The Origin of Is "Is": The Concepts of Everything, All, Are, Is, I, Being, Self in Proto-Indo-European based on Bantu and Other Evidence - LexiLine Journal 551

This as -- The Origin of Is "Is" -- begins a series of postings titled PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS, suggesting how certain terms developed in proto-Indo-European.

This series, depending on the words chosen, may in some cases or may not in many cases accept the hypothetical word roots assigned to terms by mainstream linguists, many of which are demonstrably false.

Rather, new facts, especially in genetics, demand revision of outdated concepts that have concentrated on the languages of Western Europe, contrary to the actual genetic and archaeological record. Be sure to first read Principles of Historical Language Reconstruction (PHILANGRECON).


The text of the above graphic, created with bubbl.us 2.0 beta, is:

THE ORIGIN OF IS "IS" © 2010 by Andis Kaulins

In proto-Indo-European, the "to be" concept of "is"
and related terms are derived from a basic
concept for "all that is" applied to "the self, the I".

The conventional etymology for the English term "is" from the Online Etymological Dictionary is: "O.E. is, from Gmc. stem *es- (cf. O.H.G., Ger., Goth. ist, O.N. es, er), from PIE *es-ti- (cf. Skt. asti, Gk. esti, L. est, Lith. esti, O.C.S. jesti), from base *es- "to be." O.E. lost the final -t-."

That etymology taken from mainstream sources does not hold water as an examination of the most archaic Indo-European languages, Latvian and Lithuanian, clearly proves, supported by the evidence of the Bantu words for "all" and "everything" in existence, i.e. the full ESSence of being. There was no original "T" at the end of what was ESSentially an ES- word.

African Bantu (Bukusu) -esi "all"; (Asu) ósè "all, everything"; (Basa) so "all"; (Kinyamwezi) ɔ́sɛ̀ "all"; (Yao) kòòsè "all". The Yao form shows the term gutturalized whence Bantu ku "man", kau "young man". Compare kungs ("sir") and kundze ("lady") in Latvian. In English, the words "all" (All in German means "space"), "area", and "are" are related forms coming from the "be" form of "is", such as Latvian ir ("is") and ārā "outside", i.e. the outdoor space as extensions of self, whence Hittite arha "away (from)".

es "I (the self)" in Latvian
viss "all, everything" Latvian
aš "I (the self)" Lithuanian

esu "am" in Latvian (being as a self-extension)
ēst  "to eat", i.e. selfing,
German essen "to eat"

īst(s) "real, ex-ist-ing" in Latvian

(m)ūsu "our", (m)ēs "we" in Latvian

us in English
is in English
as in English

ich "I"
ik "I"
in German
and Nordic
languages

es "it" German
ist "is" German

ego "I" in Latin
est "is" in Latin

The widespread s-mobile prefix (the verbal prefix of "self-action", depending on language) as s-, š, z-, ž, sa-, ša si-, ši, su-, šu, aiz, iz-, uz- and variables.

In Hittite, es- is a denominative for "to become what the base word means", i.e. as (like -(n)ess).

No End of the World in Sight: 2010 Maya GMT Calendar is Off - LexiLine Journal 550

 As reported at Archaeology Daily News :

"Gerardo Aldana, associate professor at the Univ. of California at Santa Barbara, challenges the accepted Gregorian dates of all Classic Mayan historical events, including the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it 2012 prophecies in Calendars and Years II: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient and Medieval World, the second in a series edited by John Steele, associate professor of Egyptology and Ancient West Asian Studies at Brown Univ."

See Calendars and Years II at Amazon -- I have not read the book yet myself.

I have written often before that the Maya calendric chronology as falsely interpreted by Maya scholars is off for the reasons identified by me here.

