Предварительное сообщение об исследовании
алфавитных структур. Мифы как исторический источник.
It was long ago noticed that in the Phœnician, Greek and Latin
or Roman alphabets there is a repeated sequence of the letters
as vowels, labials, gutturals and dentals. This sequence is well
displayed by Professor Petrie, in arranging the letters on a
square table like the old "Horn-book" board for teaching
children their ABC. (Wadell, L.A.: 1927, The Aryan Origin
of the Alphabet, Luzac & Co, London)
(find a scientific manager (научный руководитель, но моими
руками водить не нужно никому, пусть своими проще водят, раз
такие мастера) to find for you that Petrie thing and so leave
lacunas the other author would fill in)
(научный руководитель может изучить упомянутые труды и добавить
суть дела оттуда)
They are also wrong there when they call velars guttural,
because the next image is correct:
another evidence of the existence of that thing ever known is
actually alphabetic boards for challenged individuals:
and in whatever secret chambers this sacred knowledge is held, I
could only find the practical examples of it and not actually
good theoretical works of why it is such and who have invented
it this way,
(предыдущие изображения из открытых источников, но могут быть
запрещены копирайтом, научный руководитель может быть знает как
подобные вопросы решаются если изображения других авторов
используются в академической литературе)
so I dove into it to deliver you the explanations for the
position of each and every letter, because arranged like this
they're definitely not arbitrary:
and there's more, buckle up:
This one also has L and R at the left and
right corners.
And this one I have never met, I found it trying to arrange them
into tetraktis and then I saw somethin
g and so I yawed,
sheered, veered off course.
All three
words are knew to me, I wanted to say detract and it has some
completely different meaning, my english is probably poor
especially when I speak. So I understand that I have to raise
russian science, but then I understand that I must make
science international, and wow!
and years later I noticed that the previous one can also arrange
its L and R semantically:
but usually only three articulatory elements can be
distinguished by the order of the structure:
That greek table is famous, but if you can't read it, it
generally tells that η was read as [h] in the most of greek
dialects. And only ionian read it as a vowel, and that foreign
troyan side of the sea somehow became the norm instead of Attic,
which stands exactly for Athenian
(научный руководитель может добавить более точной научной
информации)
and the text about it is the myth which is thus the second in
the list of myths speaking of alphabetic structures, but then it
can be recognized as an example of early historic science, but
then what it describes naturally have roots in mythological,
religious, mysterian tradition. And the myth number one is int
the top right corner of that image, but also because it's off
the margin on most computers, it is so great and relevant that I
will repeat it in here:
The Three Fates or, some
say, Io the sister of Phoroneus, invented five vowels of the
first alphabet, and the consonants B and T.
And if we recognize those B and T as the labials and
linguals all the consonants divide into, you can see that this
otherwise obscure myth speaks exactly of the structure concealed
in the alphabet.
And this structure can be seen even in ugaritic alphabet, the
most ancient abecedary discovered so far:
and this order of vowel-labial-linguals can be even seen in
roman numerals:
and what is interesting about roman numerals is that if you
consider V not Vijf but Vier, the set adds up not into 666 (1 5
10 50 100 500) but into 365 (1 4 8 32 64 256) only I still don't
know what astronomic or rather astrologic significance it could
make. Both V and X also look more like 4 and 8 than 5 and 10.
Some alphabet have only traces of this system having added
additional letters here and there, the most extreme case of such
mess is armenian, but the reasons for such a situation is
actually found in the best historic witness: diaries of the
witnesses of the processes of adding the letters: the direct
students of Mashtots write that Mashtots reconstructed armenian
alphabet from old armenian palimpsest (or maybe was what they
call "buried writings" the books not burnt but buried under the
ground somewhere. I think it was palimpsest, because some Daniil
had that book with what they referred to as buried writings. So
they write that at first armenian alphabet went in greek order
(and notice that greek order is deviated from the common
structure already) and that Mashtots taught it that way for
three years. And that then he added some additional letters and
if you compare armenian to greek you can still see those very
letters. (Хоренаци, кн. III, 52. & Корюн, 6)
(научный руководитель возможно сможет найти название книг на
армянском)
Another unusual historic sourse happens to be Sefer Yetzirah,
speaking of first chapter of the Bible actually speaking of the
conception of alphabet.
