[Note: All Basque words are in Italics and Bold-faced Green]
INDO-EUROPEAN
LINGUISTICS *
CONSPICUOUSLY
CONTRIVED, COUNTERFEIT SCIENCE
LET US CONFUSE
THEIR LANGUAGE (Genesis 11:7)
(Contact)
History relates that in early times a variety of people
came to British shores from the continent of Europe. These people had names
such as Angles, Saxons, Friesians, Vikings, Celts, Normans, etc. They
all brought their own peculiar and primitive little languages along with
them. These languages then somehow magically blended into the beautiful, rich
and practical language we speak today. History also tells us that small
groups of people arriving in a new country usually accept the language of
their new environment, within two or three generations and surely this
happened in Britain. However, what happened to the highly developed language
that was spoken by the first inhabitants of Britain? That this language
existed we know from the writings of the early missionaries. They even used
it in their Ogam inscriptions on stone
and in the Auraicept
na n'Eces, the operations manual of the
Benedictine monks. In Scotland, the original language was called Pictish, in Ireland Cruithin and
often it was referred to as the "Iron Language". How did it
disappear and what was it like? Surely there must be something left of this
first language of the British Isles.
Languages do not disappears without a trace, especially not in their
home country.
A FAULTY THEORY AND A BAND-WAGON
Sir William Jones was dispatched to India as a judge in
1783. Being an amateur linguist, he spent his evenings teaching himself
Sanskrit, a dead language that was being maintained by priests who memorized its
sacred hymns. In 1786 he told a gathering of the Asiatick Society in Calcutta
that many of the classical languages, such as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic,
Celtic and Persian must come from the same source:
"a stronger
affinity ... than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong,
indeed, that no philologer could examine them all without believing them to
have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists". The "perfect" relationship between the
examples he gave was there for everyone to see and Bingo!, the genetic family
of Indo-European languages was born, soon to be joined by a baffling
assortment of laws of phonological correspondence and an Ur-mother-language
which had supposedly given birth to the whole mess. The academic world built
a big bandwagon and all jumped on, linguists, archeologists, anthropologists,
geographers, etc.. All are now using the classification
"Indo-European" as if it were a reality. Over the past two
centuries, thousands of highly paid linguists have conducted their endless
and fruitless research into the perceived genetic relationship. All they need
now is a few more years of study to answer all the questions While studying the language "family" some of
the more astute linguists realized there was something irregular. They
decided that the truth could be established by using classical comparative
methodology. To accomplish this they proposed four criteria supposed to be
diagnostic:
"Indeed,
courses in historical linguistics at Universities all over the world, in
spite of much perplexing evidence to the contrary, mostly still persist in
adhering to strict Indo-European theories". In spite of them, no one thought to ask if there could
possibly be another explanation, e.g. an invented relationship. To this day,
this question is not being asked. Edo Nyland maintains that there never were
any Indo-Europeans, there was no proto-Indo-European language and the family
of Indo-European languages is a long perpetuated academic fraud. It an academic fraud because the truth has
long been known to a select group of religious scholars, who have kept this
knowledge secret, as was done in the past millennia. If controversy is the
lifeblood of scholarship, where are the real linguistic scholars, where are
the dissenters? Where is their courage? ENGLISH IS AN
INVENTED LANGUAGE
Other invented languages are German, Latin, Greek, Russian, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Hungarian, Japanese etc. etc.
begin: dog: doctor:
It is
clear from these and hundreds of other examples, that The English language is
an invented language.