I wrote there the following:

THE MAYA CALENDAR
PIEDRAS NEGRAS
HALLEY'S COMET

Just as in the Pharaonic Egyptian calendar December 25, 3117 BC is the correct starting date for the Maya calendar (corrected for the tropical year), as will be demonstrated below. Maya scholars have failed to adjust the continuous count of solar days of the Maya Long Count to a "longer" count including intercalation for the tropical year. When this adjustment is made, the Maya and Pharaonic calendars both start on December 25, 3117 BC (-3116 by astronomy). Maya scholars start the Maya calendar on a Maya date called 4 Ahau 8 Cumku. Both of these calendric glyphs (Ahau and Cumku) fall at the "end" of the Maya series of days and months in the Maya system, i.e. at the beginning of new eras, and we thus expect a Solstice or Equinox at this point in Maya calendration. Indeed, the Encylcopaedia Britannica writes at "Calendar" about the Maya system as follows: "The 365-day year was divided into 18 named months of 20 days each, with an additional five days ... named Uayeb. In late times, the Maya named the years after their first days. Since both the year and number (20) of the names of days are divisible by five, only four names combined with 13 numbers could begin the year. These were called Year Bearers and were assigned in order to the four quarters of the world with their four associated colours." The calendar, with adjustments for the tropical year, starts on Julian date 583297. The Maya Calendar allegedly started on Julian date 584283. The Maya date is correlated to the alleged foundation of Merida, Yucatan on November 14, 1539 close to the date of the Long Count Maya katun 11.16.0.0.0   =   11 baktuns, 16 katuns, 0 tuns, 0 uinals, and 0 kins. In Maya chronology, 1 baktun = 144000 days, 1 katun = 7200 days, 1 tun = 360 days, 1 uinal = 20 days, 1 kin = 1 day. The  Maya Data 11.16.0.0.0 as a chronological date thus involves the following calculation: 11 x 144000 days (=1584000 days) + 16 x 7200 days (=115200 days) = 1699200 days i.e. 1699200 continous solar days have elapsed since the Long Count katun 0.0.0.0.0. This is a continous count WITHOUT adjustment for the tropical year. Let us now adjust that figure for the tropical year - which will give us the correct "astronomical", i.e. "star date". How many 365-day years are there in 1699200 days? = 4655 years. BUT, 4655 years of ca 365.25-days (actually 365.22 days) = 1700238 days rather than 1699200 days. 1700238 days plus the Julian date 583297 (Dec. 25, 3117 BC) as the start of the calendar gives Julian date 2283535 and that is in fact the expected Solstice date, December 25, 1539 AD at Merida. The Merida "Maya" date of November 14, 1539 AD should thus actually be December 25, 1539 AD, and that is the correct Long Count Maya katun 11.16.0.0.0. The 365-day year katun date must simply be converted to 365.25-day years, which gives an identical starting date to the Pharaonic Calendar. They ARE related. Did the Maya Adjust Their Calendar for the Tropical Year? Were the Maya themselves aware of this potential error in their calendration? Did they make intercalary notations as "leap-year type of periods" between the solar and tropical years in their system? Yes - as demonstrated here - they did. In fact, they had apparently adjusted for it periodically. As the Encyclopaedia Britannica notes, the Maya used an "Initial-Series" notation (abbreviated IS) on its dates, referring the marked date back to the start of the calendar. The oldest known such IS (Initial Series) notation is Stele 29 at Tikal in Guatemala which is written IS. 8.12.14.8.15, a date which falls 1243615 days after the start of the calendar at 4 Ahau 8 Cumku. Can we determine when that was?  We can. Often in Maya dating of the so-called Supplementary Series, the so-called IS (Initial Series date) is preceded by a notation of 819 days. This notation of 819 days is thought by Maya scholars to be merely a magical multiple of 13, 9 and 7, which equals 819. But as shown here for the first time, these 819 days are the intercalation for the tropical year. This intercalation was apparently made at Tikal, Guatemala on January 25, 293 (Julian date 1828100) and used in the Supplementary Series of dates. The Tikal IS (Initial Series) date of 1243615 days after the start of the Maya calendar is a sum of 3407.16438 years of 365-days whereas 1243615 days of ca. 365.2422-day years equals 3404.90501 years, a difference of ca. 2.25 years, which is ca. 820 days, i.e. the intercalary figure of 819. Thus, these 819 days were added to the continuous solar day count on January 25, 293 AD for the Maya Supplementary Series of dates. The continous count itself was not intercalated. The Pharaonic and Maya calendars both started on December 25, 3117 BC viz. -3116 by astronomy. The 293 AD date at Tikal was probably chosen because it involved 48 years of intercalation for precession - i.e 48 degrees of precession x 72 years = 3456 years so that 3116 BC + 293 AD= 3409 years total and 3409 + 48 = 3457 years. USE OF THE METONIC CYCLE How did the Maya, the Hebrews, the Pharaohs and the Vedic Sanskrit Hindus use the Metonic Cycle for long-term calendration? It is very simple once one sees the numbers, which allow very accurate calculations - without fractions or decimals - using the principle of common denominators.

