ʾÅa̩en: Difference between revisions

377 bytes added ,  28 October 2013
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 29: Line 29:


==Background==
==Background==
At the beginning of the creation of the physical universe, God used speech to bring all things into being ('''Genesis 2:19'''), but there is some debate as to whether this was the same language that God used when speaking with Adam and his first creations, or even if it was used to communicate to, between, and among the Celestials. Jewish authorities maintain that the Hebrew language was the language of God while the sacred language in Islam is classical Arabic, a descendant of the proto-Semitic language along with Hebrew and Aramaic. In Vedic traditions, [[w:Vedic Sanskrit]], the language of liturgy, was considered the language of the gods. [[w:Coptic]], the Greek derived replacement for the lost Hieroglyphics in Egypt is also still used in religious liturgical services.
At the beginning of the creation of the physical universe, God used speech to bring all things into being ('''Genesis 2:19'''), but there is some debate as to whether this was the same language that God used when speaking with Adam and his first creations, or even if it was used to communicate to, between, and among the Celestials. Jewish authorities maintain that the Hebrew language was the language of God while the sacred language in Islam is classical Arabic, a descendant of the proto-Semitic language along with Hebrew and Aramaic. In Vedic traditions, [[w:Vedic Sanskrit|Vedic Sanskrit]], the language of liturgy, was considered the language of the gods. [[w:Coptic|Coptic]], the Greek derived replacement for the lost Hieroglyphics in Egypt is also still used in religious liturgical services.
In his 1510 work [[w:De Occulta Philosophia]], [[w:Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] writes:
In his 1510 work [[w:De Occulta Philosophia|De Occulta Philosophia]], [[w:Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa|Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa]] writes:
:We might doubt whether Angels, or Demons, since they be pure spirits, use any vocal speech, or tongue amongst themselves, or to us; but that Paul in some place saith, If I speak with the tongue of men, or angels: but what their speech or tongue is, is much doubted by many. For many think that if they use any Idiome, it is Hebrew, because that was the first of all, and came from heaven, and was before the confusion of languages in '''[[w:Babylon]]''', in which the Law was given by God the Father, and the Gospell was preached by Christ the Son, and so many Oracles were given to the Prophets by the Holy Ghost: and seeing all tongues have, and do undergo various mutations, and corruptions, this alone doth alwaies continue inviolated.
:We might doubt whether Angels, or Demons, since they be pure spirits, use any vocal speech, or tongue amongst themselves, or to us; but that Paul in some place saith, If I speak with the tongue of men, or angels: but what their speech or tongue is, is much doubted by many. For many think that if they use any Idiome, it is Hebrew, because that was the first of all, and came from heaven, and was before the confusion of languages in '''[[w:Babylon|Babylon]]''', in which the Law was given by God the Father, and the Gospell was preached by Christ the Son, and so many Oracles were given to the Prophets by the Holy Ghost: and seeing all tongues have, and do undergo various mutations, and corruptions, this alone doth alwaies continue inviolated.
But later Agrippa further writes:
But later Agrippa further writes:
:But because the letters of every tongue, as we shewed in the first book, have in their number, order, and figure a Celestiall and Divine originall, I shall easily grant this calculation concerning the names of spirits to be made not only by Hebrew letters, but also by Chaldean, and Arabick, Ægyptian, Greek, Latine, and any other...
:But because the letters of every tongue, as we shewed in the first book, have in their number, order, and figure a Celestiall and Divine originall, I shall easily grant this calculation concerning the names of spirits to be made not only by Hebrew letters, but also by Chaldean, and Arabick, Ægyptian, Greek, Latine, and any other...
Later in the 16th century, the Elizabethan mathematician and scholar [[w:John Dee]] and alchemist [[w:Edward Kelley]] claimed to have received a “Celestial Speech” directly from the angels. This was recorded in Dee's journals published as [[w:The Five Books of the Mysteries]] along with a complete text called the [[w:Book of Loagaeth]]. In these works, it was claimed that Angelical (the name Dee referred to in his journals) was the language God used to create the world, then later used by Adam to speak with God and the Heavenly Host, as well as being used to name all things in existence. Upon Adam's fall from grace and expulsion from Eden, he lost the ability to speak this language and constructed a form of proto-Hebrew based upon his vague recollection of Angelical. This proto-Hebrew was the universal human language used until the time of the [[w:Confusion of Tongues]] at the [[w:Tower of Babel]].
Later in the 16th century, the Elizabethan mathematician and scholar [[w:John Dee|John Dee]] and alchemist [[w:Edward Kelley|Edward Kelley]] claimed to have received a “Celestial Speech” directly from the angels. This was recorded in Dee's journals published as [[w:The Five Books of the Mysteries|The Five Books of the Mysteries]] along with a complete text called the [[w:Book of Loagaeth|Book of Loagaeth]]. In these works, it was claimed that Angelical (the name Dee referred to in his journals) was the language God used to create the world, then later used by Adam to speak with God and the Heavenly Host, as well as being used to name all things in existence. Upon Adam's fall from grace and expulsion from Eden, he lost the ability to speak this language and constructed a form of proto-Hebrew based upon his vague recollection of Angelical. This proto-Hebrew was the universal human language used until the time of the [[w:Confusion of Tongues|Confusion of Tongues]] at the [[w:Tower of Babel|Tower of Babel]].
Technically speaking, the ʾÅa̩en Gohuȋlim (AG) can, in most practical ways, be seen as the progenitor tongue of all the Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, as well as the Hamitic languages, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Phoenician. Put another way, it is the proto language of [[w:Proto-Semitic]], which itself can only be hypothetically reconstructed from available archaeological and linguistic data. More to the point, it shares more similarity with the [[w:Proto-Semitic language]], or more correctly, with early forms of [[w:Akkadian]] and [[w:Eblaite]] of the Afro-Asiatic macro-family of languages as well as [[w:Aramaic]], although many sounds, morphological rules, and syntactic structurings have been lost or otherwise corrupted in those languages. However, a student of these ancient languages will find many similarities among them.
Technically speaking, the ʾÅa̩en Gohuȋlim (AG) can, in most practical ways, be seen as the progenitor tongue of all the Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Arabic, as well as the Hamitic languages, Egyptian, Akkadian, and Phoenician. Put another way, it is the proto language of [[w:Proto-Semitic|Proto-Semitic]], which itself can only be hypothetically reconstructed from available archaeological and linguistic data. More to the point, it shares more similarity with the [[w:Proto-Semitic language|Proto-Semitic]], or more correctly, with early forms of [[w:Akkadian|Akkadian]] and [[w:Eblaite|Eblaite]] of the Afro-Asiatic macro-family of languages as well as [[w:Aramaic|Aramaic]], although many sounds, morphological rules, and syntactic structurings have been lost or otherwise corrupted in those languages. However, a student of these ancient languages will find many similarities among them.


