Indo-European Languages and their Forebears
We know from Oahspe that the movement westward of the Hamitic peoples, including both the exodus of Moses with his peoples and the Egyptians at the fall of its middle kingdom, had been occurring at least since the time of Fragapatti---including waves of I'huans such as miners and metalworkers, at first to Heleste which includes southeastern Europe, and farther. This helps to explain the earlier-than-Moses continuum of development of "civilization" appearing in Heleste and Europe before the wave of Egyptian migrants following Moses.
Oahspe Map of the World (roughly superimposed over a modern world map) at the time of Fragapatti around 9,000 years ago with ancient names of the divisions of the Earth showing Africa and Arabia as one division and Europe North and West of the greater portion of Heleste.
As mentioned in Part 1, Celts are identified by Indo-European language group. But language it is only one of a number of possible markers. Other influences /developments because of the Egyptian migrants exist, such as more sophisticated burials associated with the Tumulus culture (of Europe) which appeared around the time of the large wave of Egyptian migrations (1550 bce); and skilled bronze workmanship of the Unetice culture, already apparent by that time, may represent further evidence of even earlier Hamitic migrations. Because, from Oahspe, we know that Baal and Ashtaroth had been inciting wars for many hundreds of years in their respective regions before 1550 bce and as a result, many waves of refugees undoubtedly dispersed into the farther reaches of Heleste and Europe.
Concerning the ancient languages of Egypt, we learn from Oahspe that there were six languages in Egypt around 1550 bce:
Oahspe, Book of the Arc of Bon; (27/14.1-2):
In these days in Egupt there were houses of records, where the affairs of the state, and of the king and governors, were recorded; and there were recorded also the births, marriages and deaths of people. The languages of the learned were Fonecean and Par'si'e'an; but the native languages were Eguptian, Arabaic, Eustian, and Semis.||
Four of those languages were of the unlearned, and likely without writing. Traces of those spoken languages of the unlearned may not be easily found or recognized, if at all, in historical contexts. So it is possible that a variety of Egyptian migrating groups carried up to six distinct languages; and that these groups in turn had mixed with languages of the native Helestian and European groups to form an unknown number of languages, perhaps very different from each other and distinct from their parent languages. For which reason, it is likely that the Celtic language groups were just a minority of the descendents of the Egyptian Empire wave of Egyptian migrants.
Now, whether there is a relationship between Indo-European and today's African-Asian languages has been scholarly argued for and against. Therefore, conventional scholarship does not negate a link between Afro-Asiatic languages and Indo-European languages. And since there are many gaps in the available history of languages, it is understandable that tracing and deciphering roots of language depends upon surviving (written) evidence and a certain amount of speculation. Unfortunate also is the fact that many ancient languages remain essentially unknown because of a lack of surviving written records. We can, however, use Oahspe to see commonalities in even the most distant of languages because of Panic roots, as is shown in the Tablet of Se'moin and its accompanying text, as well as in other Saphah language tablets.
Accordingly, we can attempt to trace the roots of "Indo-European" languages by examining the Tree of Language in the Book of Saphah
Here we find that the languages of Ham were on the same trunk until the time of Fonece. (Ham includes modern Africa and most of what today is called the Middle East, on the world map above, Arabin'ya denotes the ancient continent of Ham.) The language then splits into two with Arabic languages taking their own course. (Are these among the African languages of the Afro-Asiatic group that are believed by scholars to have developed around the Sahara region?)
At the other side of that tree trunk split we see continuing development of the A'ham'ic languages until the Ebra language emerged, which was the language purification brought forth by Moses; and about that time we find a split into Helestian (thence into Greek, Latin and so forth). All of these languages on that new Helestian branch are a continuation of the early or developing European language, as shall be shown shortly. As seen in the world map above, note that Heleste covers a large portion of what today is called southeastern Europe and extends northward and eastward, as well, including the Caucuses region which many scholars of Indo-European (IE) language consider to be the original homeland of the IE language. We'll see a reason why, shortly.
Now, Shem was a region east of Ham / Arabin'ya and Heleste --- Shem included Vind'yu / Ancient India. And though the Shemitic languages emerged much earlier than Helestian, we can see from Oahspe's Language Tree that the Shemitic languages started with the time of the Abrahamic language. Further, we know that Abraham (under inspiration via the God Vishnu, 23/5.8-9) had followers not only from Ham, but from regions surrounding the Middle East including many followers having Shemitic roots in their culture that they identified with (see e.g., 24/8.1, 4, 8.). So it makes sense that Abraham introduced a language using elements from Shem as well as from Ham. And his followers thus brought the basis of Shemitic language with them as they settled into the northern and western regions, spreading and developing the Abram language.
And so, from Oahspe's revealed knowledge we find a direct connection between Ham and Shem in the development of the western language at this third juncture of the Language Tree---the place of the Abramic language emergence!