NAME INVENTION IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE Most academics accept the Indo-European theory
uncritically, teaching it to their students as proven science and using the term
in a variety of publications. However, there are still some linguists who
know the truth. Who these individuals
are is still kept secret. In the 20th century, many names have been attached
to individuals in different parts of the world that clearly indicate that the
secret of the vowel-interlocking formula and its associated language is still
preserved and used. The most prominent example is probably the name of the
British royal family, Windsor. Windsor (the 'w' is
meaningless)
The British royal family adopted the name Windsor early
in this century. It is fair to say that they must have known exactly what
they were doing. They could not have picked a more appropriate name, but some
linguist must have advised them. The name Windsor is of course a much older
name, which was probably made up by some Benedictine linguists whose names
have been long forgotten. Another
high profile name invented in the 20th Century is Stalin, Stalin:
This is a fascinating name because the linguists told
Stalin was that it came from the Russian word "stal" (steel), man
of steel. What was not conveyed was that it also isa word play in the Basque
language, the meaning of which tells a very different, but more realistic,
story. A much more recent name is Habiari'mana, the Hutu
president of Rwanda who, in 1994, organized and initiated the mass-murder of
the minority Tutsi people, long living in his country. Habiari'mana:
It is not known who made up this name, but it is a
frightening thought that this mentality still exists in our world. It is a
good possibility that the scholar who made up this name is still alive. He is
not advertising his skills because this specialized knowledge is jealously
guarded by some secret society. HOW DID EUROPE BECOME UNILINGUAL?
As the glaciers on the Alps and Caucasus melted, the
air-circulation around the Mediterranean changed drastically. The most
affected area was the Central Sahara, which was populated by a large
population of independent tribes involved in grazing, simple agriculture and
some irrigation. Some tribes living along the west, north and east shores of
the Sahara, called the Sea-Peoples by the Egyptians, had developed
boat-building, star navigation and long distance ocean travel. By 5,000 bce.
the Central Sahara had become unlivable and most of the people had to flee to
the coast, where the Sea-Peoples were ready to ferry them to Europe/Europa Europa
Africa
All these people spoke the same Saharan
language, adhered to the same Goddess religion, practiced a democratic and
matrilineal system of tribal solidarity, and had the same strong oral
traditions. There were no weapons of destruction and no fortifications; there
was little violence, because all living things were precious and respected.
There also was no inter-marriage between the different groups and
inter-tribal cooperation was strictly formalized. These tribes were being
ferried to the pleasant south shores of Europe, the beautiful Danube river
valley and the fertile lands adjoining the Dnepr river. In general those who
came from the Central Sahara appear to have settled in Central Europe, the
Near East and Russia, while the Sea Peoples
reserved all the islands and the coastal areas for themselves, especially on
the Atlantic islands and southern Sweden. There were modern people (Homo sapiens) in
Europe before the Saharans arrived, as the beautiful 30,000-year-old art in
the massive caves of southern France and northern Spain has shown. These
people must have lived there through much of the glacial period, occupying
south facing caves and hunting the large animals associated with a
peri-glacial climate. They practiced the same Goddess religion and may have
spoken the same language. If this was
the case, there must have been contact and likely trade in animal skins for
use in the skin-boats (ox hide) and for sails (reindeer skin). Their
fabulously painted caves may have been very famous and pilgrimage sites for
the believers. Wherever the newcomers lived together with the original
people, the two groups likely merged, as appears to have been the case in the
Basque country. However, in general, the European continent was very empty, especially those lands
vacated by the glaciers and ice fields of central Europe, Caucasus and Scandinavia.
One easily identifiable group of migrants was the Berber Sea Peoples from Algiers and Morocco, whose
migrations and settlements can still be traced by their Rh-negative
blood type. Even today, there are Berber tribes in the Atlas mountains
region, which have 40% of their members with Rh-negative blood type. They
sailed the Atlantic Ocean and became the Basques (32%), the western Irish
(25%), the Scots (25%) and the Old Norse on the western islands of Norway
(about 17%). They also left some of their unusual blood type among the Lapps.