<!-- Example categories/headings:  
<!-- Example categories/headings:  
Line 77: Line 77:


===Consonants===
===Consonants===
In the Semitic and Hamitic language families, all syllables must begin with a consonant, which may be in the same word as the vowel, or may be the final consonant of a preceding word. If a syllable begins with a vowel, it must be commenced with the voiceless palatal fricative of the emphatic pronounced as /ç / (see the previous section on transliteration notes for how this is marked). Doing so essentially converts the vowel into a consonant for all practical purposes. This behavior can still be found in modern Hebrew and Arabic and is called a [[w:hamzah]] '''الهَمْزة''' in Arabic and is used in Arabic to designate a glottal stop. That is, a short pause of sound produced by obstructing air flow using the larynx and soft palate. In Hebrew it is the letter aleph '''א''', and in the Syriac alphabet it is used in word-initial position to mark a word beginning with a vowel, although sometimes in practice it is elided.  Poetically, one can say the hamzah is the sound of silence. Which letter is to be used to support the hamzah depends on the quality of the adjacent vowels. In Greek, ''spiritus lenis'' “smooth breathing” represents this notion and is a diacritical mark used in [[w:polytonic orthography]] and in the ancient days of Greek history, it marked the absense of the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ from the beginning of a word.
In the Semitic and Hamitic language families, all syllables must begin with a consonant, which may be in the same word as the vowel, or may be the final consonant of a preceding word. If a syllable begins with a vowel, it must be commenced with the voiceless palatal fricative of the emphatic pronounced as /ç / (see the previous section on transliteration notes for how this is marked). Doing so essentially converts the vowel into a consonant for all practical purposes. This behavior can still be found in modern Hebrew and Arabic and is called a [[w:hamzah|hamzah]] '''الهَمْزة''' in Arabic and is used in Arabic to designate a glottal stop. That is, a short pause of sound produced by obstructing air flow using the larynx and soft palate. In Hebrew it is the letter aleph '''א''', and in the Syriac alphabet it is used in word-initial position to mark a word beginning with a vowel, although sometimes in practice it is elided.  Poetically, one can say the hamzah is the sound of silence. Which letter is to be used to support the hamzah depends on the quality of the adjacent vowels. In Greek, ''spiritus lenis'' “smooth breathing” represents this notion and is a diacritical mark used in [[w:polytonic orthography|polytonic orthography]] and in the ancient days of Greek history, it marked the absense of the voiceless glottal fricative /h/ from the beginning of a word.


So, it remains that a syllable is composed of two elements: an initial consonant, and a following vowel. Therefore, syllables must start with a consonant followed by a vowel. A consonant may not follow another consonant unless forming a word where the previous word ends in a vowel, allowing a consonant to be added for closure, in which case, it may be necessary to prefix the word with a prosthetic vowel. More on this in the vowels section.
So, it remains that a syllable is composed of two elements: an initial consonant, and a following vowel. Therefore, syllables must start with a consonant followed by a vowel. A consonant may not follow another consonant unless forming a word where the previous word ends in a vowel, allowing a consonant to be added for closure, in which case, it may be necessary to prefix the word with a prosthetic vowel. More on this in the vowels section.


