Translating the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence

The text here comes from the official website of the Polish Sejm, which is to present the Polish translation of the US Constitution.


“Congressional representatives are forbidden to serve the United States”


The Constitution does not allow Senators and Representatives to be appointed to civil offices under the authority of the United States, to prevent excess concentration of power. The “civil offices” have been translated into “United States service”, “w służbie Stanów Zjednoczonych”.


Ktokolwiek sprawuje urząd w służbie Stanów Zjednoczonych, nie może zostać członkiem którejkolwiek z izb, dopóki na tym urzędzie pozostaje.




Whoever holds an office in United States service cannot become member of either of the Houses, as long as he or she remains in office.


“The people shall pay homage”


The same Article 1 empowers the Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. This became translated into “danina”, something given as sacrifice, primarily by subjects to a feudal lord.


“To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises …”

” ― wprowadzać i pobierać podatki, cła, daniny i opłaty …”



Present-day, a Polish bill from 2013 extends the association with sacrifice on public finance and pension funds. Departing from former quotas and levies, the bill obviously does not apply to the American document, dated 1787.



“The USA shall tell your money’s worth”


The Constitution empowers the Congress “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin …” This became translated as,


” ― bić monety, określać ich wartość oraz wartość walut zagranicznych …




” ― to make coins, decide on their value, and on the value of foreign currencies…


The direct implication is that the Congress would want to decide on how much the Polish zloty is worth in Poland, whereas the authority would set a standard on the US dollar in particular, and decide on the minimum exchange rate.


“Outside of the USA, you shall make yourself as many fake US dollars as you like”


The Constitution says the Congress should “provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States”. The translation is,


” ― wprowadzać kary za podrabianie państwowych papierów wartościowych oraz monet, będących w obiegu w Stanach Zjednoczonych …




“― … in circulation in the United States …”


“The Congress can loot you”


The Congress can “declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water”, which became translated as,


“― wystawiać listy kaperskie i wydawać przepisy dotyczące prawa do łupu na lądzie i wodach …”


The Polish “kaper” was for a pirate under a royal, allowed to loot and plunder.



“― … the right to loot on land and waters …”


“Enslavement can be righteous punishment”


The 13th Amendment says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. The translation is,


“Nie będzie w Stanach Zjednoczonych lub jakimkolwiek miejscu podległym ich władzy ani niewolnictwa, ani przymusowych robót, chyba jako kara za przestępstwo, którego sprawca został prawidłowo skazany.”



“Neither slavery nor forced labor shall be allowed, unless as a punishment for a crime the perpetrator of which has been properly convicted…”


Slavery it outlawed in the USA altogether. The 13th Amendment affirms on the Emancipation Proclamation from January 1st, 1863. The phrase “except as a punishment” expands on the phrase “involuntary servitude”, not on the noun “slavery”.


So much for my comment on the Constitution, since Washington D.C. would be illegally big, exceeding ten square miles, according to the translation on Sejm website. 😉


There would not be much sanity in the USA beginnings altogether, in the view by a Polish translation of the Declaration of Independence, over Wikipedia.


… and  accordingly  all   Experience  hath  shewn,  that  Mankind  are  more  disposed to suffer,  while Evils  are  sufferable,


became translated as,


… Doświadczenie zaś wykazało też, że ludzie wolą raczej ścierpieć wszelkie zło, które jest do zniesienia,


which is not properly construed and may look as, “people would rather suffer all Evil there is to suffer.” We can compare the Polish,


wszystko co jest do zrobienia: “all there is to do“.


The passage is highlighted in the screenshot below.



Someone to rely on the Polish text only, might think that American sense for justice stems from folk tales.


whereby  the  Legislative  Powers,  incapable  of  Annihilation,  have returned to the  People  at  large  for their  Exercise;


przez co władza ustawodawcza, której zniszczyć nic nie zdoła, wracała w ręce szerokich rzesz ludu.


In Polish, władza ustawodawcza is the Legislature, and despite Communism, lud remains the village or folk people as different from town people. The passage is highlighted in the screenshot below.


Following the same interpretation of the word “power” for always a potentially coercive factor, the translator found it a plausible idea for one as well as many to declare intellectual, emotional, and potentially other empires.

… and  to  assume  among  the  Powers  of  the  Earth,  the  separate  and  equal  Station,

became phrased as,

 … i zajął wśród potęg ziemskich oddzielną i równorzędną pozycję.

In Polish, the word potęga is closely synonymous with mocarstwo, an empire, when referred to a country. In English, we can have powers intellectual as well as emotive. The people in the original 13 colonies intended to create own factor to protect themselves, the land, and own business. Those times, nobody knew if America was big. “American imperialism by principle” was a Communist slogan. The passage is highlighted.