Period	multiplied by	= number of days	divided by	= days	calendric use
3800 years	x 360 days	= 1368000 days	/ 19	= 72000	= half a Baktun
3800 years	x 365 days	= 1387000 days	/19	= 73000	solar years
3800 years	x 365.25 days	= 1387950 days	/19	= 73050	star years

Since a complete Maya baktun is 144000 days
(compare to the half-Baktun of 72000 days in the line above),
a full cycle of the above system is 100 x 76 years = 7600 years.
 

7600 years are 2736000 days of a schematic 360-day year
which equals = 19 Baktuns. This formed the Maya calendar.
It made calendration easy by common divisors.

19 Baktuns	= 380 Katuns	/19	= 20	/20	= 1
380 Katuns	= 7600 tuns	/19	= 400	/20	= 20	/ 20	= 1
7600 Tuns	= 136800 uinals	/19	= 7200	/20	= 360	/ 20	= 18	/18	=1
136800 Uinals	= 2736000 days	/19	=144000	/20	= 7200	/ 20	= 360	/18	=20

.MAYA STELE 3 PIEDRAS NEGRAS CORRECTED READING The Corrected Reading of Maya Stele 3 of Piedras Negras This corrected reading of the Chol-Maya Stele 3 of Piedras Negras is based on my discovery of the 819-day intercalation for the tropical year made at Tikal, Guatemala and the recognition that the Maya Calendar begins on December 25, 3117 BC. This article adds evidence to the correctness of that date. The current reading of Maya Stele 3 of Piedras Negras [with glyphs] by Maya scholars is found in Michael D. Coe's book Breaking the Maya Code, pp. 368-372 of the German version Das Geheimnis der Maya-Schrift. This Stele is erroneously thought to apply to the birth and life of a "human" female called Katun Ahau and her daughter Kin Ahau, but it is actually a stele for the "birth" of a new CALENDRIC Katun Ahau. As noted at the end of Stele 3 Piedras Negras, the new Katun Ahau began on 9.14.0.0.0 .. 6 Ahau 13 Muan, which was 1396800 days after December 25, 3117 BC or 583297 + 1396800 = Julian  date 1980097 which is March 19, 709 AD, exactly at the point where the Sun is at the crossing of the Celestial Equator and the Ecliptic. The Piedras Negras date of 9.12.2.0.16 .. 5 Cib 15 Yaxkin at the start of Stele 3 is NOT the date  - as reported by Coe - of July 7, 674 AD, but is rather October 21, 671 AD. The Maya Stele 3 Piedras Negras date is correctly calculated as 9 x 144000 days plus 12 x 7200 days + 2 x 360 days + 0 + 16 days = 1296000 + 86400 + 720 + 0 + 16 = 1383136 days. This date is a continuous solar count without intercalation so it is added to the Julian Date for the start of the Maya calendar (December 25, 3117 BC), i.e. Julian Date 583297 which - added to 1383136 - gives a Julian Date of 1966433, or October 21, 671 AD for Stele 3 at Piedras Negras. This is Libra, the Maya NAH, 7th night station, - which puts on its "headband" - the term NAH perhaps found in Chinese as Se HAN, and Semitic Miz-NAIm "Libra". The stele states further that it was 27 days after the Full Moon at the Vernal Equinox (the cross of the Celestial Equator and Ecliptic) at Spica in Virgo - this was Julian date 1966406 on September 24, 671 AD. Two months of 29 days after Julian date 1966433 pass and the "three white mountain god" appeared: This is the prong of Sagittarius on December 18, 671 AD on Julian  date 1966491 [Since there is an apparent error of 44 days later, it may be that not 58 days are added here but only 14, since 58 - 14 = 14 would take care of the error. The end result, however, stays the same.] 14 Yaxkin. 