# Latin never was the spoken language in Rome/Pompeii



## GGuilliman (Jan 28, 2022)

Hey everyone,

This is my first post on this forum although I did lurk here for a fair bit so I hope that I get the format of a usual message right.
If not then please let me know (below or in DMs) how I can follow certain conventions better!

Anyways, now for the main body of this post.

Literally all studies of the Roman Empire start off by assuming that Latin was the langauge not only spoken and written by Roman elites but also by Roman peasants. This is taken as a straightforward fact which goes without explanation in all books introducing high schoolers to history/Latin as well as in academic circles:

_"In perhaps his most significant reform, he divided the empire into the Greekspeaking East (Greece, Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt) and the *Latin-speaking* West (*Italy*, Gaul, *Britain*, and Spain)." _M. Littell, _World History: Patterns of Interaction, _p.174 (Common Core book for American schools which regurgitates state-sanctioned propaganda).
_"This course is a first step in reading Latin, which was *the language not only of ancient Rome*, but also of science, culture, and more in Europe until the early modern era and is still in use today."_ Course introduction of "Latin for Beginners" offered by Harvard.
This ensures that sheep don't question the origins of the Catholic Church, the reason why many scientists such as Newton wrote in Latin or the origin of the ancient buildings.

There are however quite some reasons which can lead a researcher to question whether Latin ever was a language spoken by the masses and that while sticking as closely as possible to the official narrative (so we all know that periodic resets happen in history but let's pretend the academics are right about everything except the origin of Latin for the sake of argument). So let us also not question why original works of Roman origin vanished or introduce any other SH theory here.

First of all most written sources come from authors that occupied elite positions in Roman society and that is admitted by the narrative.
Examples of all famous authors being elites are Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor), Seneca (chief advisor to Emperor Nero) and Livy (nobility).

Also Ovid (high nobility and acquaintance of Emperor August), Virgil (becomes friend of Emperor August, perhaps nobility), Cicero (chief statesman) and Tacitus (nobility) didn't seem to be the ordinary folks you would find there on the streets or the "hoods" of Rome.
This is considered representative enough of the _entire_ Roman society and apparently it is enough proof to the academics that the common man in Rome also knew how to speak this language and perhaps to read the works of these authors.

More than a thousand years later however Latin still seems to be in ubiquitous use among the nobility and royalty of Europe; think about Catholic clergy, scientists (Newton, Spinoza, Linnaeus, Copernicus) and the kings themselves (Charlemagne, Frederik II of Prussia and Ferdinand IV of Austria etc.) Correspondence between Jesuits and royals also frequently went in Latin and books addressed to kings were commonly written in Latin instead of the native language of the prince (e.g. Magnes Sive de Arte Magnetica by A. Kircher addressed to Ferdinand IV). Apparently kings liked to receive gifted books in Latin first and foremost. However peasants in all these countries didn't speak Latin: they spoke German, Spanish, French, Italian or Russian. Hence academics utterly fail to acknowledge that the language of aristocrats never was representative of the common people's language for the past 400 or so years and is a shitty proxy. And we just don't seem to have a single commoner who wrote anything worthy of preservation, e.g. there is no Roman J.K. Rowling whose works are immortalized in Western culture despite her being a commoner.

The bulk of the literature that "survives" from Roman antiquity seems to be either sophisticated poetry or historical writings. Where are however, if I may ask, material that was famous among the lower classes such as comedy, Roman theatre plays, smut or most importantly, *books to learn Latin* written by ancient Romans? There are anecdotal examples like the cooking book from Apicius or the smut from Petronius but it doesn't even come near 20% of surviving books even though books of this kind are the ones that define a culture and make up the bulk of a nation's literature. And why did the monks have no interest in copying the books that taught aristocratic/royal children to read Latin en masse? I don't think anything can teach the Catholic priests Roman better than such books and I would expect the Vatican to have ordered the collection of such children's books, if they existed.

So it seems that even the materials that the narrative connects to Romans only belong to a very small section of Roman society and that only select genres survived which (what a coincidence) seem to give very detailed accounts of Roman history. The narrative offers the following explanation regarding all of this:

_"Those who could read and write were wealthy elites; it was only because their families had enough money to pay for their education." __https://www.thedailybeast.com/could-women-in-ancient-rome-read_

Where are these shelves full of books used to educate these wealthy children then? And suppose that there is a very good reason for the vast majority of such books vanished without a trace. Why is there no early manuscript of the gospels in Latin which allowed some educated proto-monks or early church fathers to spread the faith throughout the Roman Empire? Because it does seem like Christianity was spreading like a wildfire among the lower ranks and even if they had no Bibles/gospels (first Vulgate Bible issued by St. Jerome in 383 A.D.), can we at least see some crosses or little markings indicated places where Christians gathered during the first few centuries after Christ? Why did Roman Emperors concern themselves with Christ from the onset of Christianity, yet fail to obtain a single copy of Christ's teachings for their own study? Potentially they could jail any apostle they want and let him write a gospel for himself and I think that the apostles would gladly have obliged to spread the Word directly to the Emperor. Yet the history of Christianity between 0 and 400 A.D. in Rome remains shrouded in mystery.

In addition, the main talking point of this essay would be the so-called "graffiti" found in Pompeii. Apparently, over 11.000 pieces of ancient Roman graffiti were found over there in Pompeii. However academics also count small etchings the size of a single line as a single piece of graffiti so let us examine a well-preserved and large example of this "graffiti":





This here is a political graffiti written on the walls of Pompeii and other graffiti is reported to have been found near bars with more explicit texts (we will touch upon this later). The first oddity here is the lack of other scribblings over it: as we know graffiti tends to consist of multiple layers because regular punks write graffiti *on top* of another man's graffiti. Since this is a political graffiti urging folks to vote for some candidate we would expect to see at least some scribblings or maybe slurs from his political enemies at the very least. Surely one guy hired by the rival politician at night could have gone here and scribbled it over. But no, since someone posted that message at that wall no single Roman ever in Pompeii scribbled over it in Latin or wrote anything here. Look how neat these letters are, a modern day punk would feel invited to chalk something over these fancy regular letters. Indeed, let us look at a random example of modern graffiti that I believe to be representative of most graffiti:




From this we can deduce certain principles of street art that would seem to me to also apply to Roman youngsters:

Graffiti has multiple layers and multiple kinds of sophistication: some here write with fancy white spray while others scribble something with black pen. Also people write over the art of their rival factions.
Graffiti uses abbreviations: take a look at any graffiti in your area. Short abbreviations and codewords dominate rather than full sentences and you can't understand what any of it means most likely.
Graffiti is often written in a different language than the spoken one: German graffiti is still 80% in English and so is Hungarian graffiti for instance.
Here I assumed that the nature of graffiti was the same back then as it is now. See the first pic related for modern graffiti that exhibits all these three characteristics (all graffiti is like that in populated areas)

However all graffiti in Pompeii uses no abbreviations/slang words that existed back then, rarely displays poor handwriting (if illiterate slaves try to scribble on the walls I think they cannot produce nice block letters) and is often mostly grammatically correct so that researchers can nicely read and analyze it! What a cohencidence right?

Graffiti found near a pub in Herculaneum makes even less sense to me when I think about it straight for a second:




So drunk guys strolling out of a bar  still manage to write in neat Roman letters? Heck their handwriting when drunk is better than mine when I'm sober lol. What I would expect to find near a bar/tavern would be less text and more nonsense/abbreviations that cannot be understood by scientists today (they can't even understand what modern graffiti means), as well as penis drawings and deliberate writing over already present graffiti. I mean, do these drunk guys find a piece of wall nearby that has no previous inscription on it? Where is the overlap?

*Partial conclusion: *This graffiti reeks of fakery and I think that TPTB really want us to believe that the languages that the city of Rome spoke throughout recorded history were mainly Italian and Latin. This need to plant false evidence likely indicates that something is indeed off with the way the historic timeline is presented to us by academics. Moreover, suppose we were the ones planting the evidence here. Would we fake this graffiti with the intent to raise the impression that Pompeii was a city that existed "in the Roman period" more than "2000 years ago"? No, I think that role is filled already by the presence of frescos' which "experts" claim are truly Roman, as well as that not a single high schooler is likely to question this fact if the books and professors simply state that Pompeii is an ancient city without providing much proof. Nothing in particular hinges on this graffiti, except for one thing: this forgery obfuscates the true language that was spoken in this city. So it seems that the question that we as truth seekers should be asking ourselves is not immediately "was Pompeii mudflooded?" but "what language did the inhabitants of this city speak?"

*Possible explanation: *Given the limited data at our disposal, the best we can do is to assume that Latin played the same role back then as it does now, namely that it is an elitist language used by clergy, aristocracy and the like. This pattern where the elites like to learn an additional language has been going on for quite a while as for example French later on became supposedly the language used by the elites from France all the way to Russia and even deeper (due to reasons outlined here and in other Napoleon-related posts). So what did the average commoner in Rome speak? I can think of three possibilities in particular, one of which is my favourite:

*Greek*: There is much evidence, some of which is admitted by the narrative, for the existence of a very large Greek-speaking underclass in Rome. Such evidence consists of the letters of Paul to the Romans being written in Greek and the narrative even admits that Greek was the second most spoken language after Latin. However the explanation for this is essentially that the Romans embraced some kind of globalism and took on a Greek identity (_Hellenisation_). Personally, I don't believe this evidence is strong enough as little efforts are made to show why the Greek culture somehow strangled and overshadowed the previous Roman identity to this degree. Moreover, this evidence is easily rejected by the other theories posted on S.H. regarding our poor understanding of the ancient times. So in my view this is the explanation that would stick the closest to the narrative but it is still a pretty poor one overall. Also, the narrative already more or less admits that Greek was a major language so it would not be something worth concealing with all that fake graffiti and books.
*Etruscan: *These Etruscans are supposed to have had a pretty big finger in the soup early on in the empire, with the Tarquins being the last kings of Rome before it became a Republic and Emperor Otho being an Etruscan. As they were supposed to have been mostly traders and seamen, one could speculate that the Etruscan language never disappeared from the Roman streets. Also, if we somehow draw a parallel between the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Israel(may make another post about this in the future), then the Etruscans seem like the Canaanites: a more advanced nation of idolaters with a Phoenician alphabet that got invaded and eventually overcome by a nation (Romans/Israelites) led by one man (Aeneas/Moses) out of a dangerous territory (Troy/Egypt). While this parallel is food for thought for some other time, I would argue that the Etruscan language is virtually extinct at the present time, thus implying that it likely was not the most popular one. Moreover I have some doubts about the existence of these Etruscans since pretty much all artifacts are in the possession of the ancient Italian noble bloodline Farnese. Instead of hiding these artifacts and thus erasing any trace of the true language of Rome, they let their collection circulate so that everyone can learn a thing or two about these Etruscans which seems to have the opposite goal of the faked graffiti. _The Farnese family is incredibly important in my opinion; their bloodline ends with Elisabeth Farnese, a kind of dominatrix queen, which is said to have emasculated the Spanish king. Interestingly enough, a strong female lead by the name of Lady Farnese is present in Miura's Berserk manga and I think that this was a hint at Berserk having masonic significance/information about true history. Makes me wonder if Miura's death was a coincidence... _
*German: *This language here makes the most sense to me as a candidate for Rome's street language. The reason for this is that the Germans call their language _Deutsch_, meaning "of the commoners" (Wikipedia). Hm, what people would call their own language lower or common? At the very least this implies that Germans acknowledged the presence of an "uncommon" language... Now Germany itself is quite connected to Rome, for instance through the Holy Roman Empire which is based in Germany instead of Rome according to the narrative. Moreover, the Catholic Church is frequently called Roman, yet Germany before Protestantism would arguably be the largest Catholic faction in Europe. So does "Roman" here refer to the Church being based in Rome or in the Holy Roman Empire (Germany)? If the two were interchangeable then I think it is valid to reason that there was lots of culture exchange between Rome and Germany, meaning that German flowed into Rome from Germany or the other way around. In any way this would explain why scientists living in Germany publish their papers in Latin and would also imply that the Holy Roman Empire was likely either "the Roman Empire" or at least the two were way closer in time than the narrative tells us. Threads such as these indeed imply that something about Germanic origins has been expunged from history as the official narrative also implies that while the Romans were building some fancy buildings, the Germans were essentially behaving like monkeys and living in the mud. This clearly doesn't make the slightest sense as I would expect Germans and Italians to always be roughly equal in terms of civilisation when left to their own means. Furthermore, I wish to conclude by saying that the reason they want us to believe that Romans spoke Latin is because the Holy Roman Empire where German was spoken gets distinguished from the original Roman Empire. For findings of German graffiti or German artifacts in Pompeii may imply that whatever empire was present there, it is likely the one that is referred to as Charlemagne's, thus erasing over 1k years from the official timeline. This would however be fully consistent with other findings on this site.

