The Latin demeanor

There are no native speakers of classic Latin. These are only features and patterns of the language to continue to live, also in mottos. The thing here naturally is about saying Annuit coeptis, according to the classic Latin standard and knowing what and why, not only repeating memorized pronunciation.


Why say circle [sIrkl], if we say cat [kæ:t]?


Reading of Latin letters depended on other speech sounds. For example, there is the letter “u” in the word language. The Latin name was lingua, and the way to say it was [lIηgva], as a low vowel followed. The nominative decided for all declension. We may compare cuius [kuIus]. More, the letter shape q always was to be followed by u, moreover to be pronounced as [v].


Vowel Chart Back and Front values


Ancient Latin had a sound that modern English hardly has, [ts] in phonetic script. We may try to produce it, saying [s] and closing on the hard palate as for [t]. Russian and Polish have the sound in the word ценT, cent. German has the sound in the numeral zehn, ten. The Latin centesimus meant a hundredth, and cententionalis was a small coin, the words here to belong with a decimal idea.


It was the Amber Road to bring the Latin influence, we can compare kwota [kvota] in Polish, квота [kvota] in Russian, and Quote [kvote] in German. French native phonology, would generally discard [v] within syllables, and has shaped quota as [ko:ta:].


The amber trade communication was mostly spoken. Italians, more familiar with written Latin, have developed [kwota], let us yet mind that Italian is not “modern Latin”, however it has [ts] in words as cena or prezzo, and [k] in costo. Assimilation of Latin patterns into English was mostly via written resources as well, English further to have been influenced by French, after the Norman conquest. The French also would not have the speech sound [ts].


In Latin, the letter c stood for [ts] (or [c] in the phonetic script for Slavic languages) before front vowels. Back vowels or non-vowels always brought about [k].


We can be back with circles and cats. Vowels can be high or low, as well as front or back. It is before front vowels that the letter c sounds [s], and before back vowels that it becomes [k], in modern English speech for words deriving from Latin.


Here we go,

[a: n n u I t]  [ts ε: p t  I s].


Ancients doubled non-vowels in speech, as in annuit. They also had digraphs. Coeptis was as ceptis.

__Smiley PNG

The role of feedback in natural language

Artificial intelligence has patterned after human structures for years. In consequence, artificial parsing has come to be used for teaching and diagnosis. Computers rely on programs. The work discusses human information processing, with focus to the role of feedback in language. Human information processing differs from artificial considerably.

  • Tests by Ladefoged showed speech and language dependence on feedback without exception.
  • Human DNA requires cellular feedback for active protein.
  • Human endurance under feedback impoverishment has been proved lower than for fasting.

Not only on these grounds, the role of feedback in human language processing can be posited to approximate a drive.


I defended the thesis in 2000, at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland, earning my M.A. degree in American English, specialization psycholinguistics.





Of the many definitions of feedback, those of output return, effect reversal, or acoustic interference have been widely used, with regard to mechanical devices. Psychological meaning to be that of evaluative behavior, feedback has become associated with guidance or viewpoints.[1] Neurology began applying the term of information processing to human bodily structures in the XX century.


The notion of feedback has been adapted for cybernetics,[2] the Greek kybernan to denote steering or governing. Artificial intelligence remains a secondary application, capable of patterning after human insight only to an extent. Hodgkin-Huxley mathematical model having lost prominence for life sciences, the cellular processes as discovered by the researchers remain a fact, feedback to be a closed-loop capability over open-loop sequences


Psycholinguistics gained prominence in 1960s, opposing behaviorism (Puppel, 1996). The framework for the present quest, the discipline has been defined as a study of the relationships between linguistic behavior and psychological processes, including language acquisition (New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998). Encyklopedia Językoznawstwa Ogólnego would enclose language teaching and remedial with the field (1993). The study of psychological reality of language, as recognized also by the Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1989), does not abstract from language neural matter.


Human nervous systems can be viewed as natural information management structures. The tenets of option, information pool, program, feedback, and signal use are met within the human internal structuring by standard. Natural language is indispensable for human logical functioning, comprehension and production to depend on neural processes. Feedback reliance is a natural principle for live human systems.


Feedback phenomena are intrinsic to single neurons as well as systemic dynamics, of the central and autonomic co-operating for situational and individual stereotypy, or the cortical and subcortical negotiation for the spoken or written act. Regard to feedback is not to encourage pursuits for a uniform[3] neural model for language, human speech and language to be a natural faculty by a human person.