10 Uinal and 12 Tun pass 10 x 20 = 200 days and 12 x 360 =  4320 days = 4520 days 4520 added to 1966491 = Julian date 1971011 or Maya date 9.12.14.13.14 .. 1 Cib 14 Kankin This (1971011) puts the Sun at the Pleiades on May 3, 684 AD where she is decorated with the great Sun, Yo' Acnal. [There is a conjunction here with Jupiter at this date and a New Moon at the Pleiades on April 20, 684 AD, Julian date 1970998.] 10 Kin 11 Uinal 1 Tun and 1 Katun pass (4 Cimi 14 Uo) 10 x 1 = 10, 11 x 20 = 220, 1 Tun = 360= 590 days total 1 Katun = 7200 days = 7790 days Kin Ahau was allegedly born on August 31, 705 AD, Julian date 1978801 at Virgo. The stele calls this the tortoise of heaven. 14 Kin 8 Uinal and 3 Tun pass ... 11 Imix 14 Yax 14 x 1 = 14, 8 x 20 = 160, 3 x 360 = 1080 = 1254 days This is February 5, 709 AD Julian date 1980055 at Aquarius. The Stele states that 5 Tun and 1 Katun have passed since the beginning of the rule of Yo'Acnal so that 5 x 360 = 1800 and 1 x 7200 = 7200 so that 1800 + 7200 = 9000 days. but 7790 + 1254 above give 9044 days. The stele  then states at this point that 9000 days have passed since the start of the rule of Yo´Acnal (rather than 9044). Hence rather than 1980055 the 9000 days end 44 days previously at Julian day 1980011 which is 9000 days after 1971011, The Winter Solstice at December 23, 708 AD. 19 Kin and 4 Uinal pass ... 6 Ahau 13 Muan 19 x 1 = 19 and 4 x 20 = 80 = 99 days These are apparently calculated from Julian day 1980011 1980011 plus 99 days = 1980110 This gives a date of April 1, 709 AD. If the 9000 days are calculated back to the Sun at the Pleiades this then gives a date of March 19, 709 AD. This is the date given for 9.14.0.0.0 .. 6 Ahau 13 Muan at the very beginning of this article. The stele closes by writing 6 Ahau 13 Muan ends. The 14th Katun begins.

.FURTHER PROOF
HALLEY'S COMET AND MAYA CHRONOLOGY

The current Maya chronology includes a spectacular event called the Entrada of 378, for the arrival at Tikal of a lord called Siayaj K'ak' (meaning and translated "Fire Born" by the Mayanolgists), dated to January 31, 378 by the Mayanologists.

At the same time, the "king" Chak Tok Ich'aak allegedly passed away on January 15, 378 (8.17.1.4.12) - whose name means "Great Burning Claw". This Entrada (Entrance) of Siyaj K'ak' took place on January 31, 378 according to mainstream Mayanology - indeed, the appearance of this mysterious "fire born" is documented 8 days earlier and his "route" is even traced in Maya records.

Now - if this were a HEAVENLY BODY it would be a fiery comet - AND it is a comet, Halley's Comet, which came very close to earth in what the serious astronomers today estimate to be 374 A.D. According to MY chronology, the Maya date January 31, 378 is correctly May 4, 375 A.D. and this is the Maya record of the sighting of this very near passage of Halley's Comet, one of the closest to Earth on record.