Let me guys hear your thoughts about this theory and what the most spoken language in Rome was according to you!
And again, let me know if I formatted this post well!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 28, 2022)

One vote for Greek here.


----------



## JohnNada (Jan 28, 2022)

One vote for German after reading your post!


----------



## GGuilliman (Jan 28, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> One vote for Greek here.


Ay Will, think Greek is quite plausible myself as well yeah. If it ain't German then I'm putting my money on Greek for sure. What consequences would it have for the way we view Rome if Greek was way more prevalent? Iirc the "Dark Ages" Greece went through were way longer than 1k years, basically nothing was heard of Greece or what the Greek cities were up to after the antiquities, all the way up to the Ottoman invasion. If Greek is the correct answer then it probably would explain the Orthodox churches emerging as "people's Christianity" as opposed to state-sanctioned papacy for one so I do see it having some interesting consequences.

Also glad you liked my post man, I saw you made a lot of posts here. Liked the one you wrote on iron in particular, it is indeed a bit suspicious that there is no pure iron around us, only alloys of various kinds. "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass", what if that also relates to alloys somewhat. And clothing/food as well right, you gotta be specifically on the lookout for food with no soy added or clothing that is made out of one material throughout.


JohnNada said:


> One vote for German after reading your post!


So one for German as well, guess its even between Will's and your vote then. As I said, its really strange that we are supposed to believe that Romans were maxxing out their empire while Germans were living in little primitive huts, that's not really what I picture the Germans like in any timeline. However as the Roman Empire never went past the Rhine, it becomes understandable why neither amateur nor professional archeologists try to find any "ruins" under the mud in Germany since all buildings there clearly couldn't belong to Rome's civilisation.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 28, 2022)

Hm. 
-Etruscans were the community romans invaded and erased, or simply outnumbered in society. They built huge pyramids before their reset. Possibly spoken until the jews installed the vatican. Surely spoken a bit in the beginning at least. 
-Greecs i do believe were the civilisation before, which the etruscans and later romans built upon. Not likely?
- Latin, probably only the top level romans, julians, augustians, keiser's and the church and so on.
- German, probably a bit since northerners went down there and left blond and blue eye genes, outside of etruscan former domains. 
- Is it possible the public spoke what the phoenicins did in cartaghe and all the rest of the cities they won before they converted? 
If rome wasnt phoenician i'd say they spoke proto italian. ?

Also, I wonder why german roman forts isnt buried under soil as the english structures is


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 29, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> What consequences would it have for the way we view Rome if Greek was way more prevalent?



As Fulcanelli demonstrated in his 'The Dwellings of the Philosophers' (available in the Resources section), there is a great body of research showing that Greek was the origin of all the *Roman*ce languages, not Latin, so it makes sense that it was also the spoken language of Rome. This research has since fallen out of fashion as everything now has to be Latin and Roman.

Adding this into the mix is another one of those things that make you go 'Hmm...' 
Homer in the Baltic


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 29, 2022)

AlbusDumbledore said:


> Both Greek and Latin were spoken so whats your point? And Latin was the primary language spoken in Ancient Rome......The area was multilingual depending on where you were from. I don't know how you get it was never spoken in Ancient Rome....Now Pope Francis has changed all that up in the 21st Century and decided that Italian would be the primary one not Latin....Of course he changes all that after Pope Benedict had decided Latin would be the primary one...
> 
> And just for the record Latin remains the language of the universal Church...Lest we forget we are dealing with the first Jesuit to ever become Pope which is a break from tradition since the Jesuits are not a religious order just the military arm of the Vatican.
> 
> language-ancient-rome




What is Italian and where did it come from?


----------



## Mick Harper (Jan 29, 2022)

I published this theory twenty years ago. Everybody in the Roman Empire spoke the languages they speak now (or anyway before the standardisation that always follows literacy). Therefore the people of Rome spoke Italian (or more specifically the Lazio dialect of Italian). The people of Pompeii something more like Napolitano. Sorry, dunno the exact technical terms.

Latin is an artificial phonetic rendering of Italian. It can be spoken, just as Esperanto can be spoken but not naturally. All graffiti would have to be in Latin because that was the only written language around -- apart from Classical Greek, another artificial phonetic language. Both Greeks and Romans got the technique from the Phoenicians. Hey, guess why they're called that?


----------



## SonofaBor (Jan 29, 2022)

Perhaps, it is yet spoken by the PTB.  As reported on January 24 by _Real Raw News_:


_Rear Adm. Crandall __spoke: “Gavin Newsom, you’ve been sentenced to hang, having been convicted of treason and unspeakable crimes against children, by a military commission. As is customary, do you want Last Rites, or care to speak any last words?”

“Yeah, you’re all pawns here, including you, Crandall. You feed on the belief you’re righting wrongs, that you’re in some kind of position of power allowing you, a nothing, the authority to judge what is black and what is white. You know what I feed on? I feed on fear and pleasure. I was chosen to rule. You say I blaspheme, but what I did, I did because I can, and because it feels good. You think you’re killing me today, but it’s an illusion,” Newsom hissed.

“It’s far too late for an insanity defense,” Rear Adm. Crandall called out.

“Ready when you are, Crandall,” Newsom spat, and his English suddenly became what can be described only as some cadence of tongues. His tongue flicked in and out of his mouth. “*Vermes et vermiculi comedent animam tuam*,” Newsom said in Latin. The phrase, loosely translated to English, means “worms will eat your soul.”_

True or not? I don't know. Well written? Certainly.  Do I want to argue or derail this fine thread with speculation? No. My point is that someone is telling us maybe this mysterious, power-language, called Latin, is the tongue of the parasites-- to use Sylvie's term.


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 29, 2022)

The American PTBPPTBP speak English. Everybody knows where the parasites are today: America


----------



## Jd755 (Jan 29, 2022)

White man speak with forked tongue.
The inscrutable Chinese.
I'm sure there's more examples
 'out there' _agent Fox mulder._


----------



## TuranSilvanus (Jan 29, 2022)

well i donno if in Italy was spoken but in rest of Europe was not ''taken as for official language'' that is damn sure


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 29, 2022)

Italy was NOT the entire territory of modern Italy in any case, just the central part. The southern part was _Magna Graecia_, the nothern part was _Gallia Cisalpina_.


----------



## Aida (Jan 29, 2022)

There is a Greenland theory running around that theorizes they have always spoken English and have created the different languages to confuse us including the Latin. Something to look into


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 29, 2022)

Aida said:


> There is a Greenland theory running around that theorizes they have always spoken English and have created the different languages to confuse us including the Latin. Something to look into


Yes something to look and laugh loudly at it.


----------



## GGuilliman (Jan 29, 2022)

Blackdiamond said:


> Hm.
> -Etruscans were the community romans invaded and erased, or simply outnumbered in society. They built huge pyramids before their reset. Possibly spoken until the jews installed the vatican. Surely spoken a bit in the beginning at least.
> -Greecs i do believe were the civilisation before, which the etruscans and later romans built upon. Not likely?
> - Latin, probably only the top level romans, julians, augustians, keiser's and the church and so on.
> ...


I'm not too sure on where exactly to place these Etruscans, in particular because these artifacts are mostly owned by one family and we are supposed to believe that they didn't straight up create all of them. However your first point is quite interesting since the Etruscans were said to basically own all Italy and have huge cities such as Veii. So how did these Romans exactly conquer the Etruscans? Roughly after the last Tarquin got kicked out, the Etruscans had some war with Rome and lost to the Romans which is rather odd, given that the Etruscans should have been superior on all fronts. 

Your theory on Carthage and Rome speaking the same language seems as something worth looking into, though I would first like to know what language that was in particular as there are a few things off with the Rosetta stone. An interesting insight here is that the Praetorians were said to wear purple, a color that is of great value to jews(a traditional tzi-tzi must be made with real purple).


Mick Harper said:


> I published this theory twenty years ago. Everybody in the Roman Empire spoke the languages they speak now (or anyway before the standardisation that always follows literacy). Therefore the people of Rome spoke Italian (or more specifically the Lazio dialect of Italian). The people of Pompeii something more like Napolitano. Sorry, dunno the exact technical terms.
> 
> Latin is an artificial phonetic rendering of Italian. It can be spoken, just as Esperanto can be spoken but not naturally. All graffiti would have to be in Latin because that was the only written language around -- apart from Classical Greek, another artificial phonetic language. Both Greeks and Romans got the technique from the Phoenicians. Hey, guess why they're called that?


They certainly did speak these languages for several centuries ofc but even if Latin was "made up", there should still be a good reason for why let's say Spanish and Italian are this similar. The Roman Empire theory, although a hoax, does provide a concise answer here. Personally, I think the last reset may have affected different countries in different ways, wiping out more inhabitants south of the Rhine than north of it for instance. Just throwing guesses out here though.


SonofaBor said:


> Perhaps, it is yet spoken by the PTB.  As reported on January 24 by _Real Raw News_:
> 
> 
> _Rear Adm. Crandall __spoke: “Gavin Newsom, you’ve been sentenced to hang, having been convicted of treason and unspeakable crimes against children, by a military commission. As is customary, do you want Last Rites, or care to speak any last words?”
> ...


Latin is certainly tied to magic in general and I think that several other books, such as Morals and Dogma by Pike, report that Latin has always played a role in rituals. Also, for a dead language, it is a bit weird that pretty much all new inventions get a Latin/Greek name slapped on them. Processors, telephones, automobiles, airplanes, computers, spectacles, television, satellites, scanners, printers, programs, cables etc. all share a Latin/Greek origin. I mean for dead languages they sure seem to be the inventor's language of choice right? No German names for inventions though, pretty odd...

Also all positions of power such as professors, doctors, presentators, presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, reporters, detectives, architects, generals, captains, pilots etc... Essentially if your future son-in-law is related to something with a Latin name your daughter's choice may be a correct one in this regard.


----------



## PatrickMPDonnelly (Jan 30, 2022)

The question  has to be asked: Why all the deceptions?

Recurring catastrophes?


----------



## Mick Harper (Jan 30, 2022)

> but even if Latin was "made up", there should still be a good reason for why let's say Spanish and Italian are this similar.


Spanish and Italian are similar because, presumably, one is an evolved form of the other or they are both evolved forms of a third language. That language cannot have been Latin since that would mean two languages evolving independently of one another in the same direction!


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 30, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> Spanish and Italian are similar because, presumably, one is an evolved form of the other or they are both evolved forms of a third language. That language cannot have been Latin since that would mean two languages evolving independently of one another in the same direction!


I'm curious about your research. Would you like to open a thread to present your ideas?