Individual, personality factors emerge already at the level of language cerebral patterns.[4] The patterns and their networks are not innate or inborn structures, but actual neural connections every person needs to form on his or her own. Consequently, there is no universal neural format for language, and no such model can become of function for personal linguistic strategies.


Strategy language styling and structuring depends on personal free will. The generative and spontaneous capability uses open-loop consecutions for language that can compare with programs, yet need to be formed in feedback-mediated exercise of goal-oriented behavior. The laws of learning by Edward Lee Thorndike are consistent with natural neural networking, in which personal congruity is an inherent component.


Human earliest vocal behavior is innate. As instinctively, humans begin own inner networking, in the egocentric feedback of circular reactions. Throughout lifespan, an essentially closed-loop manner can be observed about human learning.[5] Human persons to be dynamic entities rather than layers or scopes of actuation, cognitive processes would require use of own inner input.[6] Timing would be indispensably intrinsic for all intellectual performance, human working memory to partake in inner feedback. Stimulation, as a unidirectional influence, would be incapable of feedback functions.[7]


Behaviorist approaches can be doubted also on grounds of the inner heterarchy carry-over of endophasia. For human language skill overall, feedback as sustained in neural pattern build would allow verification as well as change in language existent neural compass, and provide for the neuro-motor-articulatory feedforward. All natural languages permanence is relative, to include phonology along syntax and semantics, in the notion of a language standard.


“Mind modularity”, “language universals”, or “notional matrices” cannot account for the language pool phenomena of the Warrens experiment. It would be feedback-mediated attainment of language information thresholds to explain the results: the masked component concealed actual phonemes. Not only on these grounds, feedback reliance can be considered a neuro-behavioral priority for natural language. Open-loop sequences or routines would be formed to encourage neural economy and thus make more allowance for feedback and related responsiveness, as proved by Ladefoged. Grammars would be projects by individual minds flexibly to apply within personal linguistic strategies.


Feedback intrinsicality becomes a sound conclusion with regard to permanent hindrance, as well. Re-orienting would follow natural feedback compensation, in persons of inborn and acquired sensory impediment. Remedial in mental language processing always solicits personal awareness and language egocentric feedback. Behavior validity may never become negotiated in the learning deficient, without autonomous concordance. The extreme of the “fragmented thought” of schizophrenia implies defects in intrinsic timing to express in phonologically driven discourse.


These are not only human cognition and language to need natural inner feedback. Human DNA depends on cellular feedback for active protein, in the course of the human endeavor to comprehend own structure, this being already Lamarck to note on organism adaptation (The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998). Human endurance under feedback impoverishment has been reported lower than for fasting, and of sensory expression (Lindsay and Norman, 1991).[8] Parallel-distributed information processing by human brains holds in standard as well as non-standard contexts, yet impediment, obstruction, or deficit cannot prescribe on norm.[9] Therefore, the role of feedback in language processing can be posited to approximate a drive.


Psychologically, a drive is an inner urge to stimulate response, incite or repress action, as well as a basic and instinctive need (Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1989). The instinctual nature of feedback reliance would be strongest in neural, inner extents, interference or limitation potentially to induce biological search for variables. In environmental scopes, dependence on feedback would lessen with language maturation and personal independence.[10]


Not connoted with stress or fear in civilized circumstances, speech and language always remain a basic human need, and as such relate to self-sustainment. The role of natural feedback in language thus would be that of an initiating, mediating, and modeling factor. This would be the self-preservation instinct to promote individual flexibility and competence for progress and advancement.




[1] The phrase to give someone feedback means to provide an opinion, an informed view. Only solicited opinion in standard verbal form may work as feedback.


[2] Cybernetics: theory of control in biology, mechanics, and electronics.


[3] The degree of uniformity as in medical sciences, where the doctor tells the standard heart rate or respiratory capacity, would not apply for language. Some people speak volumes, some prefer written language activity, and some hardly get involved with language. There is no ground to term any of the predilections abnormal.


[4] Already individual ways to shape letters of the alphabet vary. The neural patterns to mediate handwritten (ɑ) or (e) can differ from those to mediate (a) or (ε). Please compare chapter 3.6 for graphemic variance.


[5] Please compare chapter 2.8.


[6] Please compare chapter 2.4, on the role of circular reactions.


[7] Even low-level verbal stimulation could not provide for inner language.


[8] Please refer to chapter 1.8 and the pool model for internal balance preservation. With partial deprivation only, the endurance was about 48 hours (Lindsay and Norman, 1991).


[9] An approach to have deprivation for a measure would have us developing innumerable “drives”. Naturally, a figure of speech as a drive for knowledge could sound natural. “A drive for a good cup of coffee” would not, unless humorous.