We find Halley returns at ca. 76-year multiples in the names of Maya "rulers".... though all the mainstream dates are off by the error of 2+years in mainstream chronology which I have discussed above.

Halley is the Accession of K'an Chitam in 458 A.D. - actually, this was 2+ years earlier. Ruler "Bird Claw?" - also known as "Animal Skull I" - this is Halley again - is dated by Mayanologists to between ca. 527 and 537 A.D.

Ca. 76- years we then have Halley again as Animal Skull II.

Halley appears again as the illustrious king Yich'aak K'ak' (Fiery Claw) whose "flint and shield" are brought down by Jasaw Chan K'awiil I on (sic) August 5, 695 A.D. - but of course this is 2+ years earlier in fact.

So, Halley has been clearly identified, and mainstream Maya chronology is off by the period of time I have previously described in great detail in other LexiLine postings.

Modern Civilization Threatened by New World Order - LexiLine Journal 549

Newsweek has a map of The New World Order pointing out that:

"Across the world a resurgence of tribal ties is creating more complex global alliances. Where once diplomacy defined borders, now history, race, ethnicity, religion, and culture are dividing humanity into dynamic new groupings."

That development is definitely not a good thing because it places inferior, fixed, and often erroneous variables that human beings "inherit" at the top of human alliance priorities, and places the mutable and superior variables such as education, performance and individual MERIT below them.

The fixed variables always lead to war and conflagration between various "groups of inheritance".

The unfixed variables have led to modern civilization, a civilization which thrives on merit.

The "New World Order" that Newsweek identifies is thus a retreat of the world from civilized society and poses a threat to modern civilization.

Stonehenge as a Timepiece: LexiLine Journal 548

I ran across a nice short posting by Michael Balfour about Stonehenge as a timepiece at Europa Star Magazine:

Stonehenge – The world's oldest timepiece .

The graph presented reflects inter alia the computer analysis of Stonehenge by Gerald S. Hawkins .

For detailed analysis of Stonehenge, see the Megalithic Wiki at Wikia .

Cleaning House in Education via Reduced Spending of Taxpayer Funds and Foundation Monies: Mainstream Archaeology as One Example: LexiLine Journal 547

What is important ... is ... the recognition of how mainstream archaeology operates under the surface using the same kinds of methods that we know in law enforcement for organized crime.

That is why so many of the theories of mainstream archaeology are woefully wrong, because the environment in which such theories are developed has little to do with objective impartial fact-finding or critical analysis of the best evidence. Quite the contrary.

One of the reforms that is desperately needed in higher education is the cleaning of house of the whole educational establishment, which has become top-heavy with lightweights and not just in archaeology. All of these "academic" businesses are rackets and the academics utilize the same methods that are known for criminal conspiracies.

Frankly, much of the federal and other funding for mainstream archaeology should be halved, if not more, and thorough investigations should be made of how these people spend taxpayer funds and/or donor and foundation money.

Recognizing Truth Out of Context and Mainstream Archaeology: LexiLine Journal 546

This is a copy of a posting I recently made to LawPundit which illustrates one of the major problems confronted in dealing with mainstream archaeologists. They recognize as good as nothing outside of their own self-proclaimed theater, in which they own the home court advantage - and this is the result:

How Competent is Your Average Man in Recognizing Talent or Ability Outside of Context and Beyond Being Told Something is True or Good?

This email circulates through cyberspace. True or false?

In Washington , DC , at a Metro Station, on a cold January morning in 2007, this man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes.  During that time,approximately 2,000 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.  After about 3 minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing.  He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then he hurried on to meet his schedule.

About 4 minutes later The violinist received his first dollar.  A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

At 6 minutes A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

At 10 minutes A 3-year old boy stopped, but his mother tugged him along hurriedly.  The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time.  This action was repeated by several other children, but every parent - without exception - forced their children to move on quickly.

At 45 minutes The musician played continuously.  Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while.  About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace.  The man collected a total of $32.