----------



## Goddo (Jan 30, 2022)

Morning GG, your notes on the Roman Empires response to Christianity is particularly important.  What are your thoughts on the argument that the elite of the Empire planted false flags amongst the occupied territories esp today's Israel and Byzantine, and then proceeded to subvert and co-opt the Messianic sect ?  The argument then goes that, once they convicted Christ, they morphed and included the early church into the state religion (esp Constantine), eventually integrating church and state (the Caesarian cult) into what is today The Vatican.  Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.  regards Goddo


----------



## Nick Weech (Jan 30, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> I published this theory twenty years ago. Everybody in the Roman Empire spoke the languages they speak now (or anyway before the standardisation that always follows literacy). Therefore the people of Rome spoke Italian (or more specifically the Lazio dialect of Italian). The people of Pompeii something more like Napolitano. Sorry, dunno the exact technical terms.
> 
> Latin is an artificial phonetic rendering of Italian. It can be spoken, just as Esperanto can be spoken but not naturally. All graffiti would have to be in Latin because that was the only written language around -- apart from Classical Greek, another artificial phonetic language. Both Greeks and Romans got the technique from the Phoenicians. Hey, guess why they're called that?


I've found a lot of interesting related ideas on your AE site Mick ; of course well known here ...
http://www.applied-epistemology.com...www.applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/index.php


----------



## Mick Harper (Jan 30, 2022)

> I'm curious about your research. Would you like to open a thread to present your ideas?


I wrote about it extensively in the 'old' Stolen History forum, and anyway have moved on since then, so I would be reluctant. It is all set out in _The History of Britain Revealed_ [US title: The Secret History of the English Language] available for a penny on Amazon, though cheap at twice the price. Also this and related subjects are discussed on a daily basis here The Applied Epistemology Library :: Index

But I'm always happy to chew the cud in other people's threads.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 30, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Latin is certainly tied to magic in general and I think that several other books, such as Morals and Dogma by Pike, report that Latin has always played a role in rituals. Also, for a dead language, it is a bit weird that pretty much all new inventions get a Latin/Greek name slapped on them.



That's a very interesting observation, one that I hadn't thought about before. All plants are given Latin names. Are the names of drugs also Latin? It's almost as if all the components of our reality have to be catalogued, defined and labelled in Latin. All of the new additions and inventions also have to be 'owned' by giving them Latin names, because it is an expression of ownership, like branding cattle. I suppose it follows then that to manipulate something in our reality, by the use of ritual magic for example, it needs to be done in Latin. Whereas to manipulate something outside of our reality it's normally done in Enochian.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a *mark of ownership*. Latin was / is not only used by the Church, but also the legal system, both of which are primarily concerned with ownership. It reminds me of the "hidden in plain sight" adage for some reason and also the story about how certain indigenous people believed that having their photograph taken would steal their soul. Perhaps Latin naming is the equivalent of the way they saw the photography process?

Apologies, thinking out loud really.


----------



## GGuilliman (Jan 30, 2022)

PatrickMPDonnelly said:


> The question  has to be asked: Why all the deceptions?
> 
> Recurring catastrophes?


That's probably the most important question yeah. In this case I think the question can be narrowed down a bit to "why aren't we supposed to know the true language spoken in Pompeii at least"? Doesn't make it that much easier but still, I think we gotta get a conclusive answer to that and many other questions of this scope before we can make sense of why they are hiding a big portion of the truth. A pretty simple answer would probably be that, whatever the cause of these catastrophes may be, the fact they occurred is enough to severely depress the majority of most people alive. If a meteorite was to hit tomorrow and you were the ruler, would it be ethical to make that news public and would it make you evil if you decided to hide it from the people? I mean most people that look into the kind of stuff that gets posted on this forum and question the narrative in any way tend to become a little weird, such knowledge affects even those who seek it, let alone those who don't and are faced with it unexpectedly.


Goddo said:


> Morning GG, your notes on the Roman Empires response to Christianity is particularly important.  What are your thoughts on the argument that the elite of the Empire planted false flags amongst the occupied territories esp today's Israel and Byzantine, and then proceeded to subvert and co-opt the Messianic sect ?  The argument then goes that, once they convicted Christ, they morphed and included the early church into the state religion (esp Constantine), eventually integrating church and state (the Caesarian cult) into what is today The Vatican.  Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this.  regards Goddo


Evening Goddo, glad you are interested! Personally I don't think the Roman Empire existed as we are told in the books, some very very major empire did exist but finding its name or a list of rulers is a difficult task. However when we look at the Vatican we should probably look at the Orthodox church since they indeed more or less claim what you write: the Orthodox consider themselves to be older than the Catholics and mention that the Catholics got subverted early on. And then you even got the Old Believers who claim that the current Orthodox church, both Russian and Greek, got subverted, so I think that someone at some point steered the churches in a pretty bad direction. I do think it is pretty difficult to find good sources related to what exactly this Caesarian cult of the Roman Empire was other than the worship of the Roman Emperor. With the amount of traditions that the Catholic church has from a bygone era, I would say that they added more to Christianity than just pope worship for instance. The eucharist in particular is something that has never been said to be part of Caesar worship and may have a different origin. Greetings, GGuilliman.


Will Scarlet said:


> That's a very interesting observation, one that I hadn't thought about before. All plants are given Latin names. Are the names of drugs also Latin? It's almost as if all the components of our reality have to be catalogued, defined and labelled in Latin. All of the new additions and inventions also have to be 'owned' by giving them Latin names, because it is an expression of ownership, like branding cattle. I suppose it follows then that to manipulate something in our reality, by the use of ritual magic for example, it needs to be done in Latin. Whereas to manipulate something outside of our reality it's normally done in Enochian.
> 
> The more I think about it the more it seems like a *mark of ownership*. Latin was / is not only used by the Church, but also the legal system, both of which are primarily concerned with ownership. It reminds me of the "hidden in plain sight" adage for some reason and also the story about how certain indigenous people believed that having their photograph taken would steal their soul. Perhaps Latin naming is the equivalent of the way they saw the photography process?
> 
> Apologies, thinking out loud really.


Yeah exactly, Latin names are slapped on top of everything that can be considered a major advancement of the human race that isn't occult. Everything science/policy related is in Latin for some reason. Drugs have straight up weird names ending on -vir, -lam and -pir, that is either nonsense or written in an unknown language. Could be food for thought, right? Maybe certain drug names are anagrams even. I think that the language in which something gets named indeed implies *ownership* or perhaps even a choice of *audience*. Think about it, if you write a certain kind of data in Norwegian, your target audience is likely the Norwegians. So if it is decided to write all important names in Latin, then who is the target audience of that? 

About photography, I think that older people of all nations seem to dislike it for some reason yeah, such as my great-grandmother. It makes me wonder about the saying "those who are remembered live forever". Could it be that photographs erase all other clues about a dead person except for their looks? Like, if you remember the voice or the touch of a loved one, would a photograph erase those memories and replace them with the visual one alone? This is a topic that interests me a lot, it seems the ancient world does like statues of people but not photographs(I bet they could easily imprint whole pictures into their stone if they wished to). So why is a statue okay and a picture not? 

Moreover, photographs nowadays are mandatory for identification purposes. Makes me think of that one verse where God told David to take a census, yet it turned out the devil actually said it. Why would the devil require a mortal to identify the citizens and why was it such a big deal in general in those verses, why couldn't he have gotten a rough estimate for himself if it was the information he cared about?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 31, 2022)

"The earliest known specimen of the Latin language appears on the Praeneste fibula. A new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period, in the first half of the seventh century BC.[3] Other Old Latin inscriptions dated to either the late Roman Kingdom or early Roman Republic include the Lapis Niger stone, the Duenos Inscription on a kernos vase, and the Garigliano bowl of Bucchero type."
Old Latin - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" - and yet the Praeneste fibula is a golden brooch that can't be carbon dated.

"The fibula was presented to the public in 1887 by Wolfgang Helbig, an archaeologist. According to some sources, Helbig did not explain how he had come to acquire the artifact at the time, although others state that the fibula "was first made known to the public in three short articles in the Römische Mitteilungen for 1887 where it is said to have been purchased in Palestrina by a friend of Helbig in the year 1871, or five years before the discovery of the tomb" – the tomb in question being the Bernardini Tomb whose treasure the fibula was later claimed to be a part of.

"In 1980 Margherita Guarducci, a leading epigraphist, published a book arguing that the inscription had been forged by Francesco Martinetti, an art dealer, and Helbig, who were known to have collaborated in shady dealings. Guardicci argued that the fibula's presentation in 1887, was a hoax perpetrated to advance the careers of both men. This was the most formal but not the first accusation of its kind: Georg Karo had said that Helbig told him that the fibula had been stolen from Palestrina's Tomba Bernardini."
Praeneste fibula - Wikipedia

"beyond any reasonable doubt" my ar- arm.

All of the other candidates for oldest Latin script are also on materials that cannot be carbon dated... and even if they were, could we trust it?


----------



## dreamtime (Jan 31, 2022)

Great post, I have translated it for our german forum: In Rom und Pompeji wurde nie Lateinisch gesprochen


----------



## BusyBaci (Jan 31, 2022)

I agree with OP. Latin and Greek language were both invented as the language of the elites of those societies. They were eager to communicate within their ranks and not getting understood from the commons. This way they hide their agendas in plain sight and are looked upon as these all knowing elite-gods.

Latin is a highly regular language missing a lot of irregular verbs that are very common in a natural evolving language. Vulgar Latin was used by the Etruscans which were widespread in the Italic peninsula, so the elites used their language as the root basis and then added a lot of "-ium" endings to the words. The result is that Latin sounds highly regular, samey and monotonous.

The Etruscans were part of the Pelasgians and they spoke the old Albanian language or Shqip. It's really easy to explain Latin or Italian words by using Shqip.
For example:
lanterrna=lan+terr in Shqip lan(to wash), terr(darkness) meaning to wash the darkness away, to illuminate.
amicus(friendly)=a+mic/mik a(is), mik(friend) 
Lucifer=luci+ferr luci(light), ferr(hell) meaning light from hell or in hell
there are more examples like this.


----------



## GGuilliman (Jan 31, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> "The earliest known specimen of the Latin language appears on the Praeneste fibula. A new analysis performed in 2011 declared it to be genuine "beyond any reasonable doubt" and dating from the Orientalizing period, in the first half of the seventh century BC.[3] Other Old Latin inscriptions dated to either the late Roman Kingdom or early Roman Republic include the Lapis Niger stone, the Duenos Inscription on a kernos vase, and the Garigliano bowl of Bucchero type."
> Old Latin - Wikipedia
> 
> "beyond any reasonable doubt" - and yet the Praeneste fibula is a golden brooch that can't be carbon dated.
> ...


These Palestinian archeologists or whoever was selling such trinkets for a small price must apparently all have been fools with no understanding of the place they inhabited right? Lol don't think so. And yeah carbon dating is quite bad, I think that if they made the narrative in the way that Romans mummified their dead that ordinary scientists would notice how bad this method. I imagine carbon dating in practice being the same as PCR tests, you send something to a lab and the science priests give you counsel. 


dreamtime said:


> Great post, I have translated it for our german forum: In Rom und Pompeji wurde nie Lateinisch gesprochen


Great, you have my thanks!


BusyBaci said:


> I agree with OP. Latin and Greek language were both invented as the language of the elites of those societies. They were eager to communicate within their ranks and not getting understood from the commons. This way they hide their agendas in plain sight and are looked upon as these all knowing elite-gods.
> 
> Latin is a highly regular language missing a lot of irregular verbs that are very common in a natural evolving language. Vulgar Latin was used by the Etruscans which were widespread in the Italic peninsula, so the elites used their language as the root basis and then added a lot of "-ium" endings to the words. The result is that Latin sounds highly regular, samey and monotonous.
> 
> ...


Nice post there, the ties of Albania to Italy are indeed worth researching. For example the Zogu house, the Venetians sharing history with the Albanians etc. is quite interesting since the origins of Albanian probably got erased on purpose as well, no way that such a complicated and intricate language pops up out of nowhere. Never knew about where the word for lantern comes from, official etymology says it comes from lampros/lamp in Greek but that makes less sense then. If you want to share more on Venice and Italy or your knowledge of how Shqip aids etymology, sure make a thread and I'd be interested in reading it!