[10] The term competence follows Noam Chomsky’s notion that all humans have language competence and performance. The use is not to imply school assessment.

Language mapping, a walk-through

The more economical we are managing our grammars, the better we manage our language skills. Everyone thinks, speaks, or writes in real time. There is often no time to consult rules and definitions.


We can use cognitive variables, to manage our language matter.
We can call it our Language Mapping, as we map language cognitively.


The integration here is to gather on the symbolics and visualization for Language Mapping. The visuals are just to help work out flexible linguistic habits. They are not to replace language. This here is our device box.


Please mind that we do not follow the term of the language acquisition device. We stay with language faculties, to refer natural language to human heads. Our devices are strictly linguistic implements or gizmos.


Everyone has one PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE really. We symbolize this reality as three fields or extents. We can say figuratively that our knowledge is our light. Knowledge needs memory. Our PAST field can be as with a setting sun. We may forget the detail in matters we have not studied in a long time, yet there is shine enough to return to them.
PAST field


We cannot have memories of the FUTURE, but we are capable of planning our study. Our field for the FUTURE can be as with sunrise.
__FUTURE field


It is our PRESENT we have most cognitive powers to shape. We can symbolize the PRESENT as shiny daylight.
__PRESENT field

We view core grammar words, BE, HAVE, and DO
in the Fields of Time (Chapter 1).


In the fields of time, we may notice that the verb WILL can map on the FUTURE already in its PRESENT form (Chapter 2).
WILL mapping on the future

The River of Time is to perceive language patterns. If we focus on the Stones of Time, we may extract general patterns (Chapter 3).

Patterns to show with Stones of Time

Our extracted patterns are the grammatical Aspect.


We can symbolize the first element in the Simple pattern with the lemniscate, that is, the indeterminate or infinity.

Infinity symbol

The lemniscate is to symbolize that the first element in the Simple pattern can be any verb, and natural language is not mathematically calculable. More, everybody begins to learn language knowing only a few words. Our ideas do not come from the Greek Anaximander, but we can compare thought.


Human grammar is not separate from human living and thinking. We can associate our grammar and human natural mapping, as with geography and travel. We people live on Earth. We usually view lands or waters as extents. We give at least psychological borders to areas in which we are. We perceive routes and ways to places. We happen to be at landmarks and places. Such are human natural variables for space, in English. We can use them for grammar (Chapter 4).

__ESSENCE 3 VALUE with patterns

We begin with the values ON, IN, and TO for our mapping variables. There are not and cannot be grammar or other rules to determine how we perceive our living and thinking. We decide on our own, if to say we live somewhere, we are living somewhere, or we have lived somewhere.


We humans naturally use symbols. Humanity has had symbolic representations for feelings, thought, as well as activity. Let us think about a symbolic extent. We can use an ordinary picture of an area.



We can process the picture. The symbolic area would not belong anywhere geographically.

It would symbolize an extent.


We can visualize grammatical Aspects as extents.

Aspect Simple would allow a perspective ON a cognitive extent.



ON the map


Activities IN progress are not entire extents of our cognitive grounds. We select part a cognitive extent.



Link to chapter 4. Value IN

We can tell what has happened TO a time or event we choose to mark. The activities would take a length of a cognitive extent.




TO a place or time

Arrows are very familiar symbols to show or indicate the way (Chapter 5). We can combine our mapping and arrow symbols, to exercise target time. The ability will be vital, if we want to fare with Modal verbs. Modal forms might not tell directly what time the talk is about.




Please mind that our arrows are not shooting arrows. They are symbols to indicate the target time extent. If we make models to exercise and play, we make big models of soft material, especially if there should be little children around.


We never grow too old or mature, to use colors. They can help also advanced language work. We make a color palette, and combine patterns for Expression: the Affirmative, Negative, or Interrogative.




Our symbolic extents can help visualize syntax (Chapter 6).




We learn to keep the head time. Our arrows are mauve, the color of head verbs. Head verbs can head phrases, clauses, or sentences. Auxiliaries always require another verb.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We use time frames, to manage our grammatical time. We keep the frame open for the Perfect, and we close it for the Simple.

We can associate the open frame with the auxiliary HAVE. The frame is open, as there is always another reference in time, when we use the Perfect.


Open time frame


All along, we mind we use concepts and inventions. We do not claim there is anything like time frames or time extents in human heads. Common sense, if we can make wheels, it does not mean we have wheels in our heads.


