I. Introduction

"Endlish" is the language at the time of the "end"; no, not the apocalypse, not the end of the
world, not Doom's Day, but the culmination of a cycle or trend that began literally at the dawn of
mankind.

This trend is revealing itself in various manifestations with the common theme being "from
many to one". The force driving this trend is the consolidation of sovereignty; and its rate is inversely
related to time. Look at it this way. In the past, the farther back one goes the more sovereigns one
would find exercising unfettered authority over a specific geographical territory. As we move forward
in time not only are there less sovereigns, but also they disappear at an accelerated rate. For example,
in Hawaii where I live, each of the islands had it own independent king at the time Captain Cook first
arrived a little over two hundred years ago. Some of the islands had several kings ruling sovereign in
their respective regions.

If we had a map of the islands, we could place a map pin everywhere there was an individual
sovereign. As we move forward from the time of Cook, one by one, those pins disappear until only
Kamehameha's remains. For a time, the Hawaiian Islands are one dominion with a succession of
sovereigns. But when it became a U.S. Territory, its "pin" is removed, symbolizing the transfer of
sovereignty to a greater entity whose pin rests alone far away in Washington D.C.

This act has played out innumerable times all over the earth since the beginning of civilization.
Far enough back in time, with a map pin for every sovereign, a model of the earth would look like a "pin
cushion". But as we move forward through time, pins are lost from our model at an ever-increasing
rate. Today, it's obvious there are very few true sovereigns remaining. When the historic trend plays
out, there will be but one pin. At that point we have reached The End.

There are many signs reflecting this march from many to one. The adoption of the western
style business suit by local political and business people the world over is just one such ominous sign of
this uni-formity.

Likewise, recent times have seen the global adoption of what we call the Hindu-Arabic
Numerals. Regardless of the language spoken, schools the world over teach mathematics using these
ten symbols. In a sense, these numerical symbols comprise the world's first truly global language (at
least since the mythic days of ancient Babel).

With the emerging global multi-national corporate cabals comes ever more inter-dependence
amongst the world's nations, resulting in further loss of national sovereignties. The European Union,
for example, has abrogated national currencies as well as social and economic policy-making as it
begins to bring Europe's diverse "many" under the dominion of "one" greater sovereignty.

Instrumental to the task of globalization is the efficiency that comes with a common
language. And as the trend moves more and more toward its inevitable end, it appears that English is
that language.

II. A Consistent Symbolic System

It has been said that English is one of the more difficult languages to learn. Little wonder
when words like "kernel" and "colonel" have the same pronunciation, and "comb" and "bomb" do not. In
the first case, the strings of symbols are totally unrelated yet both words sound the same. In the second
example, the symbols are near identical but the sounds are very different. There is an obvious
breakdown in the consistency embodied in the symbols. One is forced to simply commit to memory the
correct sounds for specific words and disregard what the symbols would otherwise produce. This
lessens the effectiveness of the language and often obscures the real meaning of the words.

Ideally, we would use the twenty-six different symbols comprising our alphabet in a consistent
fashion. Identical strings of letter symbols ideally would have consistent meanings and sounds. Of
course, this would imply that any particular combination of letters comprising a word were "chosen" as
a reflection of a root- concept related to that particular word; it would mean that the strings are not
random.

For example, the word "sovereign" was used extensively in the above introduction. Generally it
means a supreme authority over some region. Most of us use this word without recognizing that its
symbols are a combination of "over" and "reign"; that the "sovereign" is the "over rein" with "rein" being
synonymous with control (like the reins on a horse). There is a visual image invoked by the symbols: a
"rein" being above or reaching over, and covering a specific region.

According to the symbols, the following words all should share the same root-concept, which is
"over".

OVER ABOVE COVER HOVER

OVEN GLOVE LOVE GOVERN

"Above" is really the prefix ab plus over; an oven is a covered fire; a glove goes over and covers; The
"h" and "c" distinguish "hover" from "cover", but their root symbolic concepts are the same, which is
"over"; just as it is for "love". And yes, the root of "government" is also "over", and is consistent with the
concept and symbols comprising "sovereign". Sovereigns are governments. Over-reigns are over-ments
(with "ment" here meaning "mend", as in binding together).

This image of authority manifesting as an "over-ment" is consistent with other words
describing the various shades of sovereignty. For example, a kingdom is a king-"dome". The word king
is like an adjective describing the kind of "dome" and distinguishes it from fief-"domes" and
free-"domes". The "dome" is the over-ment's image, whereas its characteristic is king, fief, free, etc.
Generically they all are called "dominions" or "domains". The image of a dome is rooted in every
example.