At the time of their migration, they could not yet travel through the North
Sea, because that shallow sea was still dry land, so they were forced to go
west of Ireland. SOME EXAMPLES
OF THE LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIP
If the languages are not genetically related, the
Indo-European group cannot be a family. The Indo-European confusion started
about 200 years ago when Sir William Jones discovered the relationship
between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Germanic etc. It looked so obvious, the
"perfect" relationship between these words was there for everyone
to see and, bingo!, the genetic family of Indo-European languages was born,
complete with assorted laws of phonological correspondence and an Ur-mother
language which gave birth to all. Even though controversy is the lifeblood of
scholarship, all our academics happily climbed on the bandwagon and the
common people swallowed it, but where did this wagon take them? Here are two
words to which the VCV formula has been applied. The first
example is “father”: SANSKRIT
LATIN
GERMAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Another example
is
"field": SANSKRIT
GREEK
LATIN
DUTCH
As you can see, the perceived relationship between
these words is not genetic, such as naturally derived from some imagined
proto-language, but instead they are contrived creations by highly skilled
linguists using the universal Neolithic language. The fact that most appear
to be related is not due to a genetic relationship, but because of skillful
manipulation by the grammarians using the VCV system of agglutination. .A
totally new system of organizing the world's languages is urgently needed to
accommodate the language invention findings, as well as a different approach
to the teaching of linguistics. I will discuss this later in detail. A great deal of time was spent analyzing many words and
names in different "Indo-European" and "Nostratic"
languages to show that meaningful words or sentences, written in the Basque
language, are hidden in many, if not all of them. It certainly is revealing to see how the monks handled the
sensitive words relating to sexuality, several of which are shown in the
following wordlist. Would they have been allowed to use such provocative
language if it had been suspected that their agglutinations would some day be
decoded? AFTERTHOUGHT It is necessary to point out that Genesis 11:1 was
right; everyone did speak the same highly developed language wherever the
Saharan refugees had settled. It couldn't have been any different because
there was apparently no other highly developed language anywhere else in
Europe, the Near East, even India (see Dravidians) , Japan (Ainu) and Polynesia. They were
settled by the migrants from the Sahara. It appears true that around 2,000 bce.
the decision was made in Kizzuwadna, the religious center of Luvian
male-domination, that the language, the religion and the tribal structure of
the people from the Sahara was to be destroyed, to be replaced with invented
languages, a male god, nationalism and private land-ownership. When this
order was repeated in the Old Testament Bible it became a biblical command.
That was the mission of Benedictine
monks when they built their monasteries in Britain. The people who emmigrated to Britain over the
centuries, all spoke the same language, the Saharan language, which can still
be detected as a substratum, throughout Europe. With the use of acrostic
manipulation, using the vowel-interlocking formula, the original Saharan
language was mutilated to the point where recognizing it was almost
impossible. The one modern language, which apparently changed very little, is
Basque. It is the excellent Basque
dictionary written by Gorka Aulestia (U.
of Nevada) that is mostly used in the translations. Edo Nyland has been
strongly supported with advice by many Basque speakers in Euskadi and the
United States and urged to place this information on the internet. Their
encouragement and help has been much appreciated. Most of the linguists who have
bothered to look at Nyland’s research have suggested "more
reasonable" possibilities to explain the observed
inconsistencies in our present knowledge, pointed out by me. They then
invariably decided to ignore the issue until a reason for a more thorough
examination arose. In such cases, the status quo has always ruled and the
needed examination has been stalled. The burden of proof is the task of those
shaking the status quo. It is up to the shaker to provide evidence rather
than for those simply suggesting that the evidence can be accounted for by
existing paradigms. In this respect, Nyland has been told repeatedly by
academics that nothing can be true outside of the status quo. Therefore,
nothing outside the status quo needs to be investigated, which is a sure
prescription for continued ignorance and high intellect superstition. Science
has thus been turned into dogma, and what can a non-academic scholar do about
it? Expand through the internet and be patient! One only fails when one quits
trying. |
==========================================
For further detail, please
refer to:
Nyland, Edo. 2001. Linguistic Archaeology: An
Introduction. Trafford Publ., Victoria, B.C., Canada.
ISBN 1-55212-668-4. 541 p. [
see abstract & summary]
Nyland, Edo. 2002.
Odysseus and the Sea Peoples: A
Bronze Age History of Scotland Trafford Publ., Victoria,
B.C., Canada.
307 p. [see
abstract & summary].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------