Our grammar time extents can help manage stative uses for verbs, those for thinking and feeling (Chapter 7). It is up to our choosing, if we give our thought an entire extent (variable {ON}), or only part an extent (variable {IN}). We can refer our ideas to natural language. We might love or hate __Smiley PNGsomeone with our whole hearts as well, after all.




We merge our values TO and IN (Chapter 8).


Perfect and Progressive form merger


We get another mapping value, AT, the Perfect Progressive. We also merge the Progressive and Perfect features on our Simple arrow cue.




We get to manage all Aspects with variables, as we want them.



We can integrate our River of Time


River of time__Integration2


We can map and tell what we have been progressing AT.





All along, we do not change language. We take our examples from the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA.


This is a dream come true. And I’m loving every minute of it.

(NBC_Today Sun as in the Corpus of Contemporary American English, COCA).


We can learn to have our value {ON} for our earthling basic variable (Chapter 8.1). The value has got nothing to do with utilities and turning them on or off. Our values can work simultaneously for our grammars, as learned cognitive variables. Astronauts also have learned language ON Earth. Humans are likely to learn ON a planet for an indefinite future.




Modal verbs challenge our arrow cues, on the target time (Chapter 9). We can say Modal forms are grammatically relative, as they do not tell the time reference directly. We can compare.

__FUTURE field

TOMORROW, we COULD sit down to grammar.
We WILL BE able to sit down to grammar TOMORROW.


__PRESENT field

We COULD sit down to grammar NOW.
We ARE able to sit down to grammar NOW.


PAST field

A YEAR AGO, we COULD sit down to grammar whenever we wanted.
We WERE able to sit down to grammar whenever we wanted


We can think about a grammatically relative time, for Modal forms. Our talking with them is about hypotheses more. For a comparison, saying,

Maybe ten minutes,
is not the same as saying
Ten minutes.


Until now, our journey has associated

the auxiliary HAVE with our green, open time frame.

Real time open frame


TO a place or time


With Modal verbs, the auxiliary HAVE will close the time of the hypothesis.


Let us see an example (Chapter 9.2).


41a. I thought the handle MIGHT HAVE / COULD HAVE broken off.

(The time frame in the hypothesis is closed.
We do not wonder any more.)

Relative time closed frame

We make relative time frames, for Modal forms.


We can note that for making theories or talking tentatively, the auxiliary HAVE closes the relative grammatical time, with Modal forms. This means it no longer brings the mapping values {TO} and {AT}.


We can recur to Aspect mapping (for example, in Chapter 8). The values {TO} and {AT} use the auxiliary HAVE for real time, and symbolize the Perfect Simple and the Perfect Progressive.


With Modal verbs, we can have
the auxiliary HAVE for a syntactic anchor,
and not an Aspect. Let us compare.


Maybe you HAVE learned something good. {TO}
Maybe you learned something good. {ON}


A Modal form as
You might HAVE learned something good
does not tell the difference.


It yet will tell our value {IN}.


Maybe you were learning something good.
Maybe you HAVE been learning something good.

You might HAVE been learning something good.


For talking tentatively or making theories, we balance our {ON} and {IN}, building Modal phrases. Our arrow cues continue to work, and in a more economical fashion.
Modal net


We can call it our Modal net. We net (nullify as non-essential) the Perfect, for tentative forms. The length of the cognitive extent is not so important, when the time is theoretical. Our Modal phrases will become much simpler to make, and we remain correct according to classic grammars (!)


(Should we think it is too simple to be true, let us mind there is no natural language to require looking up volumes on philosophy, to make Modal structures. We all speak or write in context, and this is the context to complement the language information that grammar gives.)


However, we keep our written auxiliary HAVE always green, whether it brings an open or closed time frame. Our language faculties should do really well with a simple picture that tells auxiliary verbs from head verbs. Grammar anyway requires thinking, and it would not be a good idea to get dependent on crayons.


Link to the color code and virtual words


We learn to perceive our grammar and notional time as related (Chapter 9.4).

We can view our grammar as logically connected


We observe there is generally Form relativity, in language.
(Chapter 10).




Further journey can help learn closing the frame or leaving it open, dependent on our focus. There is no universal guidance. Of the President quotes below, neither is grammatically incorrect.


If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be (would be) turning over in his grave.
Gerald Rudolph Ford, American President.


More than that, and breaking precedent once more, I do not intend to commence any sentence with these words ― “If George Washington had been alive today”, or “If Thomas Jefferson”, or “If Alexander Hamilton”, or “If Abraham Lincoln had been alive today”…
Theodore Roosevelt, American President


The basic variable {ON} can help manage stative verb uses, as well as forms that classic grammars may name the Conditional or Unreal Past. Most importantly, the variable can help keep the real grammatical PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE ― the head, notional time.