This "over-ment" image translates the same with other sovereignty words such as monarchy,
oligarchy, patriarchy, etc. Here, the "archy" is an arch under which a particular sovereign reigns
supreme. Thus the dome (a 3-dimensional mental rendering) and the arch (a dome's 2-dimensional
equivalent) were images "chosen" to convey the concept of the over-ment. Today, in most sovereign
regions of the world, this over-ment is a federal government welding supreme authority. To the student
of Endlish, it is a "fetter-all over-ment", for that's how the symbols (letters) comprising "federal"
translate. "Feder", which means to bind together, to hobble, to hamper, is the symbolic root, and the
conceptual root its choosers had in mind when coining the word.

Another example of confusion resulting from disregarding the "consistency factor" is seen in
the words county and country. Their symbols say they should sound the same except for their endings.
Likewise, they should have the same root concept, which is "count". . . as in counting the king's deer, or
taxes collected or owed, or the hectares within the domain. "Counting" was the concept chosen as the
defining characteristic for these two entities. In times past, there was even a person called the "Count"
who was in charge of running the operations.

The idea of a country, or county, is based on counting whereas a "nation" (often synonymous
with country) is based on the same root concept as "natural", "native", and "nativity", implying a blood-
tie structuring such as family, clans, and tribes. And "state", also often interchanged with government
and country derives from the idea of "standing" or "staying" put in one place, coming to us from the
Latin verb: sto, stare. We see shades of this root in words such as stabilize, stable, establish, stadium,
stage, stagnant, stain, stall, stand, staple, star, station, statue, stay, to name just a few.

Conscious observers of this language will find themselves repeatedly asking a simple question:
why these letters and not some others for any particular word? This effort is increasingly rewarded by
a broadened understanding of what we are actually saying, and by extension, of our perception of
reality itself.

III. Endlish At Work

The bow, stern, port and starboard sides, are familiar words for mariners. Doesn't it make
sense that the bow was named for the bow-shape (like bow and arrow) it historically resembles? The
stern is the steer-end (say it, if you have any doubt) and the port side went against the port's dock
because an ancient rudder was a side-mounted board called the "steer-board" and might be crushed if
the vessel tied-up star-board side, or steerboard side to the dock. This makes sense even with "star"
instead of "steer" when one remembers that "star" means to stay as in staying one's course. So these
words persist to this day and we use them for reference, usually without any thought to their rich
imagery.

But there are other words based on imagery that might not be the most flattering. We all know
an "adult" is the mature form of a being. And we refer to ourselves as "adults" in every conceivable
context. Yet there really aren't any other words with the same symbols that don't have a negative
context: adulation, adulterate, and adultery, along with their derivatives comprise the conceptual
family to which "adult" belongs. If the first letter "a" is considered the typical prefix denoting "to" or
"away from", that leaves dult, or dul as the root. "Adultery" could derive from the word dulcinea
meaning sweetheart or mistress; the word dulcet means sweet, agreeable, pleasing; and dulcify means
to make sweet or agreeable. Could this imply that "adults" are not sweet, or agreeable like their kinder
gentler counterparts, children? (And isn't "kinder" another word for children as it is used in words
such as "kindergarten", and by extension "kindling", referring to tiny pieces of firewood?).

We also refer to ourselves as "people", or collectively as "society. The letter symbols suggest
that the concepts for people and peon, or peonage, share the same root. Similarly, the words society,
sock, and soccer share "foot" as their common root concept. Thus "society" must have originally
referred to those who walked; foot-persons, so to speak, no doubt in contradistinction to those who rode
or were carried by means other than their own feet. And "people" too has "foot" as it's root concept
(deriving from the Latin ped, pes). "Peon" and "peonage" evolved from the simple fact that the poor
were on foot.

The poor, or common folk, walked and therefore came to be described as "people".

Certainly there is something positive in understanding the difference between "freedom" and
"liberty". They are so often used interchangeably that we lose the true essence of their meanings. But
their symbols retain what we've long since forgotten, or never even learned. For there can be no true
freedom without liberty. "Liberty" is what you have when the laws are written down in books; liber,
which is Latin for book, is the root concept of liberty. This is of course opposite to a dictatorship (of
any kind), the very concept of which derives from the Latin word dicere "to say or tell".