----------



## BusyBaci (Feb 1, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> If you want to share more on Venice and Italy or your knowledge of how Shqip aids etymology, sure make a thread and I'd be interested in reading it!


Of course. It will require some digging to find the references and a lot of translations from Shqip to English but it's doable. There are many authors that make the link between Pelasgian language and the Albanian (Shqip) language. The Pelasgians were said to be sea faring people of the Mediterranian area, but the research on them it is not clear on when and how for many authors, things get blurry.
I'll make a draft first and plan on expanding it on 3-4 levels, language, mythology, customs and of course my own speculation in the end of it.


----------



## matematik (Feb 1, 2022)

Albania seems to have ended up being very diluted by the Ottoman empire. I think they introduced a lot of non-European blood from other parts of the empire, hence why Albania is now majority Muslim. Maybe this was done deliberately by the cabal to suppress/erase their history?

I also read that apparently most Albanian words today are of foreign origin, with Turkish being the largest component. So the core native Albanian vocab only continues to make up a small minority of words.

The other point I would make is that Albanians used to call themselves "Arbërians", and "Shqiptar" seems to be a much more modern term that only started to be used after the Ottoman invasion, maybe as late as the 18th century.

Maybe this reflects that Ottoman rule changed the fabric of the country so much that the new people/culture that emerged adopted a new identity?


----------



## Goddo (Feb 1, 2022)

Albania ... such a pivotal meeting ground / melting pot.  From the Great Steppes of Asia, homerange of the nomadic Mongol tribes (perhaps later even the origins of the Hunnic tribes.  From readings i've found, the VisiGoth / Vandal tribes (western/central Europe), actively sought marriage alliances with the ancient Albanian peoples. Always wondered WHY ?  Your arguments above provide many of the answers.  Perhaps the New Elites of Greece and Rome, used language as a means to subvert / divert power, prestige, influence ... AWAY from the older nobilities of Albania.  PlayBook 101 of The Puppeteers is always ... Divide & Conquer !  (The English Crown used the same technique with the English Lang in all their colonies).  Look forward to your comments and critique.  regards


matematik said:


> Albania seems to have ended up being very diluted by the Ottoman empire. I think they introduced a lot of non-European blood from other parts of the empire, hence why Albania is now majority Muslim. Maybe this was done deliberately by the cabal to suppress/erase their history?
> 
> I also read that apparently most Albanian words today are of foreign origin, with Turkish being the largest component. So the core native Albanian vocab only continues to make up a small minority of words.
> 
> ...


Albania ... such a pivotal meeting ground / melting pot.  From the Great Steppes of Asia, homerange of the nomadic Mongol tribes (perhaps later even the origins of the Hunnic tribes.  From readings i've found, the VisiGoth / Vandal tribes (western/central Europe), actively sought marriage alliances with the ancient Albanian peoples. Always wondered WHY ?  Your arguments above provide many of the answers.  Perhaps the New Elites of Greece and Rome, used language as a means to subvert / divert power, prestige, influence ... AWAY from the older nobilities of Albania.  PlayBook 101 of The Puppeteers is always ... Divide & Conquer !  (The English Crown used the same technique with the English Lang in all their colonies).  Look forward to your comments and critique.  regards


----------



## Safranek (Feb 1, 2022)

Some thoughts and the actual language(s) spoken by the common people of the time(s) in question:

1. When we say they spoke 'Greek', we must consider that what we now call 'Greek' is a derivation from what was initially called Minoan - Mycenaean (Linear A and B) only later to become Greek and any correlation it may have to the Scythian languages.

2. When we say Etruscan, we are in the same time frame as the Celts and if we look at Celtic languages we see an extremely wide range of theories and arguments. If we look at the maps of the Celtic home lands we can see that the Etruscan areas are included in some of them.

3. Latin has never been acknowledged as a generally spoken language, it seems to have been a language used by controllers for the displacement of the former languages.

Here's one example of how it happened in Hungary:



> *Appendix IX*
> 
> *Translation of the title: Decrees of King István I
> Published in the yearbook of The Nyíregyháza András Jósa Museum 1969-71*
> ...


Source: An Appendix of this article which I have yet to post.

A New View of the Arthurian Legends - Susan V. Tomory - 1/5

What I'd be interested in is similar information from other nations regarding how their original alphabet and language was 'attacked' by the Vatican, as I highly doubt the Hungarians were the only ones using writing in their original language around those times of 'Roman' conquest.



BusyBaci said:


> The Etruscans were part of the Pelasgians and they spoke the old Albanian language or Shqip. It's really easy to explain Latin or Italian words by using Shqip.
> For example:
> lanterrna=lan+terr in Shqip lan(to wash), terr(darkness) meaning to wash the darkness away, to illuminate.
> amicus(friendly)=a+mic/mik a(is), mik(friend)
> ...


This is the kind of linguistic research that is needed, not only from Albanian, but also from Bulgarian (as per air_dance), Welsh, Russian, Magyar, German, etc., as they all seem to have derived from an ancient language that was likely more widely used than the current historical narrative admits. Presently, its offered up by linguist as the 'borrowing' of vocabulary when in reality it could be remnants of an ancient language.

Instead of attributing it to any of the current languages, we should be looking at what percentage of that ancient language(s) has survived in our modern languages (which seems to correlate with the amount of 'Latin' influence regarding a given nation).


----------



## Goddo (Feb 1, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> This is my first post on this forum although I did lurk here for a fair bit so I hope that I get the format of a usual message right.
> If not then please let me know (below or in DMs) how I can follow certain conventions better!
> ...


Key Issue raised here is how The Puppeteers have used / continue to use ... language as THE BARRIER TO ENTRY ... the great unwashed must be kept away from knowledge which will empower, e.g  legal systems, the church (as THE GATEKEEPER), pharma-medico mafia, in our age InfoTech now also deploys tech jargon (the Latin of 21st C) to keep the herd OUT.


Nick Weech said:


> I've found a lot of interesting related ideas on your AE site Mick ; of course well known here ...
> http://www.applied-epistemology.com...www.applied-epistemology.com/phpbb2/index.php


Any thoughts on the role played by Carthage in this saga ?


----------



## Mick Harper (Feb 1, 2022)

This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.



> When we say they spoke 'Greek', we must consider that what we now call 'Greek' is a derivation from what was initially called Minoan - Mycenaean (Linear A and B) only later to become Greek


Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.



> When we say Etruscan, we are in the same time frame as the Celts and if we look at Celtic languages we see an extremely wide range of theories and arguments. If we look at the maps of the Celtic home lands we can see that the Etruscan areas are included in some of them.


Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.


----------



## Goddo (Feb 1, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.
> ...


... so then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ?  Really short, sweet and to the point


Mick Harper said:


> This is all much too convoluted. Albanians speak Albanian just like they always did. They have the usual loan words from whoever happens to be ruling them at any given time, is all. Hungarians speak Magyar on the same basis. Alphabets... yes, that's a different matter.
> 
> 
> Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.
> ...


So then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ?  Too short, too sweet, too, to the point ??


----------



## Mick Harper (Feb 1, 2022)

> So then can't we simply argue that we all speak some sort of Indo-Aryan dialect ?


You are assuming there ever was an Indo-Aryan dialect. The whole Indo-European theory is based on history and politics, not linguistic analysis. Ever wondered at the coincidence that the British in India would discover, hey whaddyaknow, Sanskrit is related to English? But even assuming there is an Indo-European family of languages, it cannot be denied that r_ight now _the people living in western Europe speak various languages and they must have come from somewhere. And that many of them have too many resemblances _not_ to be closely related.

_Now _you can start linguistic analysis. Just be comparing them. But not by bringing in weird a-typical (or unknown) languages like Latin or Pelasgian or Indic.


----------



## Goddo (Feb 1, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> You are assuming there ever was an Indo-Aryan dialect. The whole Indo-European theory is based on history and politics, not linguistic analysis. Ever wondered at the coincidence that the British in India would discover, hey whaddyaknow, Sanskrit is related to English? But even assuming there is an Indo-European family of languages, it cannot be denied that r_ight now _the people living in western Europe speak various languages and they must have come from somewhere. And that many of them have too many resemblances _not_ to be closely related.
> 
> _Now _you can start linguistic analysis. Just be comparing them. But not by bringing in weird a-typical (or unknown) languages like Latin or Pelasgian or Indic.


So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical, and attempts to assist us to make some sense of our Tower of Babel.  If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea.  This for sure, people use language as a power tools.


----------



## Mick Harper (Feb 1, 2022)

> So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical


You are too pessimistic though, yes, linguists are forever coming up with theories from data that just is not there. 


> If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea.


I can't agree. They keep only too well. Linguists always assume that what is written on them is what people spoke. Before c 1300 AD this was never the case.


> This for sure, people use language as a power tools.


Never seen that. Everybody I know uses it to talk to one another.


----------



## heretolearn (Feb 1, 2022)

This speak of latin makes me wonder. If latin is a magical language or infact an evil language. One specifically designed for binding or control either through naming or through decree. Is logography the counterance to it? Did the ancient egyptians and even the cunieform writing mesopotamians actually write in these ways because a language such as latin was present and logography was the only way to write without any fear of obfuscation or hidden meaning? can glyphs have dual meaning in the same way for example as some english words and leagalease have?


----------



## matematik (Feb 1, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.



The "Celtic" languages are isolates and not Indo-European in my opinion, because so many of their features are completely atypical of IE languages such as VSO word order, complex consonant mutations, broad/slender consonant distinction, verbs often conjugated by altering the start of the verb rather than the end, they have many IE loan words but the core native vocab shows little affinity with IE. None of these features exist in pretty much any other IE language.

Academia only classifies them as IE languages to fit the theory of a much wider Celtic culture in Europe, it's part of their agenda.


----------



## Mick Harper (Feb 1, 2022)

I entirely agree with this analysis. They got incorporated into Indo-European for political reasons. Everyone was trying to draw England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland into one entity at the time. If they had been spoken in, say, Hungary or Finland or the Basque region, they would, as you say, be described as 'isolates'. This tells you all you need to know about how 'scientific' the study of linguistics actually is.


----------



## GGuilliman (Feb 1, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> I'll make a draft first and plan on expanding it on 3-4 levels, language, mythology, customs and of course my own speculation in the end of it.


Nice, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on it! Really rare to have Albanians to share such things as well so yeah I'm all ears!


Goddo said:


> So many of these discussions on language are purely theoretical, and attempts to assist us to make some sense of our Tower of Babel.  If only paper and papyrus kept alittle better and weathered the test of time, perhaps we'd have a better idea.  This for sure, people use language as a power tools.


I personally don't subscribe to the Indo-European theory myself too much since we have seen for one that Latin and perhaps, as some posters suggest, Greek were more or less constructed languages. It also seems that the whole theory hinges too much on documents that cannot be accurately dated such as some Indian pieces; if anything it makes it more difficult to determine who built the stone buildings. For instance, the Japanese are rarely counted as Indo-Europeans and yet we see that Japan also contains the same kind of masonry as we find in Europe. Yet their current language is definitely not Indo-European and their previous language as seen in the maps seems fully alien to me; hence the Indo-European theory fails to describe the Japanese problem well imo. 


matematik said:


> The "Celtic" languages are isolates and not Indo-European in my opinion, because so many of their features are completely atypical of IE languages such as VSO word order, complex consonant mutations, broad/slender consonant distinction, verbs often conjugated by altering the start of the verb rather than the end, they have many IE loan words but the core native vocab shows little affinity with IE. None of these features exist in pretty much any other IE language.
> 
> Academia only classifies them as IE languages to fit the theory of a much wider Celtic culture in Europe, it's part of their agenda.