We do not have to keep our visuals and symbolics forever. We try some independence of them already in Chapter 10.4, with exercise 67.


Please mind, there are no two people with identical language faculties, and there is no point calculating human brains. We have a mildly humorous comment about language and mathematics in the book and here:


We humans never are artificial intelligence. We would not rely on digits 4 or 44 to make associations. We would not add up page numbers 27 and 72 to work out a correlation between making an acquaintance, looking for someone, and meeting him or her. Finally, we would not sum up digits 6 and 4 or 8 and 2 to make our cognitive maps. Computer calculation of page content could not make sense, either.


Book planning is a human capacity. In Part 2, we compare Modal forms on the westerly wind, in exercise 44 and in example 4 of another exercise, to continue the theme. We can read about Jill looking for Chantelle on page 27, and about their making acquaintance on page 72. Mapping integration comes with pages 64 and 82. Book planning can be pleasure and fun (8, 9,10). I hope you neither __Smiley joke PNGhate nor are hating me, for the innocent prank.


Feel welcome to Travel in Grammar


My dear head

My dear head does not give me headaches. This is one of the reasons I literally love it and would not change it for anything in the universe or multiverse entire and beyond.

Should I write, “my dear Head …” ?


Some people will say you capitalize for respect. You spell “the Queen’s English”, and you write “the Chairman”. Well, but then you’d have to assume respect about the Nazis and the Jihad, whoever knows the rationale for the “Queen’s English”: language does not belong with the royal interests, according to the official website:

Elizabeth II official website; click to enlarge.



An animal lover since childhood, The Queen takes a keen and highly knowledgeable interest in horses. Other interests include walking in the countryside and working her Labradors, which were bred at Sandringham.  A lesser known interest is Scottish country dancing.


The official note is absolutely worth trust, as I most unfortunately had to experience during my 2,5 years stay in England, in environments by royalist services.


Returning to human thought, it has had the human body in mind. We humans could not live without own heads, cozy with own necks. We have heads of sentences and clauses, as we have heads of states. This might be the reason for some singularity in the use of capital letters.


A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain; Project Gutenberg link

“The question as to whether there is such a thing as divine right of kings is not settled in this book. It was found too difficult. That the executive head of a nation should be a person of lofty character and extraordinary ability, was manifest and indisputable; that none but the Deity could select that head unerringly, was also manifest and indisputable; that the Deity ought to make that selection, then, was likewise manifest and indisputable; consequently, that He does make it, as claimed, was an unavoidable deduction. I mean, until the author of this book encountered the Pompadour, and Lady Castlemaine, and some other executive heads of that kind; these were found so difficult to work into the scheme, that it was judged better to take the other tack in this book (which must be issued this fall), and then go into training and settle the question in another book. It is, of course, a thing which ought to be settled, and I am not going to have anything particular to do next winter anyway.”😉

Heads of states, boards, phrases, or clauses, it is relevance to matter most. The President would be the president in office. The Queen would be the current queen of a monarchy. The language matter may pool information. Just as one can write “the Flag” for “the American flag” (the British flag, the French flag, and other), one can write the American president and the English queen, not capitalizing the heads. Equally, the phrases “Mr. Obama” or “Ms. Windsor” cannot be terms of offense.


Mark Twain had a wonderful sense of humor.🙂


And seriously, I have preferred democracy. Telling all on why would take another post. To be brief here, monarchy requires intimacy for politics. Elizabeth I was a short reign. To have a dynasty, you have to have offspring. The thing had turned out quite sad on a few women in Henry VIII time. Further, the head of state would be much of a figure of religion, in a monarchy. Elizabeth II is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The citizen might be to believe there is “God All-mighty” to support a royal whim. Or, actually, there would be no citizens. There would be subjects. Finally, whatever to envision for inheritable merit, language is not so genetic. Should The Prince and the Pauper have been pictured in an international setting and the main characters at a younger age, the prince would have spoken another tongue. Why have an inheritable head of state, if language cannot be inherited? What would a head of state be, without language? Democracy looks naturally more sensible.

Tom Canty

The Prince and the Pauper, read over Project Gutenberg.

The conscious mind of Emily Dickinson

… Babbles the Bee in a stolid Ear,

Pipe the Sweet Birds in ignorant cadence — …

(Emily Dickinson, Safe in their alabaster chambers, Wikipedia)


When we look at poetry by Emily Dickinson today, we get strange big letters and a multitude of dashes which yet cannot give the special Bees, Birds, or Ears any real sense. To blame the reader

— “you know, the author was a mystic, metaphysical, only high minds get it” —

a Mystical Bee remains unappealing on a High Mind as well.


