Binary and ternary codes as abstract methodological instruments
Note: For general research I’ll add blog entries as an introduction to several key concepts about endolinguistics to have a better way to explain and divulge this knowledge. I may arrange the blog entries in series so those make more sense. For now all the posts may appear randomly.
Some differences between structural linguistics and the endolinguistics approach.
One of the common questions about endolinguistics is how we approach the understanding of language structure through binary and ternary codes. One important topic to talk about is that in endolinguistics we don’t directly use morphology, phonology and syntax as the main abstract or concrete models to understand languages. Of course when we analyze what we could describe as exo-languages, we definitely could use the known methods of structural analysis. An exo-language is just the representation of a language in written code by any means. Spoken language, written language, saved or stored language. Of course, general liguistics study this as main object.
The fundamental argument for endolinguistics is the psychological, internal and subjective aspects of the language. Even though we use other branches of linguistics to explain already known aspects of language, Dr Elias and Dr Meulemans discovered through mathematical models known as binary and ternary codes a way of unveil semantic links between apparently unrelated words.
A binary code would then be a methodological instrument to access semantic meaning across different linguistic subsystems. This semantic meaning I’m refering to should not be understood as superficial meaning but as profound as possible. So, we know meaning could be explained with different layers of profoundity. Sometimes a word describes an object, but the description carries more profound meaning and so forth.
Let’s explain the reasoning behind the use of binary and ternary codes as abstract methodological instruments.
First, let’s talk about binaries.
An endolinguistics binary (EB) is formed with two consonant sounds.
P-M
Keep an eye on the phonetic simplification. Even though we use phonetic concepts, we are not grouping consonant sounds by phonetic groups but as abstract units. So in this case P is not the bilabial-plosive but a generalization of the labial, labio-dental. In the case of the M is just a naso-labial.
Each consonant sound is also grouped by immediate kinship (of course depending on linguistic system)
In this case P would be part of the Labial, labio-dental, except nasals.
P=B=PH=F=V
and M (only as Naso-labial)
This simplified and arbitrary grouping allows the generalization of EB’s (Endolinguistic binary)
Now, this consonantal generalization gives us seven generic units for Indo-iranian-european system.
M (which represents pulmonic, nasal, labial) N (which represents any nasal except M) P=B=F=V (which represents any labial except M and N) T=D=TH (which represents coronal plosive and coronal non sibilant fricative) S (which represent sibilant fricatives) R=L (lateral, trill) K=G=H (laryngeal, plosive-dorsals)
Again, these seven groups are not of course, phonetic representations but abstract units with which we form endolinguistic binaries and ternaries in IIE (Indo-iranian-european).
Each of these representations will have a nuclear systemic idea or composition unit. This idea is arbitrary by system but more importantly, the mixing of this nuclear ideas appears to be dependant upon the macro linguistic system.
Note: After two decades of investigation, the following table shows the proposed nuclear system composition units (NSC) for the indo-iranian-european system of languages. These NSC don’t correspond to other NSC’s for other systems. (I’ll explain in details the nature of NSC’s in other posts)
| SOUND | Description |
|---|---|
| M | represents identity, possession, individual or group ownership |
| N | represents internalization by which the negation process is handled through internalization. |
| P=B=F=V | r epresent force applied to another unit |
| T=D=TH | represents definition, termination |
| S | represents process and movement of existence |
| R=L | represents returning, liquidity |
| K=G=H | represents energy |
Each of these nuclear units will have its own chapter for explanation.
Let’s take for example the word
| FOAM | LANGUAGE SYSTEM |
|---|---|
| SPUMA | LATIN |
| FEIM | GERMANIC |
But in
| PENA | SLAVONIC |
| spainė | LITHUANIAN |
| phenah | SANSKRIT |
We have two possible EB codes here.
P - M
P - N
As you may notice in this example the structural relation between these two groups is through (P/F)-(M/N)
Since endolinguistics is not focused on the phonetic transformations and we generalize consonant sounds by groups, all this forms are equivalent
P-M, F-M, V-M, B-M
Now, the abstract meaning of this code would be:
P-M Force applied to identity, which eventually will cause an expansion and multiplication of units, branches. Image of a tree that grows and gives thousands of fruits. The P (force) will expand through what we could interpret as identities.
We can then extrapolate this EB code to multiple words, in different languages from the same linguistic system.
BAUM a tree has branches that expand from a source until you see thousands of leaves. FOAM a substance that expand thousands of bubbles from a source FAMily expand more individual units from a common branch
Remember, that we are not saying that these words are directly related either historically, morphologically, or that we have etymological proof of their relation. Yet, the profound semantical connection is not coincidental. There is a substrate semantic relationship between these words. Words that share the EB, not the direct meaning or usage of the word, but share a basic and fundamental abstract idea.
Now let’s take the second option for these words
P-N Force applied to internalization. The P (force) will be applied to internal movement. This expansion would be internal.
PAN (complete expanded, god of flocks, multiplication, nature) PENNA (feather) PAIN (expansion of internal discomfort) PIN (pinch something)
As you can see both original options P-N and P-M share the multiplying effect meaning. But with different consequences if use an N or an M.
In such cases the EB changes, is not the same. The important question would be why? That is topic for further study.
Now, let’s review the importance of understanding the hidden side of all this elucidations.
- We are not trying to find a meaning of a word from a single language
- We are looking for cultural and therefore psychological concomitances and coincidences
- We use EBs as unified model between languages
- We strive to find common meaning between these these different languages
- We try to abstractly generalize a nuclear meaning of an EB.
Shield: 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