The initial divine language consisted of 35 consonantal phonemes, 5 more than [[w:Proto-Semitic]] and 6 more than Arabic, whose phonology and morphology is extremely conservative, as languages go. As is found in the [[w:Proto-Semitic]] language family, the consonant system is based on triads of related voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants. ʾÅa̩en is triconsonantal, or triliteral, meaning the roots of verbs and many nouns are characterized as a sequence of consonants, or radicals. These abstract roots are used in the formation of actual words by adding vowels following the particular morphological category around the root consonants and with appropriate patterns. It is worth noting that biliterals and even quadriliteral roots do exist.
The initial divine language consisted of 35 consonantal phonemes, 5 more than [[w:Proto-Semitic|Proto-Semitic]] and 6 more than Arabic, whose phonology and morphology is extremely conservative, as languages go. As is found in the [[w:Proto-Semitic|Proto-Semitic]] language family, the consonant system is based on triads of related voiced, voiceless, and emphatic consonants. ʾÅa̩en is triconsonantal, or triliteral, meaning the roots of verbs and many nouns are characterized as a sequence of consonants, or radicals. These abstract roots are used in the formation of actual words by adding vowels following the particular morphological category around the root consonants and with appropriate patterns. It is worth noting that biliterals and even quadriliteral roots do exist.


====Biconsonantal Roots====
====Biconsonantal Roots====
Line 271: Line 271:
* interdental ḋ t̆ ț̌
* interdental ḋ t̆ ț̌


It might be realized that emphatic sounds occur in nearly all Semitic languages, as well as being shared with most other languages of the [[w:Afro-Asiatic]] family. The emphatic is speculated to have been glottalized as the secondary articulation in [[w:Proto-Semitic]] (PS), but as truth would have it, in ʾÅa̩en the secondary articulation becomes a voiceless palatal fricative, whereas in modern Semitic languages to include Hebrew and Modern South Arabian languages, it has changed over time to be pharyngealized, velarized, ejective, or in some cases, unaspirated. For practical purposes, consider the emphatic phonemes to be a lateral tie to the [ç] sound. So, the phoneme / ș / could be pronounced / s͡ç /, which in English would sound similar to /shya/ but with the /sh/ being more palatoalveolar in structure.
It might be realized that emphatic sounds occur in nearly all Semitic languages, as well as being shared with most other languages of the [[w:Afro-Asiatic|Afro-Asiatic]] family. The emphatic is speculated to have been glottalized as the secondary articulation in [[w:Proto-Semitic|Proto-Semitic]] (PS), but as truth would have it, in ʾÅa̩en the secondary articulation becomes a voiceless palatal fricative, whereas in modern Semitic languages to include Hebrew and Modern South Arabian languages, it has changed over time to be pharyngealized, velarized, ejective, or in some cases, unaspirated. For practical purposes, consider the emphatic phonemes to be a lateral tie to the [ç] sound. So, the phoneme / ș / could be pronounced / s͡ç /, which in English would sound similar to /shya/ but with the /sh/ being more palatoalveolar in structure.


For learners of the language, it may be easier to pronounce the emphatic as an ejective, which are voiceless consonants that are pronounced by simultaneous closure of the glottis. Strictly speaking, ejectives are glottalic egressive consonants that can loosely be described as sounding like the pure phonemic quality of the letter with little aspiration, followed by an abrupt stop then a vowel. However, those endeavoring to increase their mastery of the language should practice the correct secondary articulation of the emphatic.
For learners of the language, it may be easier to pronounce the emphatic as an ejective, which are voiceless consonants that are pronounced by simultaneous closure of the glottis. Strictly speaking, ejectives are glottalic egressive consonants that can loosely be described as sounding like the pure phonemic quality of the letter with little aspiration, followed by an abrupt stop then a vowel. However, those endeavoring to increase their mastery of the language should practice the correct secondary articulation of the emphatic.
Line 284: Line 284:
* three emphatic fricatives [ɵ̧] [ş] [ɬ̧]
* three emphatic fricatives [ɵ̧] [ş] [ɬ̧]


However, by the time of <TODO>, the early Akkadian that was spoken there already had affricate realizations of at least ș. Further linguistic research into [[w:Phoenician]], [[w:Biblical Hebrew]], as well as [[w:Old Babylonian]] and [[w:Canaanite]] will, no doubt, bring further information and evidence to light about how the spoken (and written) language of the ancients came into being in relation to its angelic, mother tongue.
However, by the time of <TODO>, the early Akkadian that was spoken there already had affricate realizations of at least ș. Further linguistic research into [[w:Phoenician|Phoenician]], [[w:Biblical Hebrew|Biblical Hebrew]], as well as [[w:Old Babylonian|Old Babylonian]] and [[w:Canaanite|Canaanite]] will, no doubt, bring further information and evidence to light about how the spoken (and written) language of the ancients came into being in relation to its angelic, mother tongue.