We can read commentary online.


… Dickinson’s idiosyncratic poetic practice—her pervasive use, for example, of dashes, and of unexpectedly capitalized words …


Students may have problems with the appearance of the poems–with the fact that they are without titles; that they are often short and compact, compressed; that the dash is so often used in the place of traditional punctuation.



Emily Dickinson’s poetry was a success with the people of her times. The people did not have problems, and they knew proper spelling. Emily Dickinson also was aware of orthography as in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, and she certainly did not mean her poetry for just a joke, though she had a sense of humor and I hope to prove it.


Let us have a close look at a manuscript for the poem we began with, Safe in their alabaster chambers. The color red is not to correct. I like Emily Dickinson’s poetry really much and I would not alter it. The color is to emphasize dash height relative to letter.

Safe in their alabaster chambers, click to enlarge

I do believe this is an autograph.


The manuscript has “low dashes”. The markings belong well with the habit of the hand. This habit also has an open e that closes for sibilant clusters, for example. We can compare diadems, Doges, and soundless. Spoken language mattered in Emily Dickinson’s notation.


The habit of the hand was strong. We can see the “low dash” around the name of the addressee, Suz.


Why make such marks, when writing a poem? Let us think about language and inspiration. There is an occurrence in Emily Dickinson’s verse to correspond with Latin and Greek. The occurrence is beyond mere coincidence or unaware habit.


(Time and Eternity, XVIII, Playmates) Latin: collusor, companion at play; condiscipulus, school-mate; angelus, a messenger, an angel; lapillus, small stone, pebble (marble?); lusus, a game;  Greek: ὁμηλυσία, omelusia, companionship.


God permits industrious angels

Afternoons to play.

I met one, — forgot my school-mates,

All, for him, straightway.


God calls home the angels promptly

At the setting sun;

I missed mine. How dreary marbles,

After playing Crown!


The inspiration is morpho-phonemic and humorous. Let us try a few more pieces. (Life, XXIII, Unreturning) ἀνάπλυσις, anaplusis, washing or rinsing out; ἀνήλυσις, anelusis, going up, return; ἤλυσις, elusis, step, gait; lenunculus, a small sailing-vessel, bark, skiff (the toddling little boat).


‘T was such a little, little boat

That toddled down the bay!

‘T was such a gallant, gallant sea

That beckoned it away!


‘T was such a greedy, greedy wave

That licked it from the coast;

Nor ever guessed the stately sails

My little craft was lost!


We can compare the Greek -upo/ypo- for I asked no other thing (Life, XII, p. 213): ἰσότυπος, isotypos, shaped alike, συνυπόπτωσις, synypoptosis, simultaneous presentation to the senses; Latin cauponarius, a male shopkeeper, tradesman, ποπτερνίς, upopternis, a knob (a kind of a button that can twirl, in the modern use), and πo, below, looking a picture up and down (as Brazil on a map).


I asked no other thing,

No other was denied.

I offered Being for it;

The mighty merchant smiled.


Brazil? He twirled a button,

Without a glance my way:

“But, madam, is there nothing else

That we can show to-day?”


Emily Dickinson marked her poetry for prosody as well as language morphology. The markings and big letters belong with drafts of her pieces, not the final forms. Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Mabel Loomis Todd knew the draft features and ignored them with print. We do not follow Thomas Jefferson’s “rough draught” for the Declaration of Independence, either.


Why I stay by Emily Dickinson’s first print

I like Emily Dickinson’s poetry very much, but this does not extend to many interpretations. I think they exaggerate on the influence by the poet’s recluse lifestyle. To compare comprehension, or just out of curiosity, would you try to find the pieces by Emily Dickinson to tell about book dusting, or the ex libris? You may be interested in the Uncouth love theme (the “suspicious” love of language) in her poetry. You may like the thematic stanza, too.


I had no time to hate




I died for beauty




The wind


In a library


First series afterword

No men, women, children, or houses with the pie


William Jones was a reported hyperpolyglot. He learned Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, and basic Chinese, says Wikipedia to add he knew thirteen languages thoroughly, and another twenty-eight reasonably well.

William Jones

Mr. Jones wrote The Sanscrit Language to tell that Greek and Latin had a common root, Sanskrit. This Proto-Indo-European “language”, PIE in short, was to originate contemporary European tongues.

