that has value, resulting in psychotic reactions such as hoarding objects or being extremely overprotected of any possession to a point where a person would rather suffer than even as much as spend money or even time on something he truly needs, instead wasting it on hoarding something at the cost of comfort and well being of others. So, no.. greed is a part of the conditioning, not a fundamental state. Greed is a perverse desire for amounts that contradict logic.

Murder as well, it's a psychotic reaction. Even though it does seem natural, but only in the environment where everyone is terrorized by the system, thus forcing people to develop, as with greed, paranoidal reaction to other humans. Under such conditions every person is forced to see everyone else as an enemy, which then leads to thoughts about killing people in order to remove the threat. Naturally people aren't murderous unless they are attacked or having no other choice but to attack, which can't be classified as murderous. Yes, we are capable of killing each other but only in order to do that we must for self defense or survival. Pretty much just like in nature, the predators don't kill each other out of some murderous need to remove "the competition" even though they would sometimes fight to the death in self defense or if trying to fight for survival(food, procreation).

When I was talking about calculating the historical events and chronology based on fundamental observations I meant using such factors as
-fundamental states of matter, causes for condensation of matter, causes for dispersion, other fundamental aspects in nature
-fundamental abilities of organic creatures(flora fauna) and their purpose
-fundamental characteristics of a human, directly human physiology, abilities, fundamental structure of human thought processes etc
-fundamental values and purpose of elements
-fundamental methods of interaction within organic matter, non organic matter, the former and the latter
-fundamental nature of abstract values, fundamental nature of manifestation, fundamental nature of matter itself
-fundamental nature of logic, fundamental nature of existential dependence
..there are a lot of factors that have very stable value and signature and if one was to take these values and apply them to recreate how the world would develop from the beginning, it could be done given that we have enough knowledge about the world today. Also genuine projections into the future can be made as well because this system allows to calculate a history of any object completely from the beginning until the end. Given of course that the object is a system large enough to have sufficient amount of fundamental aspects that could be established in order to make a calculation how\when that object came into existence and how/when it will cease to be.

By gathering the information about the world structure today and then using that information as a resulting outcome for X number of events, it is possible to calculate which events took place since Day 1 until today, using nothing but fundamental values, which range from numerical values and functions to abstract values and other fundamentals. Of course some info from recent history can be used as well, but no older than 100 years, given the info has little bias. The older the info the less it's going to have anything to do with reality. That makes analyzing historical documents or artefacts not suitable for purposes of making definite historical conclusions. 
Are there secret documents which tell about the real history of the world and our civilization? Probably but we aren't going to see those documents. 

Look if we know the result then it's possible to make a timeline of what took place leading to that result. I'm talking about that it's possible to tell an object's past from the time it first appeared until the time it will stop existing. In the same manner it's possible to tell the history of our entire world and answer every fundamental question about existence, purpose of life and just about anything else that is fundamental. Also it's possible to tell how it will end and when.


----------



## yoxdo (Sep 27, 2021)

Promethium said:


> Selfish yes, it's a fundamental reaction which has been given a negative connotation in culture.
> Greedy and murderous are not fundamental reactions in humans.
> 
> Greed is caused by torturing people from the young age through deprivation, so that a lot of people develop paranoidal behavior in respect to anything that has value, resulting in psychotic reactions such as hoarding objects or being extremely overprotected of any possession to a point where a person would rather suffer than even as much as spend money or even time on something he truly needs, instead wasting it on hoarding something at the cost of comfort and well being of others. So, no.. greed is a part of the conditioning, not a fundamental state. Greed is a perverse desire for amounts that contradict logic.
> ...


I should have clarified, I meant these aspects from the ruling powers perspective not from those that are ruled.


----------



## _harris (Sep 27, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> Not only has English been greatly changed, so have, in two examples, Turkish, and Chinese.


I think the real "Old English" language just has a lot more welsh/britthonic influence in it, which was eradicated slowly over centuries... maybe the reason old english seems so different is; it was near the end of the "rewriting" of the language.. (Look at how the English tried to completely suppress the Welsh tongue in the 19th/ early 20thCs!!)

One thing I do find extremely odd is the absolute lack of "latin" influence on so-called "Old English", Saxon, Breton/Welsh languages, when the Roamers were supposedly running the show over here in the earlier centuries of the 1st millenium... Why did they not bring their language here until 8-900s onwards?


----------



## Mick Harper (Oct 3, 2021)

alltheleaves said:


> Were there dictionaries that documented/codified the shifts from chaucerian to later English?


No, not till Dr Johnson in the 18th century. There isn't much 'English' literature at all pre the Tudors. Inexplicable if 'English' has been a literary language since 600 AD when St Augustine (no, really) arrived at the court of Ethelbert in Canterbury (no, really). As inexplicable as the situation in Wales where the Welsh claim Welsh was a literary language even earlier!  As the National Library of Wales breathlessly informs us



> The collection also includes treasures such as the Book of Taliesin. Taliesin (fl. 6th century AD) was an early Brythonic poet of Sub-Roman Britain whose work has possibly survived in a Middle Welsh manuscript, the Book of Taliesin. Taliesin was a renowned bard who is believed to have sung at the courts of at least three Brythonic kings.