Yep and it was even acknowledged that Celtic languages contained vowels and sounds that aren't found anywhere else in the other "PIE" languages. Academics called those laryngales and said something along the lines of "these three sounds probably existed in THE original Indo-European language but fell out of use", which sounds a bit like clinging too much to a poor theory. 


heretolearn said:


> This speak of latin makes me wonder. If latin is a magical language or infact an evil language. One specifically designed for binding or control either through naming or through decree. Is logography the counterance to it? Did the ancient egyptians and even the cunieform writing mesopotamians actually write in these ways because a language such as latin was present and logography was the only way to write without any fear of obfuscation or hidden meaning? can glyphs have dual meaning in the same way for example as some english words and leagalease have?


About the glyphs and the question of whether the pyramids are ancient, I can recommend this Napoleon thread to you. Personally, I think it's a little bit suspicious that this Champollion fellow goes 700 IQ mode and beats all researchers of those glyphs after being taken along to Egypt by Napoleon. So in a sense I do think that those who are related to these pyramids understood Latin, that much is certain. The language definitely does go way back imo but I'm not sure about how accurate this decryption of the glyphs was.


----------



## Gabriel (Feb 2, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Where are however, if I may ask, material that was famous among the lower classes such as comedy, Roman theatre plays, smut or most importantly, *books to learn Latin* written by ancient Romans?


I see what you are saying.  I am glad Petronius was mentioned because _The Satyricon_ is a prime example of the unusual circumstances of the so-called primary sources of the Romans.  By the way, the short version of the Satyricon I read is disgusting, but I wouldn’t let that serve as proof of “mass media”.    Apart from an honest summary by Wikipedia admitting the book was found in the 17th century, they also disclose the subjective nature of dating

“The date of the Satyricon was controversial in 19th- and 20th-century scholarship, with dates proposed as varied as the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD.[11] A consensus on this issue now exists. A date under Nero (1st century AD) is indicated by the work's social background[12] and in particular by references to named popular entertainers.[13][14]

Evidence in the author's style and literary concerns also indicate that this was the period during which he was writing. Except where the Satyricon imitates colloquial language, as in the speeches of the freedmen at Trimalchio's dinner, its style corresponds with the literary prose of the period. Eumolpus' poem on the Civil War and the remarks with which he prefaces it (118–124) are generally understood as a response to the Pharsalia of the Neronian poet Lucan.[14][15]
." Source. 

The Etruscan and Sardinian languages seem to me like the prime candidates as the forerunner to Latin, more do to their proximity and antiquity.  But, Etruscan is read right-to-left and overlaps with hebrew, as does ancient Greek.  I don’t know what came first, but PaleoGreek, PaleoHebrew and Etruscan have many similarities, more than Each other than with Latin.  There are several books on this overlap by Saul Levin and Yahuda, and  one Out of print, evaluating Etruscan as a semitic language and contrasting it with Hebrew by Sevini.   Here is the rationale behind that claim:





 
This paper briefly discusses some major similarities and differences between Latin and Etruscan. Of note, the greatest similarity not shared with another language in the region is the numbering system, characterised by “counting by subtraction” (eg. IV instead of IIII).


----------



## Mick Harper (Feb 2, 2022)

> Celtic languages contained vowels and sounds that aren't found anywhere else in the other "PIE" languages. Academics called those laryngales and said something along the lines of "these three sounds probably existed in THE original Indo-European language but fell out of use", which sounds a bit like clinging too much to a poor theory.


If true, this would be an example of an academic paradigm theory with a get-out-of-jail clause that ensures its own immortality. If anything either fits or, if it doesn't, is evidence that it used to fit, then nothing can ever come along to disturb the theory. Anybody over the age of six would say, "You mean, with the single exception of the Celtic branch, the same three sounds dropped out of every IE language despite IE language branches being separated by tens of thousands of miles?"


----------



## emerald (Feb 2, 2022)

At school when I learnt Latin, we were told the that the Romans wrote in Latin and spoke Greek...very odd anyway...


----------



## BusyBaci (Feb 2, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> There are several books on this overlap by Saul Levin and Yahuda, and one Out of print, evaluating Etruscan as a semitic language and contrasting it with Hebrew by Sevini. Here is the rationale behind that claim


Sir you was right right in describing those Sardinian and Etruscan languages as primate candidates for the basis of roman language. But I do not in any way come to accords with your insight that the Etruscans were using a Semitic base language as their daily driver. And your link to Sevini's claims is nothing more than a 3 sentences paragraph leading to nowhere except Jewish propaganda.
More likely were the Jews that incorporated other peoples folklore, customs, mythology, language and history into their own to make it appear as they had one.
But they didn't had any of these, they were casts out from many societies in Europe exactly because they had nothing of the sort.


----------



## Gabriel (Feb 2, 2022)

BusyBaci said:


> Sevini's claims is nothing more than a 3 sentences paragraph leading to nowhere except Jewish propaganda.



There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of _Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets.”  _

 Hebrew, Greek, and arabic have many similar word stems, and the similarities between Hebrew and Greek are documented and acknowledged. So for myself, I will look into this potential connection without summarily dismissing it as propaganda. If you know with certainty that something is propaganda I genuinely would like to know so I can save myself the trouble.

Below are two tables arranged to show the similarities between Phoenician, Ancient Hebrew, Greek, and a comparison on the far right with Etruscan and Latin.   What this shows is that the languages are very similar.  I am sure in depth study will expand on their similarities.


----------



## Safranek (Feb 2, 2022)

Mick Harper said:


> Isn't it easier to say that Greeks always spoke the Demotic Greek they speak today and Minoan Greeks, Mycenaean Greeks and Classical Greeks invented various phonetic versions and wrote it in various phonetic alphabets? That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows.



It may be easier for you (and some others) to say this, but there is evidence that points to the contrary:



> Some quotes from the source mentioned below:
> 
> While both Minoans  and Mycenaeans had both “first farmer” and “eastern”  genetic origins,  Mycenaeans traced an additional minor component of  their ancestry to  ancient inhabitants of Eastern Europe and northern  Eurasia. This type of  so-called Ancient North Eurasian ancestry is one  of the three ancestral  populations of present-day Europeans, and is  also found in modern  Greeks.
> 
> ...



Source:

Minoans, First Advanced European Civilization, Originated From Europe Not Africa Ancient DNA Reveals

So if they were genetically similar, would it not allow for stemming from a common culture? Of course it would. So there is a high probability that what they spoke was likely the language of their original culture, and give that its evidently partly European and partly Eurasian, this would put them in relation with not onlly the Scythian but with the Celtic groups.

"That's what the evidence, such as it is, shows."



Mick Harper said:


> Are these the 'Celtic' languages that once covered most of Europe, disappeared for no particular reason, only to pop up in west Wales, northern Scotland, and bits of Ireland and Brittany? Come on, please.



They didn't disappear, they either systematically evolved or devolved depending on the amount of linguistic destruction they encountered.

As shown in my previous post, languages and alphabets don't just disappear, alphabets can be '_burned by iron and fire_'. Languages can be forcibly distorted through generations of 'religious education', which is what I suspect happened to not only to Proto-European languages but all over the world where the Vatican installed their Judeo-Christian 'education system' which is still indoctrinating the masses today in the guise of 'scientific' research, analysis and 'education'.

According to currently accepted belief, Latin started with Old Latin, then Classical Latin, then Vulgar Latin and on to Medieval Latin. No sense naming the rest as by then they have been thoroughly 'updated' by the 'Roman conquerors'.

If we check Old Latin, it is acknowledged that it was written using the Etruscan alphabet. So was it a spoken language separate from Etruscan without it's own alphabet? This is either the case or the whole language itself was derived from and became a modified Etruscan. Thereby, there is no evidence that Latin existed as a language at the time the Etruscans, Mycaeaneans, etc. already had confirmed alphabets and languages. 



Gabriel said:


> There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of _Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets._



Personally, I think Mario Alinei's research on the Etruscan language comes closest to reality and he doesn't mention Hebrew. Mainstream does not agree with him, but their efforts to disprove him have not been successful, linguistically speaking.

Mario Alinei - Wikipedia

The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm - Texts on line (list per subject)


----------



## BusyBaci (Feb 2, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> There is little I can find for Etruscan and Hebrew overlap, but on page 789 of _Encyclopedia Brittanica, vol VIII, (1958), “The Etruscans used a form of alphabet that was a variant of one of the early Greek Alphabets.”  _
> 
> Hebrew, Greek, and arabic have many similar word stems, and the similarities between Hebrew and Greek are documented and acknowledged. So for myself, I will look into this potential connection without summarily dismissing it as propaganda. If you know with certainty that something is propaganda I genuinely would like to know so I can save myself the trouble.
> 
> ...


Sir, you keep not wanting to understand my point. As I said before the Jews were notoriously known into appropriating and internalizing language and customs from their host nations which were they were hosted.
A alphabet means nothing, it's just a construct of letters for the purpose of forming words and sentences.
But the meaning of those words is attributed to a specific culture and mindset.
It's like saying that mathematics brings forth the same formulae and theories just because different cultures use the same roman numbers in their calculations. Which is obviously false.
Different cultures have different ways of expressing their knowledge in mathematics and their appliances through numbers and calculations.
Just like people have a tendency to use different alphabets but to form the same phonetic words and meanings to them in accordance with the new alphabet. 
I'm sorry but your reasoning is lacking into this directions and if you persist, that means that you took it too seriously.


----------



## GGuilliman (Feb 2, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> I see what you are saying.  I am glad Petronius was mentioned because _The Satyricon_ is a prime example of the unusual circumstances of the so-called primary sources of the Romans.  By the way, the short version of the Satyricon I read is disgusting, but I wouldn’t let that serve as proof of “mass media”.    Apart from an honest summary by Wikipedia admitting the book was found in the 17th century, they also disclose the subjective nature of dating
> 
> “The date of the Satyricon was controversial in 19th- and 20th-century scholarship, with dates proposed as varied as the 1st century BC and 3rd century AD.[11] A consensus on this issue now exists. A date under Nero (1st century AD) is indicated by the work's social background[12] and in particular by references to named popular entertainers.[13][14]
> 
> ...


Personally I think that Petronius is incredibly fake because our man Poggio seems to be behind it and that name should ring major alarm bells. So yeah that disgusting work is indeed not much proof of any kind of "mass media" and I also doubt the Romans would read it because it would be considered disgusting nowadays even by Rule 34's standards  I am not really sure however what the origin of these Etruscans are because I think that any serious discussion of them should take the fact into account that a single Italian family is very invested in Etruscans.


Mick Harper said:


> If true, this would be an example of an academic paradigm theory with a get-out-of-jail clause that ensures its own immortality. If anything either fits or, if it doesn't, is evidence that it used to fit, then nothing can ever come along to disturb the theory. Anybody over the age of six would say, "You mean, with the single exception of the Celtic branch, the same three sounds dropped out of every IE language despite IE language branches being separated by tens of thousands of miles?"


Exactly! Much science is like that unfortunately, we aren't allowed to do any real science.


Safranek said:


> It may be easier for you (and some others) to say this, but there is evidence that points to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





BusyBaci said:


> Sir, you keep not wanting to understand my point. As I said before the Jews were notoriously known into appropriating and internalizing language and customs from their host nations which were they were hosted.
> A alphabet means nothing, it's just a construct of letters for the purpose of forming words and sentences.
> But the meaning of those words is attributed to a specific culture and mindset.
> It's like saying that mathematics brings forth the same formulae and theories just because different cultures use the same roman numbers in their calculations. Which is obviously false.
> ...


Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.


----------



## BusyBaci (Feb 2, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.


I did promised you that I'll provide some explanations about the Pelasgians and the Etruscan origins leading towards the Latin language. And I'm working on it, but there is nowhere to be found about the Italian peninsula to be influenced by the Jews culture and language. There is more to come. Cheers.