(a large work to combine all the versions of sefer yetzirah and
to actually analize what exactly it tells of those letters to
correct the following chapter if necessary)
Sefer Yetzirah names those three types of letters three mothers
(and it is a rabbit hole into whole old world of the
internationally worshipped tridevi under different names. And my
guess so far is that the idea of trinity being thus prechristian
was influenced by three phases (faces) of the Moon. And that the
shapes of the moon could influence the shape of the letters ƆѲC
is the way I see it. What ABC used to be. Possibly. As a
hypothesis. But the main point of this article is not merely a
hypothesis but a complicated theory with lots of factual
material in its confirmation.
bd (also because
russian alphabet has a distinct tendency to place voiced
consonants
pq
in the first half of the alphabet, and the voiceless are
all in the second half of it)
this graphicoarticulatory coincidence so to say could be the
other level of that BT thing. The b and d often reflect
eachother as if they were those Ɔ and C becaue another historic
abecedary doesn't seem to distinguish between C and D having
only þ in that positon, as if it was both Г and D and its third
position and actually the shape could be more close to Δ and ᚦ
is proverbially third and it is third in futhark, which could be
just mistransliterated alphabetic sequence, but it's way too
much to take in one bite, and I'm going to tell something more
on the subject. First that alphabetic runestone I mentioned few
lines above:
and looking how ᚮ is double ᛆ which is ᚑ as double ᚐ in ogham,
and in dannish aa is o, it makes me think that this is all
related in this way, and the structure of this thing tells that
these are all local developments of the same prehistoric
structure all secrets of which are yet to be discovered, I have
only discovered some of them. Probably most of them, but
nevertheless I'm awed by the vastness of the structure I began
discovering. It's of the size of human culture, taking shape in
all sorts of human activity from knitting to singing, from
astrology to every other branch of genuine magic.
Ogham and runes both divide their letters into groups with
similar names: aicme and aettir (ir is the plural suffix) which
make them much archaic than any other writing system. But jewish
myth of sefer yetzirah still keeps hebrew one of the primal
places in the alphabetic pantheon as one of the most preserved
writing system. And actually Sefer Yetzirah also divides letters
into three groups, but those are uneven groups, they're 3, 7 and
12: 3 mothers, 7 doubles, 12 simples:
The three are א מ ש.
The seven are ב ג ד כ פ ר ת.
The twelve are ה ו ז ח ט י ל נ ס ע צ ק
And if that sequence is correct and if yes, than what letters
from one group are actually the letters of the previous group is
not always easy to say. This is the most raw part of this thing,
later maybe it will be more clear.
But just as runic division letter into aettirs, which can be
groups of 8 (so called elder futhark) 6 (the 18 of the runic
alphabet shown above divide by three groups in 6 per one, which
could stand for 3 dice) or 5 as Bureus bring them, and Bureus
actually supports the dice hypothesis by the image of so called
falling stone, which could be scheme of the three dice:
And then side opposite to the rune in the centre of each of
these three crosses is empty, as we don't make today, but you
still can see emptly slots in dominos, which are definitely
related to dice at least graphically they share some tradition)
And another mythological source is the plebean tree of life,
which is arrangement of roman alphabet using pythagorean
tetraktis which I found at a site of some magician. And I found
that the 18 letter alphabet can be aranged along those lines
much more consistent. It is also a raw piece of research, I jsut
give an overview of what I am digging so far:
And because that plebean tree of life marks each letter with
whether element or planet or constellation, they can be compared
to the three groups of letters from Sefer Yetzirah which does
the same.
(научный руководитель может поразвлекаться, или я сам к этому
вопросу вернусь)
And plebean doesn't mean something low. It is the aboriginal
population of Rome. Patritians were the superstrate.
And if tetraktis was the tree of life, it reflects the norman
myths of the tree of life having three roots.
And that myth also told about the great snake guarding that
tree. And it was that very tree upon which Odin invented runes.
And it reflects the myth of argonauts, which raises the question
what golden fleece actually was. Wasn't it some bearded
parchment with golden letters upon it, because it is much better
a reason to take that dangerous quest than just some fur with
trace of gold. Especially because in the east fleece is runo.
So what I'm saying here is that alphabetic tradition is
prehistorically ancient, and yet myths contain some keys to
understanding of this system. Yet this research demanding a
whole new interdisciplinary field which actually used to be
called grammatology until neomarxists stole this term. So I call
it language studies. In general, because I often go way beyond
letters.
.