So the next time American politicians say they are sending troops off to the far corners of the
earth in defense of liberty, it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of their government routinely denying trial
by jury to defendants who "if guilty stand to serve six months or less in jail and pay one-thousand or less
dollars in fines". Under the condition of "liberty", the politicians would have troubled themselves to
change the Constitutional provisions guaranteeing trial by jury for all criminal prosecutions through
the amendment process rather than just ignoring that great document touted as The Supreme Law Of
The Land. The fact that the supreme courts of all fifty states, and the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly "said" this denial to a jury trial is constitutional is evidence more for the existence of a
dictatorship than for the existence of "liberty". The same applies to the monetary safeguards built into
the Constitution. Rather than amend the document with regards to this issue, which in essence
protects the people from "legalized counterfeiters" diluting the value of labor's remunerations, these
provisions too are simply ignored in favor of the banking cartel. The student of Endlish is well aware of
this distinction between liberty and dictatorship and is not so easily deceived by the vagaries of catchy
slogans masking the true nature of this reality.

There are other words that quite possibly give us an insight into a truer nature of our common
reality. For example, the root of "employment" is ploy, which is a clever trick or deception. And it could
be argued by many that "entrepreneurs" are entrappers. This all makes very good sense in light of the
abuses associated with the early days of the industrial revolution. Even the word "labor", which in
dictionaries is an etymological mystery, can be seen in its' symbols to be related to the word "slave". The
interchange of the "b" and "v" in the same word amongst the Romance languages is well established
(Esteban and Steven; Pablo and Pavel; and v is often pronounced b), as is the dropping of the s or es at
a words beginning. No less flattering is the word "job" which dates back to the trying tasks of the
biblical Job.

On the more benign side, how many of us realize that the "evening" of the day (pronounced eve-
ning) is literally the even-ing, as in no longer day and not yet night? It is even between the two. Or that
we call a bank a "bank" because, like a river embankment confines water within its walls, a bank holds
money within its walls. And on the individual level we keep our money in "wall·ets", literally "little walls".
A "talent" was a Roman measure, especially of gold or silver, so a person with talent has value or
potential value. The catholic Pontiff , like a pontoon or sponson is the bridge (Latin pons, pontis)
connecting the spiritual and material worlds. The words merchant, commercial, mercantile, all related
in meaning also share the common root mer meaning sea. From its slight variation mar (also meaning
sea) comes market, all of which is showing the importance the early mariners had in influencing our
conception of trade.

The very words commemorate the importance of the role seamen played in the dissemination of
trade and all that accompanies trade. Seamen, like their namesake counterpart "semen", have been the
prime disseminators of this world's cultural seeds. "Rent" is render; to wonder is to wander
(mentally); and, to imagine is to "im-ago", from Latin meaning to go into.

All of this can be seen in one light to be quite logical. And in that light or point of view, the
description of Endlish thus far is not only a plausible explanation for the "choosing" of the symbols, but
probably what one would expect to be taking place within the language if one gave the topic enough
thought to come to any conclusion. But is there something else at work as well?

IV. Deus Ex Machina (The Machine From God)

There is another element at work: Spirit, or by whatever other name you might prefer to call
It. Etymology alone cannot account for the logic inherent to the present day organization of this
language's symbols. Some might prefer to view this as merely coincidence arising from predominantly
random chaos. But if one is inclined to accept Spirit as a part of our reality's composition, then
considering Endlish as a possible manifestation of Spirit's presence is not so great a leap. I believe this
Spirit is that of the Good. I believe its' intentions through Endlish is to give a clearer understanding of
our reality so that others whose values do not embrace the Good will not so readily be able to deceive.
Endlish is a revelation; and, it is there for any who dare question our authoritarian dictated paradigm.

Endlish is like a sign. Everyone has the capacity of being a seer. Its up to each individual who
becomes aware as to how one interprets seeing, for example, the transition from a "holy day"
(pronounced like the word whole) into a "holiday" (pronounced like the word hollow), where the
essence of the word's true meaning is emptied; or, from "busy-ness" (three syllables) to "business" (two
syllables and pronounced "biz-ness") again at the cost of destroying the very essence of the word.

Now ultimately I don't know whether a "fetter-all overment" is necessarily a good or bad thing.
I do know I don't like the sound of it. I'm suspect of the word "ploy" being the root concept of what we
know and experience as "employment". And uni-forms have always made me feel uncomfortable.
Maybe it will prove to be unnatural to the human spirit, in general, to be collared, tied, cuffed, belted,
socked and shod all alike. Surely a dampening of the true human spirit would be no surprise result, or a
taming of our instinctual inclinations in defense of our own sovereignties as individuals.

© P. Kasprzycki 2003