----------



## Gabriel (Feb 2, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.


There are many theories as to the true language of Rome.  The timeline for the beginning of the Roman Empire does vary somewhat, but it overlaps partly with the Etruscan territory.



Etruscan civilization, 750-500 B.C.E. (CC BY-SA 3.0), NormanEinstein - based on a map from _The National Geographic Magazine_ Vol.173 No.6 (June 1988)
So, if Latin is not the true language of the Romans, it probably was Etruscan, atleast for a short while, but that is what this has to do with your discussion.

Now, for the second part. The Hebrew origin is not the most important aspect, it is the _Semitic _aspect. There is a very short list of languages written right to left today. Etruscan happens to be written right to left for the most part. Is Etruscan, inter alia, the Roman Language, based on a Semitic language (Yes there are many theories.)? There are some people pushing this theory, I am just exploring it.

"*The few Etruscan-Latin bilingual inscriptions, all funerary, have some limited importance with respect to improving our knowledge of Etruscan. However, the inscribed gold plaques found at the site of the ancient sanctuary of Pyrgi, the port city of Caere, provide two texts; one in Etruscan and the other in Phoenician, of significant length (about 40 words) and of similar content. They are the equivalent of a bilingual inscription and thus offer substantial data for the elucidation of Etruscan by way of Phoenician, a known language. The find is also an important historical document, which records the dedication to the Phoenician goddess Astarte of a "sacred place" in the Etruscan sanctuary of Pyrgi by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere, early in the 5th century BC. "*
source

"The Etruscan language comes from the territory of Syria and contains a significant amount of ancient Eastern Semitic borrowings..." [Latypov F.R., 1994a]. source


----------



## heretolearn (Feb 2, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> About the glyphs and the question of whether the pyramids are ancient, I can recommend this Napoleon thread to you. Personally, I think it's a little bit suspicious that this Champollion fellow goes 700 IQ mode and beats all researchers of those glyphs after being taken along to Egypt by Napoleon. So in a sense I do think that those who are related to these pyramids understood Latin, that much is certain. The language definitely does go way back imo but I'm not sure about how accurate this decryption of the glyphs was.


Thank you for the recommended reading and the insight you shared it was really helpful. Having read the thread. I can offer an alternative approach to those findings. My theory and model have always been based off the concept this cycle began in around 1550ad as indicated by the work of george dodwell. More recently I have been inclined to believe it began in rome specifically. I think its likely that those who came back upon the restart of this cycle were the lineage of what was essentially the romans of the byzantine empire (352-1550) in the form of their heirs and succesors. Having resettled there they accessed the informations held within what is the vatican today which was left by their forefathers likely maps and documentation. I think as the thread suggests these people never went to egypt and never actually observed the pyramids or sphinx. What they did do however was see the pyramid of cestius in rome, read of the location in egypt and create maps and images with the notion all pyramids were akin in design to the one in rome. 

The maps are considered to be of 1575 this is shortly after their reintroduction here, not a long enough time frame to go and see the pyramids especially considering that they had a new world to establish. As the thread indicates they had modern day issues to deal with the past was likely rather inconsequential. But the really telling thing is when Hieroglyphica is written in 1556. Six years to document what they found written within the vatican vaults is feasible. six years to perform on the ground research in egypt is highly unlikely. again the thread states they didnt have an english word for hieroglyphics till 1590 I would argue this is backwards. and its backwards because they were give the information without having any idea of its context other than perhaps locational information. but this is where your thread holds real merit. The wiki of the Etymology states "The word hieroglyh comes from the GREEK adjective ἱερογλυφικός (_hieroglyphikos_)." I think they recived the information in GREEK form in the vatican, in rome shortly after they arrived in 1550ad. The time frames of the documents they produce after this point all seem to indicate this. The written language of the records held there is likely to have been Greek. This is a strong indication that Greek is the written language that was used in rome and by what we call the byzantine empire during the prior cycle which Dodwells research indicates took place between 352ad and 1550ad. 

Likely if you havent read my original work you will think this to be absurd but the premise is simply that between 1549 ending and 1550 beggining the localised sun left this area of a larger earth traversed around the other areas of the larger earth and returned again to this location at the point that 1550ad began. Historical evidence suggests that everytime this occurs the controllers continue on with the sun for those theoretical 3594 years till  the cycle begins again in this area that we call Earth. I have been unable to tie in the greeks to this puzzle until your work highlighted that latin is the red herring. greek language and writings as your work suggests are what was spoken and writen in rome. The napoleon aspect is intersting also. I have been focusing on the other end of the timeline attempting to learn and translate cuneiform which has been tedious. But in regards to napoleon all I had gathered about this end of the timeline. is that napoleon was a reset. upon the cycle beginning the holy roman empire was composed of two aspects, the vatican to rule through law and faith and the old bloodlines to rule through monarchy. its been well documented that freemasonry is an extension of the vatican. napoleon was a freemason and more importantly a roman catholic. he acted under the popes orders to remove francis 2 as the holy roman emperor and reestablish new and submissive assets in certain places. He essentially took out those monarchs and took the role for himself or gave it to a vatican puppet. Ironically the one that goes under the radar in most research is his creation of the confederation of the rhine. the family houses in this area go on to form most of the remaining royal houses of europe today. Saxe coburg and saxe gotha go on to be the hannoverian english monarchs after the glorious revolution of william the orange. Then there is also the oldenburgs who form links to today though the greek and scandenavian monarchy. Then there are the wettins who run germany until its alteration in wwi. 

So essentially napoleon was a weapon by which the vatican removed the old holy roman empire and layed the ground work for what we have in control today which is a puppet of the vatican as opposed to its counter balanced equal. That is as far as I got with napoleon though royal family deep dives are soul destroying. One thing to note I think the Habsburg family who decend from the roman emperors of byzantine and beyond are still very prominent in what is occuring today. they are prominent in the european parliment and I think still hold some kind of controlling stake in affairs all be it a less direct stake than their ancestry. Apologies for the essay. 

I definately think greek is the written language the controllers recieved upon their return. is it possible they also discovered latin at that same point in the vatican vaults? did they weaponised it to create what we call the romans and roman language today? perhaps in an attempt to disguise themselves and their roles both past and present?  Do you think its possible napoleons role in egypt was similar to his role in the rhine and they had to create or change the egyptian narrative with the intent to hide their past ties to it? My research into babylon which doesnt extend as far back as the ancient egytian is leading me to believe this controlling factor was present as a dynasty at that point and its likely they were in control during the egyptian dynasties as well. Do you think its significant that latin seems to always go hand in hand with every example of slavery? both in the historical sense and also in the modern day as well. Thank you again for your time and your thread its truely inspiring and really thought provoking.


----------



## Safranek (Feb 3, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Let me guys hear your thoughts about this theory and what the most spoken language in Rome was according to you!


In the OP you ended with this question.


GGuilliman said:


> Also guys, I think that the discussion is getting a bit sidetracked towards the Etruscans' origins. Whether they are jews or not, please explain how this relates to it being the true language of Rome. Just to stay on topic.


IMO the two main candidates would be Greek and Etruscan, as mentioned by others in response to your question. I would rule out German only because I have not seen any linguistic evidence regarding that option.

The question you asked is to do with linguistics, languages and cultural ties which inspires them. As the two main candidates are quoted above, and languages don't just pop up over a few hundred years (unless created for a purpose by those capable of doing just that), pointed the origin of those languages to determine who the 'plebs' may have been during that era, which would give a clue to what language(s) they spoke.

This is what I attempted to do in my previous posts and to show how languages can be destroyed, modified and eventually even erased, all starting with the changing of an alphabet. Hence the reason for a Roman alphabet to be exported everywhere to replace the originals.

I could have given you a one-word answer like 'Etruscan' or 'Latin' or 'Greek' but I thought you actually wanted to dig into the subject to find out what culture they were originally from as their language had to derive from that.

The language called Ancient Greek came from the Mycenaean culture which came from the Minioan culture which  seems to have come from the European culture while the Etruscan culture seems to also have come from the European culture. Thereby we can draw the conclusion that the inhabitants of Rome likely spoke dialects of Etruscan and Ancient Greek as named currently, but when looking into their roots via linguistics and genetics, we essentially have migrated Europeans and Eurasians.


----------



## Skylark (Feb 4, 2022)

This gives me another idea to consider--the proletariat may not all be the "unwashed' and uneducated... just not educated in the secret language of the elite


----------



## EUAFU (Feb 6, 2022)

Here in Brazil they say that the Portuguese language is the last flower of the Lácio. In short, the last language derived from Latin. A tremendous nonsense.

I am with Mick Harper. People spoke the languages they still speak today, with the variations that always occur over time of course.

Latin served more to hide the knowledge of the lower classes and was the easiest way for the different elites to communicate without problems of dubiety.

Italian and Spanish are easy languages to read and understand for Portuguese speakers. And French is not so complicated either. Quite different from learning German or Russian for example.

But I may be saying something totally wrong here.


----------



## fabiorem (Feb 7, 2022)

I think the language of Rome was romanian. 
Romanian is much more guttural than the other romance languages. It looks more primitive, with less elements added by other languages. 
Latin was developed in Occitania, as a sacred, or patrician, language. It was never meant to be used by the common people. 
Both greeks and vlachs called themselves "romans" in the middle ages. The seljuks also called themselves "romans", before the conquest of Constantinople. If anything, we need to move roman history to the east, and treat the city of Rome as a offshoot from roman migration, reflected in phantom history as the migration of Aeneas of Troy, and the ostrogoths incursions into Italy. In fact, there is a article in this site which tells the romans and goths (or getae) were the same people.


----------



## GGuilliman (Feb 8, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> Etruscan civilization, 750-500 B.C.E. (CC BY-SA 3.0), NormanEinstein - based on a map from _The National Geographic Magazine_ Vol.173 No.6 (June 1988)
> So, if Latin is not the true language of the Romans, it probably was Etruscan, atleast for a short while, but that is what this has to do with your discussion.
> 
> Now, for the second part. The Hebrew origin is not the most important aspect, it is the _Semitic _aspect. There is a very short list of languages written right to left today. Etruscan happens to be written right to left for the most part. Is Etruscan, inter alia, the Roman Language, based on a Semitic language (Yes there are many theories.)? There are some people pushing this theory, I am just exploring it.


Well I mean if the reports about Etruscans are to be trusted, they are supposed to have been excellent "merchants" so I wouldn't be very surprised by their roots being Semitic . As I have written in BusyBaci's thread, something that is rather odd about research into Etruscan is that there are at least four different explanations of where this language should be placed today. This makes the odds of at least one theory being well poisoning shoot up, for instance it is odd that Albanian, Tamil and languages of Semitic origin are linked to it; if all these three are genuine theories then we pretty much found "the" Indo-European language. Personally, I lean towards things being somewhat more complicated. As related to the thread, I definitely don't write off Etruscan entirely but as I indicated in my initial post, I would expect Etruscan or in this case Semitic languages to have a more profound language on what is spoken nowadays in case there really was an empire or even a large province with the city currently called Rome as its capital.


heretolearn said:


> The wiki of the Etymology states "The word hieroglyh comes from the GREEK adjective ἱερογλυφικός (_hieroglyphikos_)." I think they recived the information in GREEK form in the vatican, in rome shortly after they arrived in 1550ad. The time frames of the documents they produce after this point all seem to indicate this. The written language of the records held there is likely to have been Greek. This is a strong indication that Greek is the written language that was used in rome and by what we call the byzantine empire during the prior cycle which Dodwells research indicates took place between 352ad and 1550ad.