Altogether, Mr. Jones remains described as having had at least reasonably good knowledge of 41 tongues. Such a reasonably good acquaintance should have encompassed the words woman, man, child, and house. Let us compare these words in Latin, Greek, English, Russian, Polish, German, French, and Sanskrit.

Is there a root PIE vocabulary?



Woman silhouette

Latin: femina; Greek: gyne; English: woman; Russian: zenshchina; Polish: kobieta; German: Weib; French: femme; Sanskrit: nari.


Man silhouette

Latin: vir; Greek: andros; English: man; Russian: muzshtschina; Polish: mężczyzna; German: Mann; French: homme; Sanskrit: naro.

I do not know Sanskrit. I can only compare resources. The morpheme man, as quoted by supporters of the PIE, yet seems to refer to thinking, not sex, whereas it is common lore that masculinity is not strictly synonymous with pensiveness.😉



Child silhouette

Latin: putillus; Greek: pais; English: child; Russian: rebionok; Polish: dziecko; German: Kind; French: enfant; Sanskrit: sutah.

Words for children would have varied in Sanskrit. The culture has been publicized as rigidly stratified, in status and ancestry. “Children of men” made another name, napraja. The notion is unlikely to have regarded speciate or sexual differentiation.


House silhouette

Latin: domus; Greek: do; English: house; Russian: dom; Polish: dom; German: Haus; French: maison; Sanskrit: vasati.

Vir or andros, child or rebionok, woman or kobieta ― the words do not resemble one another, and they are the basic vocabulary. In all languages, these are the words hardly ever to change. Polish and Russian could make a group. We may compare the words muzshtschina and mężczyzna. There is not much point deriving Polish from Russian or Russian from Polish, however. We can compare rebionok and dziecko.

Domus, do, and dom, or house and Haus, show geographic affinity. The similarities in form are characteristic of urban or other developments and do not decide on language grouping.

Language groups or families

Language groups work better than language families. “Families” derive languages, one from another. This might not work, as in the Polish and Russian examples above. Proto-languages are mostly constructs: there is no written evidence for them.

Why derive European vocabularies from Sanskrit, while Sanskrit might have absorbed loan words?

There is no evidence for the Proto-Indo-European. The Rosetta Stone was absolutely unique for Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Demotic, and Ancient Greek. It yet allowed translation, not an etymological study. There never was anything even like the Rosetta Stone, for Indo-European languages, and Marco Polo was probably not the first visitor to the Far East. 


Carbon dating

Whenever possible, written resources should be carbon-dated. There is no philological method to affirm the original beyond evidence. Writings were copied in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and later, hand style and pen craft.

Radiocarbon results happen to be misunderstood. A website shares a story about a find from 9.5 thousands of years ago. It is … a piece of wood from an underwater site, without written matter. However, palynology is less likely to work for written resources.

Oldest does not mean wisest


People speak languages mostly as they are, without looking up to “parent languages”. Within evolutionary approaches, languages may have emerged independently, owing to human cognitive advancement. Much language knowledge has become shared by and among humans. However, supporters of the Proto-Indo-European “family” have gone into making out religion, too.



I do not share in the enthusiasm about deriving language roots. People were not more sophisticated in ancient times. And there is not a PIE root for the name “Earth”.


Earth silhouette

Latin: terra or tellus; Greek: Gaia or Aia; English: Earth; Russian: Ziemlia; Polish: Ziemia; German: Erde; French: Terre; Sanskrit: vasudha.

It seems there was a pie more than the PIE, Mr. Jones time, and that pie was India. The colonial era began about 1500, and there was much competition.

It would be Space 1999 to show

reading Proto-Sanskrit accurately …😉


My YouTube: Sanskrit Readout

The holocaust in the clip is not the Holocaust.

A New People Come

The Date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence, and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Æra which commences from that Date,

concludes Charles Thomson about his accepted design of the Great Seal. He never provides a translation.


Charles Thomson Great Seal report page2

Charles Thomson, Great Seal report page 2, click to enlarge

Wikipedia refers the Great Seal motto, NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM, to Virgil’s Eclogues and ancient pagan ritualists, Sibyls.


ab integro sæclorum nascitur ordo

(Virgil’s Eclogue)


Wikipedia adds, The phrase is sometimes mistranslated as New World Order by people who believe in a conspiracy behind the design; however, it does directly translate to “New Order of the Ages”.