Abram's language included elements of language from Shem---as evidenced by the language trunk at juncture three and testified to, as well, by the historical information revealed by Oahspe that the people Abram sprang from came from Shem, coupled with the fact that Abraham became the chief father (rab'bah) of Ham and its Faithists and languages---so we thus see the true beginnings of the Indo-European (IE) language.
Moreover, because Abram's forebears had originally emigrated from Shem, a goodly concentration of their language could be found in the Caucuses' region, where many of these people lived. Most historical linguists believe that this is the likely original homeland of the IE language. The historical linguists support this conclusion (hypothesis) and many others through many means, but basically from a combination of knowing to some extent how language transforms over time, and searching for common roots of words among languages, and finally, using the meaning of the words themselves. For example, the earliest IE languages that linguists are aware of include words for goats, sheep, plows, certain deciduous trees, and the like, all indicative of a pastoral and agricultural society at a certain latitude and climate capable of supporting and providing such things.
This dictionary approach is fairly solid so far as it goes. For example, if there is no word for sea or snow, then you know the words came from a culture sufficiently inland from the sea and not high of latitude or altitude, including no mountains sufficiently high for snow. The problem with this approach is that the historical linguist cannot be sure of a homeland region that gave rise to a language because where does he draw the line as to what constitutes the beginning of a language? After all, we know from the revelations in Oahspe that all languages ultimately have their origin in the Panic language---even the angelic-given languages must be rooted in the practical and earthly, otherwise man would neither heed it nor learn it.
Accordingly, without Oahspe's revealed knowledge, historical linguists can at best only claim that a concentration of new language elements appear to emerge with a certain culture. The fact that some of these language elements show up in a later language might indicate immigration from the former culture, or indicate being conquered by an outside kingdom, or it might simply indicate that an inter-nation diplomatic language (a lingua franca) was in use in official records, etc. The (mostly) scarcity of corporeal records makes it difficult to discern.
For which reason, we stand with uplifted arms giving thanks and praise to Jehovih for the revelation of Oahspe's Tree of Language; for it sets a framework within which language development can be understood. And in that regard, to paraphrase Oahspe, where man cannot otherwise discern (as in lack of corporeal records), then only revelation can open that portal of clarification. Without that framework, it is guess-as-guess-can; and an "educated" guess can sometimes be worse than a gut-feel guess or a su'is perception (sometimes called inspiration or an "inspired imagination"), as when the "education" includes compounded fallacies, which then bind the guesser because he dares not go beyond such accepted "knowledge". Kudus, though, to the historical linguists for the progress they have made in attempting to sort out the confusing knot of ancient languages.
Easily various Shem linguistic elements in the Caucus-region language pre-date Abram; so it became possible for some linguists to trace what they think is the Indo-European language back to its origin, namely that Caucus-area region. But what they really are tracing back to that region is not the origin of the IE language but rather the Indo- (Shem) and likely Iranian (Fonece) part of the language. So, the problems with the Caucus-region origin are at least twofold. First, as mentioned, not only did the language from that region stem from the Vede language (Shem), but it also almost assuredly stemmed from the land of Par'si'e with its chief exported language of Fonece. A second problem with claiming the Caucus-region origin, is that the European branch is then not so easily accounted for; that is, how did the language then spread to Europe; for, as we know from Saphah's Tree of Language, elements of Hamitic languages must be present in the IE language and accounted for. And so, from the revelations in Oahspe, we can know that Abram / Abraham stands as the key to that bridge between India and Europe.
Following now that fifth branch where we find the beginning of the Indo-European languages, we can continue to trace to the seventh branch, that of Helestian languages, of which Greek and Latin were a later development. Note that paralleling this language development was the mostly-westward movement of peoples whose language developed from earlier roots lower down on the trunk of the Language Tree. Notice, too, that Hebrew developed from Ebra only after the Helestian branch appeared. This indicates a split about the time of Moses, where he and his followers were the first of the Ebra language speakers, which eventually morphed into Hebrew; but the other split into Heleste at that time must have been---Had To Have Been!---from an exodus of the Egyptians after the great fall that Oahspe mentions.
And that great fall was the fall of the Egyptian empire that occurred with the exodus of the Israelites. Why was it a great fall? Because it was the last of the Pyramidal age and because Egypt was left devastated. We learn from Oahspe that man is to learn from a broad range of examples including the courts of law. What do they do? In describing what happened, they provide Motive, Opportunity and Evidence. We have presented evidence and we shall here further elaborate on the motive for great numbers of Egyptians leaving Egypt, and then show the opportunity.