That is quite an interesting insight; hieroglyph does indeed come from Greek and I do consider this language as a likely possibility indeed. About the Vatican itself, I am not sure exactly whether many artifacts in the Vatican's possessions are written in Greek and how many of those are genuine. As it appears from Piranesi's works, pyramids in general seem to have been common structures that showed up in more places than just Egypt, therefore I do not think that they "read about the pyramids in Egypt" as that would not be a thing worthy of reporting, at least before the Napoleon reset. This because Google Ngram shows "Great Pyramids" only popping up after Napoleon went there, so that would leave us with roughly 200 years during which the Vatican disclosed some information on there being pyramids in Egypt and didn't follow up on it.


heretolearn said:


> So essentially napoleon was a weapon by which the vatican removed the old holy roman empire and layed the ground work for what we have in control today which is a puppet of the vatican as opposed to its counter balanced equal.


Although the Vatican is quite important I think that we simply do not have enough information to determine who or what causes all these resets to happen, it could be the Vatican alone but I think that at the very least there are two or three other stakeholders to consider and as outsiders it is futile to try and determine which is the "strongest" one. Similarly it is difficult to determine how much autonomy the Jesuits have for example and how much permission they need from the Vatican. And who is this "Vatican" anyways, if they were the ones controlling the resets, do you think that once you are part of the true elite, you get involved in the Vatican or that those that get involved in the Vatican become part of the true elite? If it is the former then there are other fish around as well.


heretolearn said:


> I definately think greek is the written language the controllers recieved upon their return. is it possible they also discovered latin at that same point in the vatican vaults? did they weaponised it to create what we call the romans and roman language today? perhaps in an attempt to disguise themselves and their roles both past and present?


I am not sure how long ago Latin was discovered; it is at least something that they don't care concealing in particular(or they cannot). My personal guess would be that the language definitely goes back at least one reset and more or less is something spoken in the courts. Is it weaponised? I definitely think so to a degree, in the sense that Will Scarlet brought up: inventions/objects that are explained to laymen always tend to get a Latin name even in this day and age. However I am not sure if their disguise is lifted for someone who understands a thing or two about the Roman Empire as we can only guess at the motive for why they would conceal the true language with Latin. Though, qui bono?


heretolearn said:


> Do you think its significant that latin seems to always go hand in hand with every example of slavery? both in the historical sense and also in the modern day as well. Thank you again for your time and your thread its truely inspiring and really thought provoking.


It is definitely a language used by the "masters" but it is also used for other purposes I think. Thank you a lot for the kind response and I was glad that I could help you out! Sure make a thread explaining how my post ties into your research, I would read it! And dw about it being an essay, read all of it mate!


----------



## Safranek (Feb 8, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> I would expect Etruscan or in this case Semitic languages to have a more profound language on what is spoken nowadays in case there really was an empire or even a large province with the city currently called Rome as its capital.


I think that due to the deception in linguistics and the orchestrated destruction of ancient cultures, the profound effect you're expecting is all around you in plain sight.

Based on many recent genetic studies, we can say that Europeans come from a common stock. 

Needless to say that the Proto-European language they likely all used has been drastically altered (Latinized) into distinct and separate groups within Europe, not to mention the alphabet(s) they used (Runic scripts) in no way resembled Latin (in fact the Latin alphabet derived from them), they were closer at first glance to so-called Sumerian, Egyptian, Phoenician, Sanskrit, Aramaic, or even current Japanese or Chinese. 

Now, Europeans all write using the 'Roman' alphabet, their ancient documents systematically destroyed along with _their_ alphabet and their speech, both drastically modified by the Latin influence of Jesuit-trained linguist monks who first wreaked havoc through Europe via the Vatican, while simultaneously making headway into the so-called 'Slavic' territories via the Eastern Orthodox Church. The only two languages remaining without similar influence that stick out like a sore thumb are Basque and Magyar, both only spoken by a proportionally small group of Europeans.

That's not enough of an impact for you?


----------



## GGuilliman (Feb 9, 2022)

Safranek said:


> I could have given you a one-word answer like 'Etruscan' or 'Latin' or 'Greek' but I thought you actually wanted to dig into the subject to find out what culture they were originally from as their language had to derive from that.
> 
> The language called Ancient Greek came from the Mycenaean culture which came from the Minioan culture which  seems to have come from the European culture while the Etruscan culture seems to also have come from the European culture. Thereby we can draw the conclusion that the inhabitants of Rome likely spoke dialects of Etruscan and Ancient Greek as named currently, but when looking into their roots via linguistics and genetics, we essentially have migrated Europeans and Eurasians.


The main non-linguistic reasons for my consideration of German, or at least some kind of Nordic language, are the following:
a) Greek/Etruscan are things that wouldn't be too far off the current narrative. Suppose they spoke Greek in Rome. Why would they need to censor this fact so much and invent such forgeries as the graffiti to make sure that people don't look too much into it? I do acknowledge that a simple answer would be that they simply needed an area to pin Latin on so as to have an easy explanation but they could also have made a timeline around Latin being a dialect of Italian that was common among the nobility; this would probably be closer to the truth but how would it damage the commonly established chronology? Just thinking aloud here, I mean there could be some very weird implications for Rome being a Greek-speaking city that don't immediately come to (my) mind.
b)  The Micean theory is something that follows the "10.000 years ago..." line of reasoning. In my opinion, it is dangerous to follow the established chronology straight away and for example say that Etruscan artifacts have to predate the ones from the "Roman Empire". Now I'm sure that they are pretty ancient but the Mycean buildings seem for instance typical mudflooded structures that may be found in Mongolia as well for instance. Pretty much everything in the Minoan/Mycean area is subject to carbon dating and Linear A/B in particular are more or less shady as the guy who deciphered Linear B, Michael Ventris, is a member of the "chosen tribe". 

Linguistically speaking though, I do not see any way to prove that German was indeed related to Rome or that there are any such traces present today so that does weaken the case for it considerably. The linguistic evidence for Greek for instance is quite a bit higher indeed.

However my main goal was to figure out which language was spoken through both linguistic and non-linguistic analysis. Judging purely by linguistics and all the other arguments provided, I would say that Greek or even Albanian are very likely candidates. Judging overall, I still tend to think that something really weird is going here and that the true language has to be something that people wouldn't consider even after thinking about the topic for many years, therefore something more like Albanian or German comes to mind. Essentially something that doesn't belong to "antiquity".

I will use the next days to see if I can find something to back up the German theory with linguistically as I agree that it is currently not on solid footing.


----------



## Safranek (Feb 9, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Suppose they spoke Greek in Rome. Why would they need to censor this fact so much and invent such forgeries as the graffiti to make sure that people don't look too much into it?



Since we can't peer into the minds of those who have been altering history to get precise reasoning in any conclusive form, all we can do is guess at what their motives may have been. 

And if I must guess, then my first guess would be the obvious fact that given proof of an Etruscan and so-called 'Greek' culture present before the Romans, the origin and cultural/linguistic relations of that culture must be sufficiently confused in order to install a new narrative.



GGuilliman said:


> The Micean theory is something that follows the "10.000 years ago..." line of reasoning



The Mycenaean culture is dated to the so-called Bronze age as is the Minoan., and there are plenty of archeological and linguistic records for that time period all over the 'known' world. (It would be nice to be able to piece together an actual, realistic timeline for that time period.)

_If anyone can give a reference for the earliest historical source of the word 'Greek' , it would be appreciated (I tried to find it but to no avail)._



GGuilliman said:


> Pretty much everything in the Minoan/Mycean area is subject to carbon dating and Linear A/B in particular are more or less shady as the guy who deciphered Linear B, Michael Ventris, is a member of the "chosen tribe".



Exactly the problem as you mentioned. For instance, here's a Hungarian-American university professor from Nebraska using data-mining techniques to attempt to decipher 'ancient' runic scripts;


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl31zBg6xPU_


And here he is applying it to Linear A:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiLyN9T2stY_





GGuilliman said:


> However my main goal was to figure out which language was spoken through both linguistic and non-linguistic analysis. Judging purely by linguistics and all the other arguments provided, I would say that Greek or even Albanian are very likely candidates.



What is 'Greek'? Is it Hellenic? Minoan? Mycenaean? I would like to know more about the origin of that word since it seems to be a 'Roman' invention.



GGuilliman said:


> I still tend to think that something really weird is going here and that the true language has to be something that people wouldn't consider even after thinking about the topic for many years,



What if the so-called Anatolian languages were a common language with various dialects understood by all the people of the cultures of the Bronze Age? 

Or if not, and there was an original world language, then at what states of cultural expansion did the languages become so separated as for people of distant lands to not be able to understand each other?

I think that the data-mining techniques as applied to linguistics can finally yield some logical answers in this regard.


----------



## dagmara69 (Feb 11, 2022)

Hi.    
I was born in Poland in late 60s and lived there till early 80s .I recollect that all medicine prescriptions written by the doctors were in Latin and patient medical files were also written in Latin .I remember my mum sayjng she studied Latin and that it was a dead language only used by the medical profession. Also the mass in Catholic church was in Latin up until 1963


----------



## Solana (Jul 23, 2022)

According to the book "The Secret Parchments" of Radu Cinnamar, (old) Romanian was the language spoken in all antique Europe and is the origin of all Indo-European languages (very interesting book - all his books are very revealing, best begin with his first one "Transylvanien Sunrise"). Besides, the Thracien culture seems to be much older then the Greek culture (see "The Thraciens, a Hidden History on youtube).


----------



## PuzzleBear (Aug 14, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> Personally I don't think the Roman Empire existed as we are told in the books, some very very major empire did exist but finding its name or a list of rulers is a difficult task.



that major empire might have been the IMPERIUM GERMANICUM, just skip the Romano





we have mainly languages called germanophones and francophones. The first derive from German, English included, the second derive from French, François, not LATIN. Otherwise they would be called latinophones.

LATIN and GREEK have been sacred/secret languages, used by the rulers for secret communication and to conceal knowledge. Used in Medicine, Anatomy, for Plants, etc. LATIN numbers are used to represent dates on coins, memorials, etc, but you cannot calculate with them. So never used by common people.

Imo people still speak similarly to what they spoke 500 years ago, which is the time of "ancient Rome", Pompeii got buried in 1631.
Pompeii could have been the real Rome, or the ROMan REIpublicae ... take koine letters, where Rho is written P, to write it POMan PEIpublicae .. would have been abreviated POM.PEI.


----------



## Code For Faith (Aug 16, 2022)

GGuilliman said:


> I think that this was a hint at Berserk having masonic significance/information about true history. Makes me wonder if Miura's death was a coincidence...


A quick Wikipedia search reveals that Mr. Miura died from "acute aortic dissection": Kentaro Miura - Wikipedia.
And an aortic dissection being "relatively rare", I would be more inclined to think he died from the Covid Vaccine: Aortic dissection - Wikipedia.


GGuilliman said:


> what the most spoken language in Rome was according to you!


German! I was wondering for a while now why was Germany called the "Holly Roman Empire".


GGuilliman said:


> And again, let me know if I formatted this post well!


Very well formatted. A pleasure to read!


----------



## charlie.cornelius9 (Dec 11, 2022)

michael tsarion: irish origins of civilzation must read. he is a collector of antiquities and ancient knowledge, it clears all of this regarding the roman supression of history and the hijack of. it illustrates etymology of launguages and where all the languages originate. the romans were the same as the spaniards in south america, and the catholics to the north man, they went and destroyed cultures pasts. it happens after each reset by TPTB. the rome story maybe 5% accurate at best, i think they did alot of culture assimilation as they did with pagan and christian religions. my last name is cornelius so i researched the italian roots of it. not suprising at all the cornelii had a very detailed and colorful past including nobility(generals, emperors, allegedly one was Ceasars first wife, politicians), ironically i traced it back to estrucan roots who were a family of lawyers that heled at the founding of rome(allegedy)even read a book on scipio afikanus cornelius the famous general that finally defeated Carthage. it was interesting tale likening scipio to to marcus aurelias type, brilliant general with the classic greek moralistic virtues, it was based off the writings of polybius and livy i want to say. at the time it was awe inspiring and swelled my chest with pride in realizing i was a distant relative of such a prestigous family lineage. then i searched the rest of the family lines only to find they could only be traced to around the classic 1066 invasion of normandy year. which is a separate subject. just found it ironic at the vast wealth of alleged roman history yet none from and anglo saxon, welsh, scottish,dutch, etc very hard to find traces from that period, im aware of the vast coverup yet i cant help but to wonder when and where my family actually existed in history, ive concluded that the roman side of the fam had to ahve been members of the elite nobility ions ago, thus the mention in the roman history, my grandfather and great gfather were also just questionable and mysterious characters not nefarious just was always a shroud of mystery to them, even my father sees the shroud of illusion yet unaware of historical deception, the more digging you do the more questions that arise, i honestly want to know who are the mystery faces that wrote this history for us, clearly it must be a panel spread through time, anyways thanks for the post really set my questioner off lol


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 12, 2022)

This is a clip from a video of biblicist Mauro Biglino. His English is bad (almost as mine) but this gave me an epiphany. Listen to the way he pronounces the meaning of the biblical word Elyon with an Italian pronounciation.


