WHAT IS “ENDLISH”?
Introduction
“Endlish” is the language at the time of the “end”. No, not the apocalypse; certainly not the end of the world, nor Doom’s Day, but the culmination of a cycle or historical 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 of consolidation 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 geographic territory. As we move forward in time, not only are there fewer 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. If 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 uniformity.
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.(Note: in Old German “eng” means finally.)
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.
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”, or the “public”. 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” and “society”. And from what imagery does the word “public” derive? Can it be that we are collectively so naive that the imagery chosen to represent the greater population is the same as puberty, pubescence, pubic, puba (a larva), etc., or those words all denoting an immaturity as their root imagery? Are we, in someone’s or something’s mind nothing more than “pupas”? Is the word pupa related to puppy, or pupalation (i.e. population)?
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, as is the dropping of the s or es at a words beginning (Esteban and Steven; Pablo and Pavel; and v is often pronounced b). 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?
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 for the greater sovereign.
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.
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 the authoritarians’ fabricated 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 unhealthy to the human spirit, in general, to be collared, tied, cuffed, belted, socked and shod all alike. It should be no surprise if it’s contributed to a dampening of our awareness, and has helped lead to a taming of our instinctual inclination to defend our own sovereignties as individuals. Pay attention to the symbols . . . and take heed.
© P. Kasprzycki 2003