In a few of my postings, I referred to an article in the December 25, 2016, “This Weeks” magazine, an alternative-newspaper which referred to English as “weird”. This complaint is not uncommon other than in word-choice. Many such critics have suggested replacing English with a language that is not so difficult to understand. Strangely enough, more and more people prefer to develop their own variants of “English”. Instead of fewer English speakers, we have exponentially more English speakers and more varieties of English to speak. Considering that the code to English language has been lost for over two millennia, that is pretty amazing. What do the words- that, what, which, pretty, if, the, has, and, been, common, weird, we, more, do, to, so, asf (and so forth) all mean? Without the runic based sense code which I have proposed, I can’t imagine a plausible alternative translation for the most used words of our popular language. We have to stretch credulity to ….
At this point, and after several hours of doing diligent labor cleaning a thoroughly dirty six foot by eight wool carpet, in addition to reading for several hours and sleeping intently for about eight hours- This is all relevant in the context of this weeks Torah portion regarding our custom/ law of observing Sabbath years as well as weekly Sabbaths. There is nothing that clears out the mental cobwebs as efficiently as deep thinking, hard work, deep sleep and a Mind too tired to resist listening to that “..still, small voice within”. Without this context, rest is just sanctified sloth. That done and said, I stopped my proof-reading at this bizarre word choice. Where, pray tell me, did English get a mental image of ‘stretching credulity’? The image which comes to my mind is that post- WWII expression, “I believe you, -thousands wouldn’t.” My former neighbor, a Welsh war bride used to say that. I later heard the line in a 1940s movie. Lilly meant it when she said it
and she rarely said it to me unless she wanted to hear my supporting arguments. Stretching credulity means being willing to ‘believe what one does not believe’.
More twisted yet is that to ‘believe’ is ‘to be lief that it were so’. That is saying that you will ‘lief’ that it were so. Lief is about expressing a preference for a particular choice of ‘path’ when we have only two possible choices, either/ or, yes/ or no, right /left. I see nothing about choosing to accept or to trust in someones’ interpretation of or choice of ‘truth’. The words truth and trust begin with tr- which represents three, just like tw- represents two and twelve is two-elf-ten. This is where I get my personal requirement for a minimum of three supports for my opinions. This is also the origin of “a baker’s dozen”. We require a minimum of three possibilities in order to have any real choice, including any way to triangulate a third possibility. The ‘third’ doesn’t add up to a truth but, rather makes a ‘truth’ possible.
This is another reason my ‘Project’ appears so time-consuming. When the facts do not add up, I have to go back and add them up again, then see what the new facts look like. Our English languages have also been confounded by the strong Latin impress. In order to find a word with which to compare the English word, we are often required to reference a Latin word. The first time I thought there was enough for a ‘book’, I was still missing well over five-hundred years of history. The second time I was deluded, I had noticed that the Latin grammar which was to be a kind of matrix for English, could not have possibly been. Bishop Ælfric, the one I quote as a proof of the runic code connection with English, was the one who translated Priscian’s Latin Grammar. He could have been neither directed nor ordered by King Ælfred since he was born after the king died. Placing the manuscript against an historical timeline changes a great many of the existing relationships.
The questions continue to arise: This isn’t a problem; however, If there is a code, which has now been found, what is taking (me) so long to publish it? I will tell you what I presently see as the big hang-up. I want to know the truth. I keep channeling my inner child, that First Grader who knows she has been lied to, the one who wants to earn some demerits so she can go out and work off a temper fit before she explodes. Among other reasons, I keep putting my findings up against a Timeline of History and find more history and more questions. Those questions result in more layers of relevant code. As long as there was a half century of missing ‘history’ there was too much missing time between between what appeared to be the ‘birth’ of English. The questions arise about how many English languages we have. We also have different notions about what constitutes ‘normal’ language, one based on making our sounds correctly and compatibly with languages we have idealized. When
a people have got into the habit of considering some thing a condition which needs to be treated like a disease, it is difficult to view that dis-ease as a comfort zone signaling the presence of a completed language.
‘We’ also have to take another look at our history, including our historic way of viewing our words. This ‘We’ to whom I am referring, is what my mother called “The Royal We”, giving Queen Victoria as an example of such ‘authority’. I am claiming this royal authority with reference to English. Based on the many years which I have spent studying both English and those who are also studying English, I submit that English is more than one language and is always a work in progress. This does not give us liberty to take license with our language. Rather, it commands we not take liberties with the rules. I am going to lay out the various layers of patterns that I’m finding. I see no reason why we cannot all utilize the various patterns so long as we don’t withhold usage of language from those who want, need and can use those particular patterns. That is precisely what is presently being done. Additionally, some complicated constructs are being used to withhold language
which should be, can be and ought be accessible to the common man. Think language of law, finances and health care. We focus too much on the fashions of sounds and too little on the sense of our words.
A Cal Poly student was concerned about “bad words” and how they would be handled. These “bad” words also included many eminently useful words which were too succinct and too low class to be considered an admirable part of an educated person’s language. Some alternative word usage disturbed the current sacred cows of the twenty-first century. Every time I turn around, I encounter another new language ‘god’ of which I had been completely unaware. Some of these are sex, gender, pornography, perversion, fornicate, marriage, and none of them have the sense which we attribute to them.
Consider our use of the word ‘define’. When we define words, we draw a line around words and the ideas which they delimit. Marriage, sex, gender, human, ownership, are individual words with firm limits or boundaries. Good/ bad, either/ or, is/ is not, if then, what if, perversity, morality, weird, normal, right/ wrong, asf. We have “unabridged dictionaries of common usage” which often have words that mean both one thing and its’ opposite. This is quite possible in English since the sense of a word does not contain any opinions or value judgements. The sense of a word is based on the way we perceive it with our physical senses. We have little to none of this. We used to teach much of it through reading poetry, speech classes, debating, acting and interacting. Now, we just make acceptable sounds
The ‘bad word’ and its demonic progeny, which excited so much comment from me in the first two paragraphs,(CREDULOUS) is now going to be declined according to the runic code: Ken is C. When used as Ken Rad CR- a determinative, it represents the transformation of the head/mind and what is within it; ED is Ehwaz Dag or Duir and represents the eddy effect of transforming forces; U is UR and represents ‘group or herd energy’ and its attending transformative effect; Runes represent ‘fundamental principles’ therefore, often having a grammatical suffix of R (which would be redundant here); L is Lagu representing ‘law of/ and fluidity’ ; -ous and -lous could be seen as grammatical suffixes of cred-, credu-. This way of using language as an actively manipulative tool, bothered me enough to pursue the origin of the root-words cred, credu. It was translated into English as ‘creed’ as in the ‘apostolic creed’ . This really unsettled my mettle since apo- means from above.
When this word was entered into English as ‘creed’, it was and is related to the word ‘creek’, a bay, waterway, cove, a way of going. The -d is Day, Duir and represents continuity and endurance. When the K of ‘Cauldron of Inspiration’ was changed to D, creek became creed and was enmeshed in religion and politics. A Creed became a required way of living. Deviating from the creed constituted heresy and was punishable as heresy by civil authorities. Within just a few hundred years, matters of faith were being determined by less than seventy male authorities who could demand that the people behave as those men decreed and dictated. Failure to do so was punishable by death -while the Latin ‘credere’ still signified “to put faith in or trust in, to believe in”. We make our language and then it makes us -unless we understand our words and keep a firm grip on them.09-9-2017JOH
- Judith has written (and re-written) the pages below, initially for a book and now for this website. These files are still under revision, and should not be treated as stable documents.