I could have more reservations, but I am not a cruel type. And well, I could  not find a translation I would like, anywhere. I have made mine into a poster, so that it could be propagated among people in towns as well as country-sides. Plain text can be taken here, Deklaracja niepodległości, may public domain translations. I have offered it to the public domain, in my native predilection for law and justice: the Declaration belongs with the things everyone should be able to access.🙂



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 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 thesis 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

I began inventing my grammar when I was a kid, which might part show. I think we yet deserve some sunshine when we are grown up, too. The grammar has remained my real thing. It was my secret, also during university studies. It is quite different from classic guidance, but this is the matter that works for me.


Everyone has one PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE really. We can symbolize this reality as three fields. 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 a matter we have not studied in a long time, yet there is shine enough to return to it.

__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

All tense patterns have the words BE, HAVE, or DO. We envision the words in the Fields (Chapter 1).


The picture lets us focus on the verb form  WILL. It maps on the FUTURE already in the shape it has for the PRESENT. The observation is going to matter much in our further work

(Chapter 2).


For a start, we compare the Simple, Progressive, and Perfect patterns. We use the word “Character”, for general patterns. Character of activity may come easier to think about than the grammatical term “Aspect”, which we get to know too, however.



We can extract our Character or Aspect patterns, if we look to grammatical tense first elements, along with the words BE, HAVE, and WILL (Chapter 3).


We can symbolize the Simple first element with infinity. It can be any verb, and natural language is not mathematically calculable. Our ideas do not come from the Greek Anaximander, but we can compare thought. Feel welcome to read Grammar is always a project.


Human grammar is not separate from human living and thinking. We can associate our grammar and natural human mapping, as with geography and travel. We people do not have the outer space for our regular living space. We live on Earth. We usually view land or seas 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 natural human variables for space, in English. We can use them for grammar (Chapter 4).

__ESSENCE 3 VALUE with patterns


Arrows are very familiar symbols to show or indicate the way. We can combine our mapping and arrow symbols, to exercise target time. The ability will be vital in our language journey, especially if we want to fare with Modal verbs. Modal forms do not tell directly what time we are thinking about, so it is good to have an idea for a target time.



Please mind the arrows are not shooting arrows

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 (Chapter 5.1).


We use visualization for syntax (Chapter 6). We learn to keep the head time. Our arrows are mauve, the color of head verbs (read: Colors can help read and learn). Head verbs can head phrases, clauses, or sentences. Auxiliaries always require another verb.


We get to use time frames. We keep the frame open for the Perfect, and we close it for the Simple. For real time, our frames are green.

Open time frame__3

All along, we mind we use concepts and inventions. We do not claim there is anything like time frames or logical extents in human heads. Common sense, if someone is an architect, it does not mean he or she was born with an idea for a house, or has a building in the brain.


After a comparison of the Simple and Perfect Aspects (Chapter 6), we compare the Simple and the Progressive (Chapter 7). Many grammar books might tell we need to learn “stative verbs”. They would be the words for thinking and feeling. We can stay with our mapping. It is up to our choosing, if we give our thought an extent or part an extent.


After we have compared our mapping variables ON and TO (Simple and Perfect), as well as ON and IN (Simple and Progressive), we try merging TO and IN.

We get another mapping value, AT, the Perfect Progressive (Chapter 8). This means we learn to manage all Aspects with variables as we want them.



We analyze if variable  ON could be a basic value. We remember about “stative verbs”: we might not fancy memorizing lists of words to use with the Simple only. The analysis is favorable. It is always the first element in the tense pattern to adapt for the Time. First elements in all patterns behave the same in the Simple pattern (Chapter 8.1).


We can merge our symbols and continue faring with an earthling basic variable: ON. We merge the Progressive and Perfect features on our Simple arrow cue.



We can agree with classic grammars we may have stative uses of verbs, but we do not have stative verbs. No such special category works in the live, real 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).


Modal verbs challenge our darts (Chapter 9).  PAST Modal forms can work for the PRESENT, too. We can expand our logic as well as color palettes. Our gloss or forget-me-not can symbolize auxiliary time. Tea rose can help visualize Modal relativity.


We learn to perceive our grammar and notional time as related (Chapter 9.2).

We can view our grammar as logically connected

We can observe that Modal form is only relative to real time. More, hypothetical time cannot be the same as real time. We can have gloss (forget-me-not) time frames.

Relative time frames

With the frames, we can economize our use of darts to  ON or IN  values only.  Our Modal phrases will become much simpler to make, and 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. More, all natural languages are spoken and written in real time.)


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


Our basic variable and relativity will work with the Conditional or Unreal Past, too. More, we will be able to keep our real PRESENT, PAST, or FUTURE, our 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.


Importantly and very seriously, our work does not belong with computers. First and foremost, no computer could do our human thing: to begin, learn, and think on our infinity. Kids know there are many words and patterns in language, and still manage. Computers do not have cognitive variables, either.


To the Upper Intermediate level, the story consists of four parts.

Feel welcome to the dedicated Travel in Grammar website,

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.