Fresh Batch #116: The Origin of the Universal Alphabet

The Same Then As It Is Now

The universal language of the world today is binary code. Those 1s and 0s are the base of all computer code and technology, and though it is not a spoken language by humans, it is a language used to program machines that replace human labor and responsibilities. It is a language that is used and programmed in computer-related technology. Not everyone understands this language, but it is essential to every system of commerce that most of the civilized world uses. But as you’re about to learn, the original alphabets are all formed from the line and the circle, I and O, or IO, which is also the first glyph of God and the radical of many names of God still used today. I’ve written about this in the Spirit Whirled series, but now we’ll explore an essay from the 18th century that I didn’t know about when I wrote those books.

Origin and Elements of Language by L. D. Nelme

Preface

Nelme wrote (Ib. pp. x, xi.), “The consideration, that one primordial set of Ideas, Symbols and Sounds, were once common to all; and, that some one set of Sounds or Language, shall again become universal, and probably be a means of an universal uniformity in religious worship, abstracted from the inventions of man; hath a manifest tendency to dilate the contracted human heart, and to infuse into it an universal good-will and benevolence to all men, of every nation, tongue, and tribe, of every opinion and complexion; a philanthropy none but the refined human mind is capable of: It is, in a degree, an emanation of Divinity.”

Ch. 1.—Of Language in General

Nelme wrote (Ib. p. 1.), “Those, who in searching for investigations of words have attended to their origin, have acknowledged the necessity of recurring to the primitive roots of language; which includes the primordial ideas of the first people, and also the sounds and symbols whereby they represented those ideas. By sounds, we mean words; by symbols, letters.”

Again (p. 2), “We shall not suppose the radical idea to exist in the verb, but contrarily, in the noun; thereby, we follow the course of nature—things existed before words: yet we must ever keep in view the maxim, that words and things illumine each other: nouns express objects themselves; verbs express the relations that subsist between those objects.

“Every letter is a distinct root, and descriptive of a distinct idea, in its own nature; and that every verb is composed of more than one such root.”

Again (p. 3), “Our twelve radical symbols, multiplied by themselves, give one hundred and forty four sounds; or, if we give to every symbol ten sounds (allowing five vowels) as in la, le, li, lo, lu, al, el, il, ol, ul, we shall have one hundred and twenty sounds: when these are multiplied by the same number, we shall have fourteen thousand and four hundred, which perhaps exceeded the number of ideas the first people had occasion to express.”

Again (Ib. pp. 3, 4), “By the radical de-composition of the word id-ea, it signifies exaltation and equality; an exalted thing, that is equally common to all men. Ideas are expressed to the ear by sounds, or language; and to the eye by symbols, or letters: both expressions, by sounds or symbols, must bear such a likeness of the idea or object to be represented, as to obtain the concurrence and assent of the person to whom the sound or symbol is offered; or the intended representation will fail of the desired effect. If the reader should adopt this principle, he may hereafter see great reason to suppose our twelve radical symbols to be prior to all other symbols, or letters, not excepting the Hebrew.” (In a footnote, Nelme claims the Hebrew character was formed from the Chaldaic. How then, do they have the Phoenician letters yet no affinity to the language? I suggest this is because the Chaldaic system is a result of the Phoenician conquest of Asia, as the Phoenicians once possessed the empire of Asia according to Conon, which may be the people that the term Scythian signifies, for, according to Astle, the Scythians are a branch of the Pelasgians, who Dionysius of Halicarnassus demonstrates were Etruscans, or Tyrrhenians. This could also be me trying to make sense of a bunch of piles of shit by shuffling them around, which would be the case if all of these cultures never existed under these appellations.)

Again (Ib. pp. 8, 9), “Each symbol, or letter, primarily had a precise idea pertaining to it. All and every letter hath three properties; name, shape, and power. The English Sac-sons attributed but one power to one symbol: for example, the power they attributed to the symbol C was perfect, determined, unalterable; its form is the symbol of a receptacle, or a ca-pacious body: thence ca-t, an open-mouthed creature. The Normans, who poisoned the whole of the antient English orthography, introduced two corrupt sounds to the symbol C, vix. ch, as in chair, child, church, instead of car, cild, circ; and the sibilate sound of C, instead of S, in our modern orthography, appears to have been derived from that polluted language: hence we now pronounce sircle for circle, senter for center, sensor for censor. These and innumerable other words in our language, appear to have been corrupted by the Norman jargon; whereby the radical combinations of symbols are so disguised, that the primitive ideas, intended to be expressed by those combined symbols, are not at all known by them: the symbols remain pure; but their sounds are corrupted by ill-founded or redundant characters.