After 1 hour He finished playing and silence took over.  No one noticed and no one applauded.  There was no recognition at all.

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world.  He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.  Two days before, Joshua Bell sold-out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100 each to sit and listen to him play the same music.

This is a true story.  Joshua Bell, playing incognito in the D.C.  Metro Station, was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities.

This experiment raised several questions:

* In a common-place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?

* If so, do we stop to appreciate it?

* Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made .  .  .

How many other things are we missing as we rush through life?

Snopes confirms that the story is true

The kids instinctively heard that the "fiddler" was special and wanted to hear him play -- shades of the Pied Piper.

However, with the exception of a miniscule percent of adults, on the other hand, "grown-ups" had no clue whatsoever that the street violinist represented the pinnacle of his profession.

My experience definitely confirms the truth of Joshua Bell's story. Most "adults" in real life know that something is "true" or "good" only if they are told that it is "true" or "good" and if the attendant environment fits their expectations, regardless of the actual reality.

In fact, we were led to post the above story because of an email from a critic who explained to us that some of our ideas about economics would not cut it with "mainstream" economists, as if that made any difference to us.

Some people only know or think they know that which the so-called "established" world tells them. How sad to be unable to have a mind of your own and to determine for yourself what is good and not good and what is true and not true.

Indeed, in the course of their seemingly "own" life", almost all adults ultimately adopt the religion and political views of their parents, all the while proclaiming that they are thinking independently for themselves, whereas in fact they merely inherit their views from their elders. It is no difference with science, law or economics. Perhaps it takes a special character not to be just a parrot.

Hat tip to CaryGee.

Gobekli Tepe and Archaeology on the Run as a Profession: LexiLine Journal 545

Mainstream Archaeology is on the run, and for good reason. Their current situation could be defined as "Archaeology Gate".

As I wrote previously at ArchaeoPundit:

"Göbekli Tepe is featured at Newsweek online in an article from the March 1, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine. At History in the Remaking: A temple complex in Turkey that predates even the pyramids is rewriting the story of human evolution, Patrick Symmes writes: "

    "The new discoveries are finally beginning to reshape the slow-moving consensus of archeology. Göbekli Tepe is 'unbelievably big and amazing, at a ridiculously early date,' according to Ian Hodder, director of Stanford's archeology program. Enthusing over the 'huge great stones and fantastic, highly refined art' at Göbekli, Hodder -- "who has spent decades on rival Neolithic sites" -- says: 'Many people think that it changes everything…It overturns the whole apple cart. All our theories were wrong."

Ponder that for a moment. One of the world's leading archaeologists admits that "all" of the main theories of mainstream archaeology about ancient man are wrong. I call that Archaeology Gate and it is something that I have been writing about for years, pointing to the flimsy house of cards that mainstream archaeologists have constructed.

Turn where you will, the established ideas of mainstream archaeology are falling like a house of cards. Their long-held theories as we have long alleged - were wrong and so some "angry" archaeologists -- or those who profess to be archaeologists -- I can not be sure, since these people are posting anonymously -- are by their own admitted intention trying to discredit criticism and alternative theories wherever they can. We all now know and understand this better since Climategate. For a nice discussion of the gangster methods used by academia against the opposition read James Delingpole at the Telegraph in Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

Climategate is merely the tip of the iceberg, revealing something about how academia works under the surface. The reality is much worse than Climategate.

In this regard, I would like to point out that an organized group of posters have discovered my book Stars Stones and Scholars and are trying to discredit my book in the comments section at http://www.amazon.com/Stars-Stones-Scholars-Decipherment-Megaliths/dp/1412013445 -- all without ever having read the book!

No wonder that mainstream archaeology is in such bad shape.

Nevertheless, it is instructive to read what these people are using as methods against ideas that run contrary to their own "wrong theories". There is no discussion of ideas, there is only ad hominem argumentation -- strange, none of these people know me personally, so they are hardly competent to comment about my person. SCIENTISTS would discuss the ideas. Alas, few true scientists are to be found in archaeology.