Foreign Words are Native to Their Origin

“It’s all Greek”

Language models and cognitive maps are foundational concepts in machine learning, and in the broader scientific field of AI machines. The English terms artificial, machine, philosophy and science are all derived through Latin, from Greek. There is a contradiction in that the Latin language derived many words from Greek tradition, the same language that the Romans didn’t understand: “It is all Greek”.

For example, the Greek word neh [ne] means “yes”, while the Latin word ne means “no”. An explanation could be traced to the nod that accompanies the Greek ‘yes’, the same nod that in romanised body language means “no”. It is one part of the explanation; perhaps additional reasons will unfold further on. This knowing leads to the philosophic inquiry: what more may have been misinterpreted and lost in transliteration and translation from one cognitive tradition, to the cognitive map of another.

Based on the “yes” interpreted as “no” confusion, could this mean, for example, that a machine is a human, and that the term artificial is for something that is natural? Science then would embody its own antonym, including terms like ignorance, confusion, and unreason, representing a lack of knowledge or understanding.

“What is time?”

The meaning of a word changes with time, then: “What is time?”. Time, as an English word was derived from Greek timí, commonly romanised as timé, meaning value, honour, and price. This knowing gives a deeper meaning to phrases such as: “to honour our time”, “as time passes”, “new times”, “time isn’t linear”, and “timeline split”. A culture is built on and of values, and when a word is interpreted and translated from one culture to the culture of another, the meaning of a word change with ‘time’.

“Everything comes from Greek”

Foreign words are native to their origin. When a word is borrowed from one language to the culture of another, it is often because there isn’t any existing word that is suitable as a translation. Ancient Roman culture emphasised identity and was centred on authority, military force, and institutional power. In contrast, ancient Greek worldview was universal, highlighted the non-identity, freethinker, integrity, and strength as power from within rather than imposed from externally.

The Greek language borrowed Roman terms primarily related to identity, politics, military, and institutions, while the Roman language borrowed Greek words related to philosophy, philology, knowledge, and science. Historically, one has to remember that Greece was invaded by the Romans. What may be historically less acknowledged is that some of the so-called Latin loanwords from Greek wasn’t original Greek, but were especially meant for Roman lending from Greek.

Latin words in ancient Greek often retained their Latin form and in many cases were initially visually marked as foreign words in ancient Greek grammatical and scholar texts. These words were “flagged” through a Latin form and/or noted in the marginal notes. Sometimes foreign words were labelled xeno (“foreign”) and occasionally called barbarisms or Romanisms to distinguish them from original Greek. The “flags” indicated what wasn’t original Greek, and guided readers in their proper understanding of non-Greek terms.

In this sense, the borrowed words weren’t adopted per se, nor became assimilated into Greek. Over time, the visually obvious “flagging” markers tended to fade. During the Hellenistic period, diacritical markers was introduced to mark “foreign” words. The original Greek alphabet didn’t include diacritics. It was introduced for the reason to so-called clarify pronunciation. In some regions, the subtle diacritic marker for foreign words were forgotten as Latin borrowings became assimilated loanwords in the Greco-Roman language. This may explain the reason why there were regional variations in the usage of Latin loanwords within the Greek-speaking world.

Adopted and Assimilated as a Grecho-Roman Language

Metaphorically, Latin loanwords didn’t have an impact on the original Greek language, but instead led to the development of a Greco-Roman language. Symbolically, the original Greek language was forgotten partly or fully as it was replaced by Grecho-Roman. Figuratively, ‘Greek’ begun to fade out of memory down into the underworld of consciousness, with only tiny fragments of Greek on the conscious surface.

In this allegory, Greek symbolises consciousness, the language that the symbolic Roman doesn’t understand. The phrase “everything comes from Greek” further highlights and deepen the metaphoric reality of that consciousness is Greek. Additionally, this could explain why the question: “What is consciousness?” is a common question asked in particularly Western philosophy, often in context of AI machines.

The Byzantine Empire, also known as Eastern Roman Empire, was the continuation of the Roman Empire after the Western Roman Empire fell. Inhabitants identified as “Romans” (Romaioi) and viewed their state as the true Roman Empire. In that time period, many earlier Latin words were no longer perceived as foreign, though some, especially those tied to political power or military rank, retained their foreign flag to trace ancient Rome’s linguistics.

THE METAPHORIC AND SYMBOLIC ROMAN:

Roman, as a Coptic word means “human”: Roman is only human.

In ancient Roman culture, language was a means of defining the self through labelling and categorisation for controlling the Roman world through identity and hierarchy. Terms served to establish culture and the citizens place within the Empire’s social structure. In contrast, ancient Greek tradition and language were universal, centred in logos, meaning “word”, from within the non-self. Speech was for dialogue, the way for understanding rather than for agreement, domination, or controlling a narrative, nor as a means of influencing others. The Roman language carried the Roman sense of self as an identity, duality, and separation: a language that was foreign to the Greek heart of inner peace.

FOR DIALOGUE:

• What is time?
• Why may different cultures contribute to misunderstanding?
• What does it mean to have a sense of self as an identity compared to the sense of non-self?