What do the letters mean? 2. Decoding. Immersion

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Well, experimentally, with the help of logic and persistence, we have verified that our original assumption is at least viable. We have found meanings for several letters and can already understand the very meaning that our ancestors put into the concept when creating certain words. True, the number of these words is not yet very large due to the small number of meanings found, but here the matter is small. Start and finish.

However, not all so simple. Yes, we have the meanings of several letters, and sometimes we can already understand the meaning of whole words if we know all the letters that make up them. We can recognize certain functions or properties of other words if we know only one or two letters that make up the word. But, look at the word "university" - "higher educational institution." Two adjectives that define the meaning of one noun. Nicely folded and quite meaningful sentence, which is easy to read and immediately understand the meaning. And what about our favorite "table"? "Connection, solid, image, receptacle." It seems that everything is clear, but awkward. Yes, and “kind of understandable” is a little different from what you expect from the results of your work.

How can you put 4 words into one beautiful and understandable sentence? Can we change the part of speech, gender, number, time of these words? How to correctly build a connection between these words, so that the meaning does not violate the laws of the logic of the abbreviation itself, and is there any such connection at all? What word should be used when decoding: “connection”, “connected”, “connects”, “connected”, “connecting”, “connecting”? If “connected,” then with what? If “connection”, then what exactly does it connect? And this "image"? We still don't really understand what it is. Container "L" can also be declined, conjugated and put at any time. Which is correct: "containing" or "containing"? We do not know the answer to any of these questions, and worst of all, we do not know whether these questions should be asked at all.

What is the correct explanation for the abbreviation "table"? So: "The connection is solid, the image of the container"? Or maybe like this: “A united, solid image; receptacle "? Or something like: "Connecting, solid, image, receptacle"? And if you scratch the old dictionaries, there, at the end, there is still a "solid sign", where is it? After all, it must also have a meaning. Trouble …

If we have in the word “table”, “S” is the noun “Connection”, can we make the participle “Connecting” out of it in the word “wheel”. And in the word "finger" the verb "connected" in the past tense? And if we can, then on what grounds will we do it? If there are such changes, they should be logically justified and there should be no exceptions. For this we need decryption rules. And only now it becomes clear what kind of adventure we got involved in. At first, we only had letters, and it seemed fun and amusing to challenge clever minds who had not guessed before for a millennium. All we had to do was find the meanings of the letters, and we dealt with it almost effortlessly. Now that we have these values, we really don't know what to do with them. We do not even know which part of speech the meaning we have found belongs to and in what tense, although by default we assume that this noun is here and now! Oh, what a jungle we got into, having made only a couple of steps from the edge of the forest deep into the forest!

Let's put emotions on the shelf and start thinking rationally and logically again. The rules are good, they govern and thus do not get confused. Resolved, we create rules for decoding abbreviations. Where should you start first? Where do you start to write the rules?

Let's return to our "table" and indulge in it a little. If we replace "o" with "y", we get another object - "chair". A chair is not a table. We already know this, and we even know why. If we replace "l" with "g", we get another object - "haystack". A haystack is not a table at all, and does not even look like a table. If we just swap a couple of letters, we get a different object, something, and it will be different from the table. If we add some letter, we get another object. Even if we add the suffix “-ik” to the word “table”, we get a different object. Nothing can be a table, that is, perform the functions of a table, except for the table itself. And this is true for any word. From here we draw a logical conclusion:

A word is a strictly defined set of letters arranged in a strictly defined order. If the structure of a word changes, the word changes its meaning. The object called "table" consists of 4 letters, each of which is located in a strictly defined place and determines the completeness of the meaning of the whole word. If there is not even one letter, or the letters are arranged in a different order, it will no longer be a table. In the frame and on the wall.

What else do we need to know beforehand?

We already know that from the very beginning of existence, the number of letters in our alphabet has changed. Of the 49 indicated by the Church, only 33 have reached us. Their number has obviously decreased. Since the number has decreased, it means that many words have changed their spelling. A new spelling requires a new grammar. A change in grammar leads to a change in the entire structure of the language. These changes clearly did not benefit, since in the modern language there are quite often incomprehensible exceptions to the rules. Rules must govern, if something is not governed by these rules, then these are not bad words, these are bad rules. Now it is clear where the legs of all exceptions grow from. When something changes, it loses some of its properties and functions, it changes its meaning. Maybe not much, maybe even completely imperceptible, but it becomes different.

Following from the assumption that all words are abbreviations consisting of letters folded in a strictly defined order strictly defined for each object, we can say with confidence that "Stol" ≠ "table", and "Crѣst" ≠ "Cross". These are different words and they have different meanings. And it doesn't matter that by ear it is almost the same thing. At the moment we are figuring out the meaning of the letters, and "ѣ" is a letter, and what kind of letter. And the "hard mark" at the end of words ending in consonants is the same law as the fact that adjectives must end in "y" or "i". Without them, words lose some of their meaning, perhaps imperceptibly, but they do. What this meaning was, we do not yet know, but the fact that it was, it can hardly be doubted.

Since the structure of our language has degraded, and the rules have become unable to control all words, it means that it is impossible to rely on these rules for any serious research, being in your right mind. It remains to find a bigger shovel and start digging deeper.

So, for the good of the case, we go to the level below. Now the spelling of each word under study will be taken from dictionaries published before the middle of the 19th century, and the older they are, the better. Dahl's dictionary (1880), finally reconciling the modern language with the ancient language, will be used only in critical cases, when nothing else remains. Now we are at the beginning of the 19th century. Get used to it.