Motive: Prior to the exodus, nearly one-third of the Eguptian population were Israelites (27/14.18). These were the workforce of Egupt and were slaves. The departure of the Egyptian slaves left no one to do most of the work; and we intimated that the lower class Eguptians were intelligent enough to perceive that they themselves would be pressed into taking the place of the departing slaves. Further, the plagues had raised havoc in Egupt, and the Pharaoh had refused to stop any of them. Who could say what misfortune was lurking around the corner? Moreover, they had lost their firstborn not only of their family but of their livestock. How much more could a person take? And to add to their bewilderment and despair, they had heard the widely disseminated report and rumors that the land was fertile outside of Egupt, at least where the Israelites were going, so why not fertile elsewhere? Egupt must have felt like it was falling apart and no one knew where it would end. Would it end with the departure of the Israelites? Would the Eguptians believe it if they were told, yes, it would be okay after the Israelites left? Or would they think it might be safer and better over the long term to uproot and emigrate toward more stable, safer conditions, that in any event surely couldn't be any worse than they were in Egupt at that time? Certainly people have been known to emigrate for far less pressing reasons.
Motive and Opportunity: Pharaoh's army had just been destroyed, drowned in the sea (27/18.27). Guess who would be drafted to replace them? Or would it be wiser for the potential draftees to emigrate as soon as possible before anyone could muster up sufficient forces to stop them? Besides, even if they stayed and were drafted, how could they be sure they would be able to eat, since the labor force just left, and who would produce and distribute the food? Moses' people---the slaves---had the courage to leave, and so did some (the hangers-on) who were not even Israelites, but who nonetheless left with the Israelites. So what of Eguptians not willing to follow Moses? Might they not think: "But we don't believe in their God and we don't want to follow Moses' law, and besides, how can we trust the Israelites who were our former slaves, and whom we just treated so badly?"
So, emigrate they did---most likely north and then west to the closest frontier that they could settle in, but not too close to Egupt, lest they be captured and returned as a slave. Probably some desired to get as far as possible from Egupt and its miseries.
Evidence: This we have already presented. Here is some more:
How do we know Moses spoke Ebra? There are only two entries in Oahspe which use the spelling Jehova, and we learn that Jehova is the Ebra word for the Great Spirit:
Oahspe, Book of Saphah; 35/D.77; D.9
... Jehova said: Not having stone images they have made an idol of the wind and called it Lord (Land God or Ghad) (-- Moses in Egypt).
Eloih, synonymous with E O Ih, the Creator, the Person Who moves the wind. The All Soul. The All Self. The Second Self, more subtle than the wind. It is the circumference of all; it extends from left to right, and from below upward. The motions of the hand and arm in oratory. The hand and arm speak His name. It is the secret sign. It holds the emblem of life (Panic and Gau). E go quin (Algonquin), Je o-es (Chine), Je o-vih (Fonece), Jehova (Ebra), Ge o zih (Hiut), Zi'o (Vede): The soul of all.
Moreover, in the Ezra Bible (parts of which are known among Christians as the Old Testament), from earliest sources we find the name Jehovah often used. Keeping in mind that the oral/spoken language of Ebra was apparently not originally written or at least very little of it, and what was written was perhaps a type of pictographic Phoenician---if the so-called Proto-Sinaitic script that is hypothesized to have come into existence at Moses' time, is indeed Ebra (see.
Proto Sinaitic Script ) also referred to as Sinaitic, Proto-Canaanite, Old Canaanite, or Canaaniteis a term for both a Middle Bronze Age (Middle Kingdom) script attested in a small corpus of inscriptions found at Serabit el-Khadim in the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, and the reconstructed common ancestor of the Paleo-Hebrew, Phoenician and South Arabian scripts (and, by extension, of most historical and modern alphabets).
It would make sense that because the Israelites were unlearned in matters of reading and writing, that they would be orally taught, and that certain concepts could be preserved as pictographs, as the Israelites did have tablets. Moses could read and write, and if he did teach the rab'bahs, then what he taught may have been a stylized version of the pictographs. In short, had it been written, Ebra would likely have been a stylized pictographic version of earlier pictographs and symbols in the ancient Faithist tablets. But whatever writing in Ebra there may have been, the Faithists had no written record for 400 years (35/K.58); and they were Oralites (28/10.10). So it is with certainty that the written equivalent of words for Jehova and E-O-Ih were never written in Ebra by Faithist Israelites but could have been written in a newer language such as Hebrew or by their descendents as well as by apostate Jews.
According to historical scholars, Hebrew sprung from the word "habiru" meaning "wanderer". This supports the historical context within which Hebrew developed from an earlier language (Ebra) among a mobile people living and worshiping, not in houses or temples, but in tents (the tabernacle was a tent). This new condition was in contrast with their previous experiences of being settled, albeit in slavery, in Egypt from which they were dramatically liberated and enlightened with the dawn of the Arc of Bon. It was a significant defining point in time in which the Egyptian Israelites underwent renewal and restoration in sacred knowledge and covenants, at which time their own (sacred) language of Ebra coalesced.
In any event, because Ebra was / became the language of Moses at the time of the Exodus, and the Helestian branch appeared around that time, so it must be that it was at that time and neither earlier nor later that a large wave of migrants moving northward and mostly westward brought with them languages that crystallized into the European language branches. And that movement into Heleste and Europe at that time could have been none other than a massive migration of non-Israelite Eguptian peoples from Egupt.
All Oahspe references are from the Standard Edition Oahspe of 2007