Or indeed the Irish who claim they managed it around the same time and have the Book of Kells in a glass case in Dublin for the kiddiewinks to gaze upon with awe, to prove it. Everyone else in Europe at least had the decency to wait a few more centuries. They were so backward compared to the Welsh, the Irish and the Anglo-Saxons. And not nearly as great liars.


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 9, 2021)

Some say that (modern) English was invented to be able to run the world mathematically correctly. It is a language of commerce. What strikes me is that Old English is a bit like Dutch. Of course the rulers of this world change everything every so often so that the elderly can be dismissed as stupid and old-fashioned, so that the children no longer listen to the elderly. Everything changes. The language, the way of calculating, the money, the music, the technology.
I think the self-consciousness comes (mainly) from language. Without language there may be no self-awareness. Whoever determines the language also determines how people think.
Dead languages like Latin don't change. That's why the elite use that language, I think.


----------



## Mick Harper (Oct 9, 2021)

> Some say that (modern) English was invented to be able to run the world mathematically correctly.


I've never heard of that one, Antisoof. English is usually denounced as the very opposite of a rules-based language.


> It is a language of commerce.


That can't be right. We were miles behind the Italians, the Germans and the Dutch when it came to commerce.


> What strikes me is that Old English is a bit like Dutch.


It is more often likened to Frisian. Actually lots of people favour the idea that Anglo-Saxons _were _Frisians. They are, after all, supposed to come from next door, round the 'angle' of Frisia and Denmark.


> Dead languages like Latin don't change. That's why the elite use that language, I think.


The elite would not agree. They say that Latin changed like wildfire -- into French, Occitan, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Sard, Romansch, Romanian .... on and on and on. Though I suspect we would agree on where the elite can shove it.


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 9, 2021)

Mick Harper said:


> I've never heard of that one, Antisoof. English is usually denounced as the very opposite of a rules-based language.
> 
> That can't be right. We were miles behind the Italians, the Germans and the Dutch when it came to commerce.
> 
> ...


Isn't commerce ruled by America, and so the language is English?

I know that history of the Frisians. But for me, sometimes I see there are more connections.
I often use the etymology-dictionary (s | Search Online Etymology Dictionary) and see then the history of words. More then once there is a very old connection between words. One can easily change letters in the old days. Because of that someone gets other words.

Old-Latin is a dead language, so it does not change. Thats why (I think) really important writings are done in such a language. (And the plebs doesn't understand it.)


----------



## Mick Harper (Oct 9, 2021)

> Isn't commerce ruled by America, and so the language is English?


Well, yes, _now._ But remember, modern English had pretty much arrived by the 14th century.


> I know that history of the Frisians. But for me, sometimes I see there are more connections.


Every non-loan word in all the western Indo-European (their phrase) languages are connected. Good luck trying to work out mathematically (your phrase) who's got more connections than anyone else. One potato, two potato, three potato four.


> I often use the etymology-dictionary (s | Search Online Etymology Dictionary) and see then the history of words. More then once there is a very old connection between words. One can easily change letters in the old days. Because of that someone gets other words.


I am extremely suspicious of etymology dictionaries. The OED is the grandaddy of them all and I disagree with practically everything it has to say on the subject.


> Old-Latin is a dead language, so it does not change. Thats why (I think) really important writings are done in such a language. (And the plebs doesn't understand it.)


I agree with you entirely. The trouble is that the orthodox explanation for the existence of the Romance languages is that _all _the plebs understood it. They would have to in order to start turning Old Dead Latin into the Romance languages! A sillier theory it would be hard to imagine but there it is.


----------



## AntiSoof (Oct 9, 2021)

Mick Harper said:


> Well, yes, _now._ But remember, modern English had pretty much arrived by the 14th century.
> 
> Every non-loan word in all the western Indo-European (their phrase) languages are connected. Good luck trying to work out mathematically (your phrase) who's got more connections than anyone else. One potato, two potato, three potato four.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the replies, Mick.

I thought you where going to ask for examples.
So I get:
Dutch      English
Zie           See
Zoek        Seek
Zo            So
Zeker       Sure
(Z>S, IE>EE)

Gebroken Broken
Gemaakt   Made
Gedaan     Done
(Ge>(nothing) 
Kijk            Look
Rijk            Rich
Kook          Cook
Kom           Come
Kop            Cup
Kool            Coal

Most important word maybe?:
Doe            Do

Do and I are important words.

Again, it strikes me how easy part of words (letters) are changed.
But, if one wants to be boss, one has to divide (others).

What is divided between people is often done with a purpose, I think.


----------



## Mick Harper (Oct 9, 2021)

Lists, lists, glorious lists
Nothing quite like them for joining the bits
So follow me, follow
Down to the hollow
And there let us wallow in glorious lists.

Thanks for the questions, Antisoof. Forsooth!


----------