Man in U.S. Marine Corps Uniform Saluting American Flag --- Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis

Man in U.S. Marine Corps Uniform Saluting American Flag — Image by © Royalty-Free/Corbis

Arguably, the picture above does not suggest aprons or paganism. The Great Seal belongs with US powers to involve the executive. More, Charles Thomson was a Presbyterian. In Old Latin, a presbyter was a priest, not a mantic. He — same as many people, me included — would not have a Sibyl for an elder, authority, or factor of strength. The rituals involved narcotics and burnt offerings.


Nonetheless, a “New Order of the Ages” can cause doubt. Hardly anybody believes in a time without a place on this planet. We could not have Romanticism before Enlightenment, and Renaissance only after.


Further, there is a feature in Mr. Thomson’s report to seem overlooked. His spelling did acknowledge the Latin digraph æ. We can see it in the report.


… the new American Æra

(Charles Thomson’s report, picture above)

The word  seclorum   in the Great Seal does not have the digraph.


I abandon the Eclogues. The Latin form seclum was earlier than saeclum and seculum. Old Latin e happened to assume ae in the Classic period, and later became e, often in words of shifted semantic reference. For example, nowadays we could say that secular people are those who are not members of monastic orders.


I compare Cicero and the Philippics, for Latin word use. We can call it usus, in linguistics.


Accuse the senate; accuse the equestrian body, which at that time was united with the senate; accuse every order or society, and all the citizens; (…) at all events you would never have continued in this order, or rather in this city; (…) when I have been pronounced by this order to be the savior of my country; (…) when you, one single young man, forbade the whole order to pass decrees concerning the safety of the republic (…)


I think why we people say “good morning”. It could not be for that Whig journal to come with the Oxford Companion, in my case. I have never read it. I have just looked up the phrase over the Internet.😉


When we speak, we do not take our words from books or magazines. Latin was a dead language, but Charles Thomson was alive when he used it. He formed the motto on his own, and the report renders it.


… the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Æra …

(Charles Thomson)


Marcus Tullius Cicero was of considerable influence on the Founding Fathers. Mr. Thomson might have been influenced with Cicero, or he might have followed the usus as he disambiguated it from Latin resources generally.

Pointing at a particular source might be impossible, without the motto author’s indication. More, resources continue to differ in presenting the Latin language. We may compare The Rudiments of Latin and English Grammar by Alexander Adam, of about 1786. On page 141, he presents seclor as a consequent of sequor.



I compare the contemporary seclude. We can translate secludere as to stand apart, and seclusus as separate. Latin ordo could mean a group, arrangement, or class. But then, why did Mr. Thomson not use the word populus, if he meant people?


We derive the word form people from the Latin populus. Paths for word etymology and meaning happen to diverge. Today, we derive the word equal as well as the word adequate, from the Latin aequus. In practice, adequate remuneration may not mean equal money, and equal money might be inadequate for jobs of different specification.


The Latin populus did not connote nationality in ancient times. It often referred to laying waste or degrading: perpopulor, to devastate, pillage; populabilis, destructible. The Senatus populusque Romanus, never a real power over the military, can be associated with practices of times unpleasant to Christians.


Ancient Roman military did not have much sentiment for nationality. Their culture favored status. The Roman civitas was inseparable from the city of Rome. Latin had words aerarius and aerarium, for Roman residents who had to pay tax but were not allowed to vote or hold offices. The temple of Saturn had a special part to keep public offerings separate from those of the elites. Without legal rationale, caesars could give death verdicts among any people within their armed range. We have to be very selective, seeking worthwhile aspects of the Antiquity. Compare the PIE.


The word ordo had a dignified sense. Though translated scarce by Lewis and Short, we may compare Cicero, whose sense is obviously not that for just some guy to have convened with a few troops or monasteries. Ordo did not have to denote a linear arrangement, but it also could: Roman military, bringing territories down, happened to face local people in groups or battle formations.


Nowadays, the noun people means a group of human beings, or a nationality. As a group, it takes a plural verb: The people here all speak English. The plural is for human persons, men or women. As a nationality or ethnicity, the noun may take on the plural itself: The peoples of Europe have formed a Union. Status can no longer decide on civil rights. The word sense of the present day actually does not translate into the ancient Latin populus.


Seclorum looks a participal form (compare the participle), hence A New People Come (a new people to have become), for the Novus Ordo Seclorum. The word Aera in Charles Thomson’s note refers to time in the modern sense of an era.


The US Library of Congress has received extensive materials about Charles Thomson. I hope they become accessible soon, as this is another project of mine.🙂


Feel welcome to the voluntary extra practice on American civics, with my grammar course. It is free.

Feel welcome to voluntary extra practice

Hailing the Nation, 978-1-304-04744-1