_View: https://youtu.be/EdBNY1ITNFY?t=381_


Is it just me or the word HIGHEST, pronounced this way, is basically the same as AUGUSTUS? Even the meaning fits particularly well, since Augustus, true name Octavius/Octavian (don't know if it was his true name either), was in fact the Highest in terms of rank in the Roman society, as much as Elyon in the biblical 'pantheon'.

I think this is not a detail, please share your opinion so that I don't think I'm crazy. The underline note here is that "highest" is the actual original word (can't say it's the English word properly but in any case the one from which 'highest' derives), and Romans were in fact using the same exact word rather than a title exclusively as told to us nowadays in regard of this term.

edit: wikipedia basically shares a lot of semi-synonims like "majestic", "great" or "venerable" incredibly missing the equivalent "highest"... (Augustus (title) - Wikipedia)


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 13, 2022)

If Augustus merely meant The Highest and was therefore used as in 'Your Highness' (note the French HAUTE related to aristocracy) than the tale of the month of August deriving its name from the Emperor (whose real name was Octavian) could be a posterior explanation.
The month could be named August as in The Highest, possibly implying the higher point reached by the Sun during its revolution. Today it reaches that point in June, but the calendar was subjected to many variations so...


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 15, 2022)

So the word Augustus can be divided in three parts:

_aug_, meaning _high _and a possible cognate word
_ust_, the superlative form
_us,_ the variable suffix
So the linguists apparently did not detect the similarity between _aug _and _high_, possibly due to chronological problems, but it's also to notice that in the wiki for comparisons (Comparison (grammar) - Wikipedia) they say that the Greek superlative ended in _istos: 'The suffixes -er (the "comparative") and -est (the "superlative") are of Germanic origin and are cognate with the Latin suffixes -ior and -issimus and Ancient Greek -ῑ́ων : -īōn and -ῐστος : -istos.'_
So the month of August seems to precede the title of Augustus and seems to have a clear meaning both in Greek and English, which is 'The _Highest_'.

That brings to mind at least another couple of strange unexplained similarities between Greek, Latin and English and or Germanic languages.


First of all the renown city of Pergamon. The Italian wiki for a supposed ancient hero called Pergamus (Pergamo (mitologia) - Wikipedia) gives the meaning of his name as: '_Πέργαμος, "acropolis, upper part of a settlement", cf. the Homeric custom of calling the upper part of Troy thus.'_
It seems historians cannot see how the translation of the Greek hero perfectly fits the meaning of what Pergamon really was: an acropolis, a fortified citadel!!!




Near the ruins of this ancient citadel lies nowadays the modern city of Bergama (Bergama - Wikipedia). Being Italian and living in Lombardy it cannot escape to me the incredible similarity between this Bergama/Pergamon and the Lombard city of Bergamo (Bergamo - Wikipedia), which is in fact a citadel as well.



​The wiki gives this meaning for the city: '_from the proto-Germanic elements *berg +*heim, the "mountain home".' _This is almost the same meaning of Pergamon, definitively drawing another parallel between Greek and Germanic languages.


Second strange thing I detected sometime ago, upon many without a doubt, is the English word _street _being extremely similar to the Greek word used for _army: στρατός - stratós._
Now it is said that the strenght of the ancient Roman Empire were in fact roads... streets, which were built in order to facilitate, first and foremost, the control of provinces through the military. Therefore there was a clear connection between streets and the military right from the start...

but the word used for streets is a Greek word, or maybe Germanic right from the start, and not Latin!!!
The Latin words for street, according to various Latin dictionaries are: via, iter, vicus, limes. No hint at streets/stratioi anywhere.


edit: it is most likely that the title of Augustus took its name from the month of August. In that case the Emperor was equated to the Sun at its highest point, therefore drawing a clear parallel with the cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus.




edit2:By the way, it is said that the name August substituted the previous name of the month Sextilis (Sextilis - Wikipedia). So this could be a clue to some kind of calendar manipulation, when in fact we see nowadays that the highest point of the Sun in the sky happens in the month of June, the sixth month of the year. Is it possible that June was in fact called Sextilis/August in a previous time?


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 1, 2023)

I believe the word 'Thule' is just a misreading of the word 'insula'. The idea came to me while inspecting the Hereford map (Hereford Mappa Mundi - Wikipedia).
The misreading went on as follows:

*t h* .... *u l e
i n* (s) *u l a*

or as a alternative we should consider the map itself and the way in which 'insula' was written, with the typical way of writing *s *similar to an *f*. In this case we have:

.... *thu l e*
i n  *f u l a*






(sorry for the bad quality)​An implicit confirmation is the famous 'ultima Thule' talked about by Seneca in his Medea. 'ultima' means 'the last' but 'Thule' is never translated even though it makes sense that Iceland would be in fact considered 'the last Island'.

That said it is curious to note that Vikings chose the name *Iceland *for their *Island *which was an *Insula *known as *Thule*.

And this is why I'm reporting this here, because I'm not sure what came first. I'm not even sure what Seneca meant, since if he meant to write 'island then everything is fine (almost), but if he verily meant to say 'Thule', than it would mean he was probably a late author who misread some maps or manuscripts with carolingian lettering (I think it's carolingian but I could be wrong).


----------



## yashcherlizhchov (Jan 1, 2023)

Silveryou said:


> So the word Augustus can be divided in three parts:
> 
> _aug_, meaning _high _and a possible cognate word
> _ust_, the superlative form
> ...



Brilliant.

I got it like this (I assume that most European languages are code for "snake" language, filled with hissing, windy, whistling and ringing sounds; I think that includes Arabic, with Hebrew; but I know too little about those cultures yet; I only learned to parse the letters freely to quickly work with dictionaries myself). I was parsing the Russian version and the modern English one (leaving out the "us"; as far as I understand it means masculine; so I left it out).

August
[au]=ya/yo=я/ё-ө
[g]=zh/zhch=ж/җ
[ust]=yts/its=ыц/иц

[aug]+[ust]
[yazh/yozh/yazhch/yozhch]+[yts/its]
[яж/яҗ/өж/өҗ]+[ыц/иц]

I raised the «au=ya=я» theme earlier.


Here is the song where the "zhch" sound is clearly audible. Between 1:15-1:17. The sound is heard only once in the word "доЖДи/doZHDi/rains". This reading of the word is not typical, but it does occur occasionally. There are many other words in Russian where this sound occurs. Although there is no letter for this sound in modern Russian Cyrillic. But, there is a similar letter in Tatar Cyrillic. I have chosen a popular song, where this sound is clearly heard, so that you understand what I am talking about. Ignore the asynchrony. In my opinion, this is the sound of the origin of life, the buzzing of bees (and is also represented on the emblem of the Freemasons).​
It turns out Yazhitsa (in a nearby post, at the very end of the post, I gave my version of what yash/yazh means; kernel). The letter "V" in Cyrillic is called "izhitsa". Perhaps someone will be interested in this connection. I assume there is a transition between 'ya' and 'i' (best expressed in the Russian and English versions of 'I'="ya" in Russian).

Assuming that "yazh/yozh"="kernel" (the "ya/yo" transition between Russian and Polish; "yozh" is hedgehog; rather explicit connection to the core), it turns out that "yazhitsa/august" is the best/beautiful/important core (the suffix "its"/"yts" conveys the superlative degree; it is easy to see that the letters in the Russian and Western European code have simply swapped out [st], [ts]; In modern Russian, this superlative suffix is used most often for women and for feminine phenomena. Although, you may have come across Jewish surnames from the Russian Empire that have "its/yts" at the end; the most popular example is Dustin Moskovits, one of the co-founders of Facebook).

In Russian and Slavic folklore, Baba-Yaga occupies an important (if not central) place.

In modern Russian and youth slang, the word "yaga" means "jaguar". By the name of a low-alcohol energy drink. Any such drink (which contains a lot of chemicals) is called a "yaga". Such drinks are popular among those who sit (play, work) at a computer for at least 12 hours a day.

Perhaps in the alchemical books, "core/kernel" was coded as "sun" (son; in a nearby thread, I also deduced the connection of kernel with Andrew and Jesus Christ, the son of God). Either the sun and the core are one and the same (assuming we have no true concept of the real shape of the earth).

UPD.

It is possible that "ust" (at the end of the word) could be read as "ishch/ищ/yshch/ыщ". This is the highest (enthusiastic or extremely derogatory; depending on the context) superlative degree. Then, it turns out that "august" reads "yazhyshch/яжыщ», «yozhyshch/өжыщ», «yazhchishch/яҗищ», «yozhchishch/өҗищ» (within this presupposition).


Here is a video where you can clearly hear the sound and show the situation in which this suffix "ishch/yshch" is used.​
In Cyrillic, this difference in sound strength between "ts" and "shch" is expressed graphically as "ц" and "щ".


----------



## Lee_Magee (Jan 2, 2023)

Phoenicians introduced language and writing to Ancient Italy.  The further one goes into the past of Ancient Italy, the more the writing script resembles Phoenician. Etruscan language is also written in Phoenician script.

The Oldest Inscriptions in or around Italy are written in the Phoenician language, for example, the Nora Stone, an ancient Phoenician inscribed stone found in Nora, south coast of Sardinia.

The Pyrgi tablets are written in the *Phoenician *language (left) and the *Etruscan *language (right).

I don't believe Phoenician script was borrowed for the writing of the ancient Latin language, but Latin developed from Phoenician language.  Latin as lot of words and components that are unexplained or have no PIE root, for example the common Latin prefix, *re-* which I believe came from the Phoenician *Hiphil.  *

The Latin word lăbos, which derives Labor and Labourer, also as no etymology, but lăbos resembles לאך , the unused verbal root of מלאך
which is the same as ἔργμα/ἔργον, its verbal root ἔργω is also unused.

In Latin, *cōnfīsus  *"trust with" is made up of Phoenician components.  *עם *_(com- con- σύν-)_ "with" and *בטח *_(πιστεύω)_ "trust".

*cornucopia  * קרן "horn" שבע "plenty"
*pômum* פעמן "Bell" i.e., bell-shaped fruit


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 2, 2023)

Lee_Magee said:


> Phoenicians introduced language and writing to Ancient Italy. The further one goes into the past of Ancient Italy, the more the writing script resembles Phoenician. Etruscan language is also written in Phoenician script.


There's no proof to it. It's a series of assumptions taken from academia and based upon modern interpretation of events and chronology.



Lee_Magee said:


> The Oldest Inscriptions in or around Italy are written in the Phoenician language, for example, the Nora Stone, an ancient Phoenician inscribed stone found in Nora, south coast of Sardinia.


Sardinia is not Italy. It's part of the modern Italian state, that's all.



yashcherlizhchov said:


> Here is a video where you can clearly hear the sound and show the situation in which this suffix "ishch/yshch" is used.​


Milan - Juventus?

unforgivable


----------