“Corruptions of this nature destroy the essential properties of sounds and symbols, that is, of language and letters, which cease to answer their first institution when they cease to be the representatives of ideas.

“Every symbol expresses a different and distinct idea, when it is sounded before, and when it is sounded after, one of those symbols which have since obtained the name vowel; of which vowels we suppose E and I to be of equal power, and thence frequently use them synonymously: yet, in conformity to common opinion, we will admit that those vowel symbols may be five, viz. A, E, I, O, U—C, sounded before E or I, gives the monosyllable ce or ci, and signifies choice, election, estimation; and with the terminative symbol n, sounds ce-n or ci-n, and signifies a chos-en or elect one. Choice implies knowledge of, and thence estimation, and also relation: thence a ci-n is a chosen-one, who is a ce-n, or known, being a ci-n (akin) to others, who so know, and choose, or elect: hence a cinight (kin-ight is a kin-highed or promoted kinsman), or knight, is a known, esteemed, chosen relation, or kinsman, who being come to years of discretion, hath the marks thereof upon his cin-ne, (chin) and is therefore received into the circle or band of assembly whereto he is related; whose virtues he is to copy, and thereby become cen-e, (a kin-he) that is courageous, bold, intrepid, for the welfare of the community whereinto he is admitted a member, both on account of his relationship, or cin-dred, (kindred) as on account of his known virtues. (Dylan’s note: Contemplate this concept in Knights Templar, or chosen kin of the Templars, the portion of the clergy who specialized in Judgement, and Canaanites, whose root signifies to give up individual leanings in favor for moving in unison, a bundle, or a pack, and apply that to the band or circle of the ecliptic compared to the circle or band of assembly.) The rib-band is a badge of his being so admitted into the band, or circle of assembly, or into the assembled kinsmen.”

The following may be an example of cultural diffusion between the Britons/Saxons and the Egyptians, which is not an isolated example, for both Britain and Egypt were the only cultures in the ancient world to make drink from barley. Nelme wrote (Ib. pp. 10, 11), “When the symbol C is sounded after a vowel, as in the monosyllable ic, it signifies identity of a person, or (as the Normans spoiled the word, by adding the redundant h, and wrote it ich); or, as it may be translated by radical rules, I-thy-one, signifying I am thine to serve, or I serve thee; that is, the king his father, not any other: from thy-one come the words thine and thane.

“As ic, in the Sac-son, signifies identity of person or thing, so Yk, in the Egyptian tongue, doth signify a king and a serpent (according to Manetho, cited by bishop Warburton in his Div. Legation. Vol. II. pp. 150, 151.); that is, a person and thing: Yk and ic are radically the same; i is the radical of Y, and C is the radical of K. This shews, the Egyptians expressed identity by the same sound as did the Sac-sons; and that sound was, and is, expressive of the same idea among other nations than those of Egypt and England: this, at first sight, may appear strange; but our wonder ceases, when we recollect that the English Sac-sons came from Arminia (Englishmen, antiently called Angles, were a branch of a stock, called Saces, inhabiting Asia: a band (circle) of them, consisting of their prime youth, passed into Europe, and were called sons of Sac-es; that is, Sac-sons, not Saxons.—MSS. in the Brit. Mus. No. 1416.).”

I do not accept that the Saxons are from Asia. I could be wrong. I’m not ready to make claims, but I require more than just stories and citations. Right now, architecture and letters attributed to Saxons are of Roman origin, and the root sac, which is also sag, is seen in Roman words like sacrum, sagax, etc., which pertain to sacred and also stone, similar to how lord and rock are interchangeable in the Phoenician 𐤑𐤓 (TSR, pronounced Sur, transliterated as Tyre). There is almost nothing in Ancient Britain that doesn’t trace back to Rome, which was quasi-Etruscan, and Etruscan is Pelasgian, which is Phoenician. If you accept that the Sac-sons are from Asia, then you accept that the race of Japhet, from whom all these nations spring, is responsible, thus all the languages of the descendants of Noah were the same, and the languages of Europe, Asia, and Africa were once one, spoken by Adam and Noah. This is the foundation of the claim that the Sac-sons are from Asia, a foundation that is built on religious beliefs, superstition, tradition, astrotheology, and no real-world evidence. I don’t think it is an ill-conceived idea that all languages were mapped out by the same source though, which is the focus of my investigation, and many learned men have demonstrated that source to be the priests.

You’re about to see that the alphabet, whether by happenstance, divine intervention, or conscious direction, has returned to its original form with the advent of technology.

Become a member to access the rest of this article.